NOD32 4.0 Beta Proxy Issue?

[hayc59]

I have yet to try the new BETA just for the fact
of the proxy problem with Outpost Pro!
has anyone runnin Outpost Pro tried this new BETA with it
and do you know if the problem still exist's? thank you

[Marcos]

On Vista you shouldn't have this problem with 3rd party firewalls that don't support local proxies.

[legba]

{QUOTE-> On Vista you shouldn't have this problem with 3rd party firewalls that don't support local proxies. <-QUOTE}
I have Vista SP1, and Outpost Pro, I installed NOD32 4 beta, for a day it downloaded fine but now, since two days it has problems.

Why?

[ASpace]

Just for the record . From the official change log:

{QUOTE-> Under Windows Vista, filtering no longer is done by acting as a local proxy. This new method of filtering will be back-ported to other operating systems after release <-QUOTE}

[funkydude]

Um, so how is it done now? I thought proxy was the best "cleanest" solution?

[hayc59]

{QUOTE-> Just for the record . From the official change log: <-QUOTE}
how about 'under' windows xp pro?:)

[Marcos]

{QUOTE-> how about 'under' windows xp pro?:) <-QUOTE}

The technique used instead of local proxying was first implemented in Windows Vista. Microsoft hasn't added support for it to XP neither with SP3.

[catprincess]

{QUOTE-> The technique used instead of local proxying was first implemented in Windows Vista. Microsoft hasn't added support for it to XP neither with SP3. <-QUOTE}
Sorry if I am being stupid, but if this is the case then how is it going to be back-ported to other operating systems after release as stated in HiTech_boy's post?:

{QUOTE-> Just for the record . From the official change log:
{QUOTE-> Under Windows Vista, filtering no longer is done by acting as a local proxy. This new method of filtering will be back-ported to other operating systems after release <-QUOTE}
<-QUOTE}
I don't understand. Reading your post I get the impression the proxy issue is never going to be resolved for XP but reading HiTech_boy's post where he quoted from the change log, gives me the complete opposite impression.

[Marcos]

{QUOTE-> Sorry if I am being stupid, but if this is the case then how is it going to be back-ported to other operating systems after release as stated in HiTech_boy's post?:
<-QUOTE}

It appears to me that the statement in the changelog was misinterpretation of facts. I'll try to clear that up tomorrow when I come to the office.

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> It appears to me that the statement in the changelog was misinterpretation of facts. I'll try to clear that up tomorrow when I come to the office. <-QUOTE}

Could I ask that you also enlighten us a little about this new technique, why you're using it instead of proxying with advantages/disadvantages in comparison.

[Marcos]

{QUOTE-> Could I ask that you also enlighten us a little about this new technique, why you're using it instead of proxying with advantages/disadvantages in comparison. <-QUOTE}

You can read about it here (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/network/wfp.mspx).

[catprincess]

{QUOTE-> It appears to me that the statement in the changelog was misinterpretation of facts. I'll try to clear that up tomorrow when I come to the office. <-QUOTE}

Okay. Thanks. So for XP the proxy will be the same as it is in v3 then I take it.

[funkydude]

{QUOTE-> You can read about it here (http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/network/wfp.mspx). <-QUOTE}

Thank you! That's exactly what I wanted to know :)

[hayc59]

{QUOTE-> Okay. Thanks. So for XP the proxy will be the same as it is in v3 then I take it. <-QUOTE}
If this is the case, I will be with version 2.7 until that
is no longer an option and move..sadly to say :'(

[catprincess]

{QUOTE-> If this is the case, I will be with version 2.7 until that
is no longer an option and move..sadly to say :'( <-QUOTE}

I want to know more about this too. I have tried v3 and the proxy seriously limits the control my firewall can have over traffic and this is with a firewall that supports loopback. It's just impossible to make firewall rules for a certain program allowing access only to certain ports or endpoint restrictions because it's all done through ekrn so all restrictions end up applying to all programs. The only way out of it was to uncheck everything under web access protection (effectively disabling this protection). I ended up just going back to 2.7 for now because at least I can use IMON with my firewall without these hassles.

Like you, and I'm sure many others, I did hope this would change with v4. I'd be trying this beta right away if it did! I'm not aware of the details of how it works with Vista and whether what I described above is a complete non-issue with that O/S. Not that I am getting a new O/S just at the moment anyway. I really don't understand why if you can design a proxy, you can't design it to work properly with firewalls. I sure wouldn't mind the proxy at all if it would just allow me proper control of my firewall! I really like NOD :) , just the proxy is a major thorn for me.

[Marcos]

{QUOTE->
Like you, and I'm sure many others, I did hope this would change with v4.
<-QUOTE}
This has actually changed with v4, but the technique used instead of local proxying is supported in Windows Vista and Windows 2008. For older OS, the system remains same and the traffic is stilll redirected through a local proxy.

{QUOTE-> I really don't understand why if you can design a proxy, you can't design it to work properly with firewalls. <-QUOTE}
We'll welcome any suggestion as how this could be accomplished and would 100% work.

[GWA]

I agree with CatPrincess. If as Marcos implies, it can't be done, then NOD has effectively eliminated a lot of (knowledable) users. While stating that Windows XP is old may be true, one can still purchase brand new computers to this day with Win XP installed. I would think that one should plan for users to be on Win XP for many more years - at least until Windows 7 proves itself to be a suitable replacement worth the money and hastle. Thanks.

[funkydude]

Well we can't really blame ESET for Microsoft adding a feature in Vista SP1 and for some unknown reason not adding it in XP SP3. I'm not sure what ESET are doing but I assume they will stick to a proxy for XP, so there won't really be a change for XP users. Or is MS planning an SP4?

[GWA]

{QUOTE-> Well we can't really blame ESET for Microsoft adding a feature in Vista SP1 and for some unknown reason not adding it in XP SP3. I'm not sure what ESET are doing but I assume they will stick to a proxy for XP, so there won't really be a change for XP users. Or is MS planning an SP4? <-QUOTE}

I'm not blaming ESET for something that MS has done; I'm asking ESET if there is a way to take what MS already offers with XP and find a way to ditch the need for a local proxy, similar to NOD 32 V2. CHUCK

[hayc59]

Marcos, It must be a possible because NOD32 version 2.7 and Outpost Pro
are working wonderful under Windows XP Pro!? or am I missing the whole boat :argh:

[Marcos]

{QUOTE-> Marcos, It must be a possible because NOD32 version 2.7 and Outpost Pro
are working wonderful under Windows XP Pro!? or am I missing the whole boat :argh: <-QUOTE}

The http protection in v2 (IMON) works as an LSP at the Winsock layer. There were too many problems with this approach (it was impossible to use it on servers) and using LSP's is no longer recommended by MS either. We really don't want to make the program incompatible with servers, it would also lead to conflicts with other tools working as LSP's on workstations.

[catprincess]

{QUOTE-> This has actually changed with v4, but the technique used instead of local proxying is supported in Windows Vista and Windows 2008. For older OS, the system remains same and the traffic is stilll redirected through a local proxy. <-QUOTE}
Okay, thank you for clearing that up completely.

{QUOTE->
We'll welcome any suggestion as how this could be accomplished and would 100% work. <-QUOTE}
What KAV 2009 uses (explained here)
https://support.kaspersky.com/kav2009/all?page=4&qid=208279770 doesn't sound as though it works like a local proxy. Would this method work to allow absolute control over a firewall? And if so, can NOD not be made to work like this? Or is this method essentially the same as was used in NOD 2.7?

[catprincess]

{QUOTE->
What KAV 2009 uses (explained here)
https://support.kaspersky.com/kav2009/all?page=4&qid=208279770 doesn't sound as though it works like a local proxy. Would this method work to allow absolute control over a firewall? And if so, can NOD not be made to work like this? Or is this method essentially the same as was used in NOD 2.7? <-QUOTE}

Yes? No? Stupid suggestion? :-\