online tests and pcinternet patrol?

[TC]

hi

2 questions, please:

1/i was quite happy with ZA pro ( and tds3) when i performed online tests ( pcflank for example), but i just tried another online test ( http://www.pcinternetpatrol.com/downloads/audit.php ) which was very bad...( with a report emailed to me)
i'm lost...which ones are reliable ?

2/ the free audit is used to promote pcinternet patrol, commercial software (http://www.pcinternetpatrol.com/downloads/pcip.php ), which is expensive but supposed to be the best protection

i performed here a search about pcinternet patrol, but did not find posts; i'm sure that lots of guys here know the product and i wonder what they think about it...

thanks for your replies!

[root]

Hi TC. Please do not be fooled by the blatant trickery involved in such sites as PC Internet Patrol. There are others.
If I were to say to you, I'm going to send you a program, I want you to download it , install it and then run it, and you did, then I could have had you install a trojan such as backoriface and have your computer to play with.
To the best of my knowledge, no legitimate company is going to trick people in such a fashion. I get really uptight every time I think about these misleading fear mongers that try to sell their expensive, below par pieces of crap they call security software to people that are just trying to learn about security and make their machines safe.
PC Flank is an excellent site to test your security. There are others and if you want a list I will provide it.
If you are happy with ZA Pro and it is setup to show stealth at PC Flank, you're ok.
OK, my blood pressure's coming down now that I got that off my chest.
Did I say PC Internet Patrol is a piece of crap?
;D ;D

[LowWaterMark]

( Gee root, tell us how you really feel about it. ;) )

TC - it's good that you caught this and came here to find out the truth about that site and its product. Many people would have just taken its advice and gone along with them.

Root, I agree with you 100%. That site has a lot of nerve doing what they're doing. The worst of it is them telling people to "deinstall" their firewall software before testing their security. Well, no wonder people then fail the security test. >:(
-{ Quote: "NOTE: Before downloading and installing pcInternet Patrol™, we strongly recommend uninstalling any personal firewall you might have installed on your computer to avoid a possible software conflict." }- >:( Nasty site.

TC, is your ZA Pro back up and running now? Let us know if you have any problems with it.

Best Wishes,
LowWaterMark

[SpaceCowboy]

first off i would like to know why TC's ZA PRO did not pass this test?
and root and lowatermark i dont quite understand why you two think this site is so bad, or what they are doing is somehow fooling people.
the first link that TC gives is to download their little firewall leak test. it is a program just like too leaky or firehole. with Sygate PRO i pass this test and the program tells me i do.
the second link that TC gives is to download their 7 day trial for the firewall. that is where they say to uninstall your current firewall so there isnt any conflicts. we all know that we should do that, so how are they being deceitful by telling people to do that??
now root im not saying that this firewall isnt a piece of crap like you put it, because i have never heard of it either, but i really cant see what this company is doing wrong..

what am i missing??

[TC]

thanks for the replies

in fact the pcflank tests were ok, but the audit test i was talking is slightly different, just try it if you want but the main points are that it can discover your directories (but i don't know if it means that these folders are accessible, i remember that there's a trick to frighten people but which is harmful, to get a root directory listing) and can "read" a password...

well what confused me also is that the following test: http///www.tooleaky.zensoft.com
breached also my firewall...so.....?

???

[root]

Well SpaceCowboy, if you can't see the trickery involved, I don't know what I can do to get you to see it.
Did you read this?
"Before downloading and installing pcInternet Patrol™, we strongly recommend uninstalling any personal firewall you might have installed on your computer to avoid a possible software conflict."
They are saying uninstall your firewall, download a trojan like program, install it, run it, and when it reads a file and connects out, they try to tell you you need their program.
At best, if you left your firewall installed and ran their program, it is the equivalent of a leak test. But they don't tell you that. They try to get you to uninstall your firewall, just incase it does work.
It is deceitfu, misleading, and the worst kind of business practice.
Why do you think it is not considered one of the mainstream firewalls?

[SpaceCowboy]

-{ Quote: " quoting: root link=board=23;threadid=4556;start=0#29921 date=1036082558]
Well SpaceCowboy, if you can't see the trickery involved, I don't know what I can do to get you to see it.
Did you read this?
"Before downloading and installing pcInternet Patrol™, we strongly recommend uninstalling any personal firewall you might have installed on your computer to avoid a possible software conflict."
They are saying uninstall your firewall, download a trojan like program, install it, run it, and when it reads a file and connects out, they try to tell you you need their program.
At best, if you left your firewall installed and ran their program, it is the equivalent of a leak test. But they don't tell you that. They try to get you to uninstall your firewall, just incase it does work.
It is deceitfu, misleading, and the worst kind of business practice.
Why do you think it is not considered one of the mainstream firewalls?
" }-
i dont see this message when you are on the download page(TC's first link) to try their leaktest. i only see this message when you are on their download page(TC's second link) to try out their 7 day trial of their firewall.
i cant see anywhere where they are telling you to uninstall your firewall and try their trojan like test. they only try to get you to uninstall your firewall when you are on the download page for installing the trial version of their firewall as it might cause conflicts. what is wrong with saying that? i am sure you know its not good to have two firewalls installed and running at the same time. i think you are misunderstanding where you are seing this on their website.

[root]

If you want to try a product that uses the tactics used by this company, be my guest.
I will continue to call it as I see it and recommend people stay away from such sites.
It will do no good to drag this out any more.
Have a good one. :)

[MickeyTheMan]

There have been topics covering PCAUDIT before.
It is a valid test.
However, a simple proxy such as Naviscope will easily defeat it as i managed to do it with no firewall installed (for test purpose only) .

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=2790;start=0

Having said that, i still agree with root that the purpose of this test is simply scare tactics to get you to buy their product, but also a warning that one should be careful of what gets in your sys as this test is only a simptom of what a malicious download could do once it's in.

[LowWaterMark]

-{ Quote: " quoting: SpaceCowboy link=board=23;threadid=4556;start=0#29924 date=1036086045]i dont see this message when you are on the download page(TC's first link) to try their leaktest. i only see this message when you are on their download page(TC's second link) to try out their 7 day trial of their firewall.
i cant see anywhere where they are telling you to uninstall your firewall and try their trojan like test. they only try to get you to uninstall your firewall when you are on the download page for installing the trial version of their firewall as it might cause conflicts. " }-

Correcting my mistake...

SpaceCowboy - You are absolutely correct on this. What I did was I went to the first link provided, read my way down the page, saw a "more" link, click that and continued reading down that page. I thought it was more regarding the test itself, since it starts with "What is pcAudit™?" It is on that second page that it says to uninstall, (quote listed in above posts), and I thought it was still talking about the test, not their firewall product. But, rereading now, I see that 2/3 down that page, it switches to talking about the firewall product itself. My mistake!! Sorry. :-[

Best Wishes,
LowWaterMark

[LowWaterMark]

TC -
-{ Quote: " quoting: TC link=board=23;threadid=4556;start=0#29882 date=1036067548]well what confused me also is that the following test: http///www.tooleaky.zensoft.com
breached also my firewall...so.....?" }-

Tooleaky gets by a lot of software firewalls given the "right" setup (or is it the "wrong" setup? ;) ).

All tooleaky does is create a new IE browser session (hidden window, thank you Microsoft :( ) and attempt to hit the grc.com site. If it can, you fail the test. Well, most people's firewall rules for IE will allow it out to the web using http without any alerts or warnings, so of course this works on their systems. It's an interesting test concept. (A very simple program - the intelligent part was thinking up the test method in the first place.)

You can "defeat" tooleaky if you: 1. don't have IE installed or accessible on your system, 2. have your fireall block all IE access by default, if say you use another browser, or 3. have your firewall Ask whenever a new IE session makes its first network connection attempt. This is what I do. I get one alert from ZA+ at the start of a new browser session and no more alerts until I shut it down and restart it or call up a second, unconnected IE program instance.

There's a lot more to this, but, I'll just link some threads on tooleaky where I've stated much of this before:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4311855~root=security,1~mode=flat

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,4414758~root=security,1~mode=flat

Best Wishes,
LowWaterMark

[Scotcov]

Hi LowWaterMark

"3. have your firewall Ask whenever a new IE session makes its first network connection attempt. This is what I do. I get one alert from ZA+ at the start of a new browser session and no more alerts until I shut it down and restart it or call up a second, unconnected IE program instance."
I am now trying LooknStop. In order to do what you recommend, should I "allow it once" with an application, rather than just pressing "allow it"?
Thanks
Scotcov

[LowWaterMark]

In Zone Alarm, that is what I am effectively doing. I get the alert as the new IE session connects to the network (resolving the first loopback connection and going out for DNS lookup), and I hit allow without telling ZA to remember the answer next time. From that point forward, that session (and all its sub windows) never again ask for permission.

If your firewall does that when you use "allow it once" and from that point forward, changing pages, refreshing, etc, does not cause it to ask again, but, when you shutdown IE and start a new session it asks again - then yes, that's the same as what I'm doing.

The way this protects me (just in my opinion here) is that I know whenever I have started an IE session. If I were to get an unexpected ZA popup asking for IE permission at another time, I would know that session is not one I started and at least I would have a chance to think about it, and make an informed decision. Is there a chance to make a mistake - of course there is - just like any time one of us users is at a keyboard. ;)

But, it works for me.

[worldcitizen]

All of you should be uninstalling your current firewall if you want to install another one. That is advice given by all security experts so I don't know what all the fuss is about. You should never have two firewalls running at the same time as it may cause system instability.

The program pcaudit is very clever and accurate in simulating what a real hacker can see and do on your PC and although it is used to try and sell the product it is a fact.

One thing I definitely agree with is this. 'Stealthing' your PC is a load of rubbish because you MUST open ports to access the internet, download files, surf and receive emails so big deal about getting a 'stealth' at Gibson's who's all about promoting ZA.

What is really important is whether or not the program which is accessing the port is legitimate and it's activity is not malicious and ZA isn't that intelligent because although it will check components and changes in them ULTIMATELY it leaves the decision up to YOU as to whether the changed component should run or not and that is where the problem lies.

How are you going to make an informed decision about a changed component of your OS which seeks to access a port? A wild guess? Just trust it because it says it's from Microsoft? You got anyone you can submit the file to for verification that it's definitely not malicious code?

That's why people even with these so called 'stealth' firewalls are still getting infected because this stealth crap is just that - crap. ZA can tell a component has changed but then leaves the decision up to YOU which is what hackers rely on - stupid people who haven't got a clue and will say 'yes' and allow their code to run. The majority of people are NOT tech savvy.

I haven't bought pcInternet Patrol but it makes a whole lot of sense to have 'expert verification' on hand rather than trust a wild guess and it appears common sense here is getting a kick in the butt when it's really a very good idea to consult professionals. It may cost a lot but at least you're not guessing and possibly compromising your system's security. It makes a whole lot of sense to me to have a file checked out instead of just allowing it to run.

Dave

[hollywoodpc]

Thank you WorldCitizen .
pcInternet Patrol does a good job . I have used it . It does not stealth ports so , you will fail port scan tests . Their method is more of a check and confirm , whether to allow something in or not . It helps against malware of all kinds as well . It is very good , though expensive . To say it is crap is obviously a statement from someone who has yet to test it . If you know what it is for and what the approach is , NO WAY can you say it is bad . Very good program overall . So good , in fact , that I use it alongside Outpost Pro . I test firewalls constantly . pcInternet Patrol is just not a " traditional " firewall . And wait , a whole new look and feel , along with a name change , will be coming in the spring . I am interested in checking it out when it does . I will agree on one point though . The pc audit test is pure rubbish . They DO try to scare you . Even if pcInternet Patrol installed , you will fail their OWN test . Sad . But , again , a good firewall .

[worldcitizen]

I had a look at all the pros and cons and decided to buy it.

There's nothing worse as far as I'm concerned than 'dumb' firewalls asking the user (who hasn't got a clue) whether or not to allow or disallow a program, especially a changed one. So far I've never come across anything that offers 'professional expertise' for making such decisions until I came across pcInternet Patrol.

To me it's worth the money if you really care about getting 'accurate' and 'true' protection and not protection based on wild guesses. I want to be sure that my PC is getting the best protection so I'm happy with this. I have Outpost Pro - and will probably install it but I'm not sure as to how is best to configure it with PIP as there will be some overlapping.

I really think the firewall industry really has to lift it's game. They go on and on about all this stealth crap and then when a very important decision has to be made it's up to us. What the hell then is the firewall for if WE have to make all the major decisions about what will run when a lot of us haven't got a clue whether the file is authentic, a copy or an injected malicious file. All we see is the allow or deny dialogue and are forced to take a very uneducated guess. Not good enough for my expensive PC I'm afraid.

Dave

[BlueZannetti]

I've not tried pcInternet patrol, but I have to say that I do think their pricing model is a little out of whack. For comparison, if you look at the structurally similar Cerberian (now Bluecoat) content filtering implimented as an agent on a router, the base commercial level is about the same annual cost, potentially covers a significantly larger number of seats, and clearly places a greater infrastructure demand on the vendor. The pricing models used in this market are probably decent ones to look at since they do seem to be growing. I use the base "commercial" level in my home (since it is based on router platform) spread over 5 PC's and have to say that I thought long and hard at making that committment. I do not have difficulty with expense when I see value. However, as an ongoing subscription cost, pcInternet patrol is well outside what I'd call value for the money. At half the cost they may have a shot, but even that seems a little rich to my blood.

Blue

[worldcitizen]

Zone Alarm Pro is $49.95 and you have no way of verifying the legitimacy of files that are changed. If a malicious program seeks to connect in the disguise of a legitimate program the decision is left up to the user. There is no way of knowing whether you allowed a Trojan online or a legitimate program and you're paying almost the same but for wishy washy protection which ultimately relies on the decision of the user when it pops up the 'allow' and 'deny' dialogues.

Verification is a much more common sense and secure way of checking a file than just clicking on the allow button. It may say it's from Microsoft or any other well known program but may be riddled with malicious code waiting for the user to give consent. That's the problem, relying too heavily on the end user for decisions which really require professional verification.

At $49.95 a pop you're basically given a program that leaves all the really major and hard decisions up to you to decide and if you're not an expert then your basically gambling. The weakest point of current firewalls is the user enabled 'allow' deny' paradigm. It's nonsensical to leave such decisions to end users when they wouldn't even have a clue what they're doing and mostly would click on allow and possibly get infected.

As long as we all play along with this 'stealthing' bull then that's all we'll get - is firewalls that can 'pass tests' but you have to open ports to surf, download and receive email which is when 'stealth' malware can work undetected especially if you think it's legitimate and give it permission. You should know before-hand if a file is malicious but ZA won't ever tell you that. It will happily grant access to the malware with your permission on all your so called stealthed ports which are basically of no use to you once malicious software is granted rights to use your 'stealthed' ports.

We've got to be more demanding of our firewall vendors and abandon our childish 'pass this or that stealth test behaviour' because that's what they make firewalls around today. Instead of concentrating on identifying malware and blocking it they leave that decision up to YOU. Can you imagine an AV program asking you permission to run a virus? No, it has to protect you but a firewall is supposed to protect but doesn't protect you because it allows you to open ports to programs you 'think' are safe.

So if you feel secure 'stealthed' then good luck to you because you'll need it when you 'allow' a malicious program to freely use your 'stealthed' ports. Stealthed ports won't block malware if you've given it permission. I would want to be sure that what is accessing my ports is safe & clean. This is only common sense.

Dave

[hollywoodpc]

Dave .
May I make a suggestion ? If so , read on . I have Outpost Pro installed . Nothing special needs to be done . Create your rules as you see fit . The nice thing is , Outpost usually kicks in on illegitimate things . Like scans . But , I have seen some that pcInternet Patrol catches first . Interestingly , both will catch the same one if one of the firewalls is disabled . Anyway . pcInternet Patrol does alot more than just sit anb act like a firewall . I am not condoning their pricing structure but , it does alot of the things that PG and Prevx both do . I am looking forward to the new program due out in March or , most probably , April . I did not tell you that though . Hope this helps

[worldcitizen]

Hollywood,

Thanks for the tip.

I think PIP does a lot more because it actually verifies files which no other software does. It verifies the actual file and not just the name. You can't really beat that anywhere.

Dave

[hollywoodpc]

In total agreement my friend . Only saying that if you are installing Outpost as well , do not worry about how to set it up . Set it up the way you would as if it were by itself . Will work wonderfully with pcIP . Good Luck

[Wills]

Interesting reading, do I understand the posts to mean that if one purchases PC Internet Patrol that it has to be used in conjunction with another firewall like Outpost as an example?

What are the shortcomings if one only uses PC Internet Patrol?

I would appreciate comments as I have tried several Firewalls and I really feel intimidated by the questions asked, as I am a novice and am uncertain 100% of the time as familiarity with these programs for me is grossly lacking even with all the reading in forums and reference books.

I would appreciate comments.

Thankyou

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Interesting reading, do I understand the posts to mean that if one purchases PC Internet Patrol that it has to be used in conjunction with another firewall like Outpost as an example?

What are the shortcomings if one only uses PC Internet Patrol?

I would appreciate comments as I have tried several Firewalls and I really feel intimidated by the questions asked, as I am a novice and am uncertain 100% of the time as familiarity with these programs for me is grossly lacking even with all the reading in forums and reference books.

I would appreciate comments.

Thankyou" }-pcInternetPatrol does not have to be used in conjunction with a software fireawall. However, it can be used in this fashon.

The main shortcoming is that it seems to be a pure application/component control facility. The key question to ask is whether this is a significant shortcoming for most users. You cannot create all sorts of filters, cannot specify ports to be used, and so on. But if you are a casual firewallist (gee, is that a word?) like me, it is effectively equivalent to using a firewall in pure default application mode. The key difference, as mentioned above, is that the program maintains a centralized database of applications/components/signatures and rather than the user making a decision of whether to allow a given program Internet access, a request goes to the centralized database, which is a realtime whitelist. If the program requesting access is listed there, pcInternetPatrol makes the call that all is well and access is allowed. If it is not listed, the default negative decision is given.

If you are intimidated by firewalls, it should provide a robust user friendly solution. Again, I am not a user of this software, but I do appreciate the structural similarity with content filtering solutions such as Cerberian - which I happen to like a lot. I still think it is a somewhat pricey solution. However, if this is what it takes to get you comfortable, it is not an outrageous sum to pay, think of it as 1.5-2 "typical" security applications per PC (and this is where it would take me aback) if that helps put it into perspective.

With respect to worldcitizen's comments regarding firewall stealthing and the like, I agree.

Blue

[Wills]

Thankyou for the comments. I have just downloaded the trial version of this program from Major Geeks and it is a weeks trial.
i used Zone Alarm Pro 5, the purchase version $49.95 and it tremendously slowed down my system as it was a resource hog with all its bells and whistles like "pop up ad blocking" etc.
I had to get rid of it and got a refund over the 30 day trial period. And also I was not in my comfort zone when having to grant "permissions" when I am such a novice. BTW the slowdown was at startup. It was ridiculous and so when I uninstalled it and got rid of the remnants with Reg Supreme, my notebook was back to humming along. Much to my satisfaction, but I do know that I need increased arsenal of a good firewall.

I then tried out the free versions of Outpost and kerio 2.1.5 which were less resource hogs and of course was faced with the " permissions " again which did not make me comfortable again as I am only an owner and user of a computer for the last 2 years.
Learning on the fly via forums, reference books that I select qualitatively and I must say that I also use other free and purchase security programs that have kept me out of trouble....virus, worm, trojan free and no crashes with my notebook. For a novice I feel very fortunate, I don't wander off into a lot of different sites and have my settings as tight as possible.
This program so far has alerted me to various intruder IP addresses while I am typing this and I have been able to view the ports and additional info on what is trying to access my notebook.
what I thought that I should ask is how does this application compare to Cerberian that was mentioned?

So far I am in my comfort zone with it but will be browisng what the program has as options and see if it affects the start up of the computer as did the ZAP.
Just a moment ago the program identified an IP intruder stopped address as being from "jeonju university Korea". (Networking)

i really want to give the program a Go and see if it is something that is going to serve my needs.

I like the way you can clear the history of intruders names or save them and also access details on the ports and so far there are 3 ports that the intruders are trying to accesss, if that means anything to anyone????

i would appreciate comments, being a Newbie I don't feel comfortable giving the "thumbs up " to possible entries that I am bewildered about, however I do want to insure that I am using a program that is secure as a firewall.

Respectfully,

[hollywoodpc]

firewallist (gee, is that a word?)
Too funny Blue ! :) Anyway . pcIP is excellent . The nice features include protection against zero day attacks . Meaning worms , trojans , and the like BEFORE they are ever detected . As for hacker protection , just turn it on and let it fly . In tests I have done , it has caught every attempt that Outpost has caught . AND , the biggie . pcIP protects against EVERY leak test avalable . EVERY ONE !! And they did this before Outpost , or anyone else for that matter , fixed their firewalls to protect against MOST . That is something noone seems to mention . To me , that , in itself , is huge . Zero day attacks and all leak tests ? I am happy to have it . I do use it in conjunction with Outpost Pro . If you have the funds , you can ALWAYS use pcIP with most other firewalls . Very friendly . Good luck in your quest

[hollywoodpc]

Also remember , it will not pass stealth tests . It is not trying to . Their belief is that since you must have open ports to access the internet , they believe in protecting you if an attempt is made . And they are damn good at that ! They do not care about stealthing . They only care about protecting . If a ping is sent , it will tell you there is a possible intruder attack and give you the address . All you need to do is click on it and it will trace it . Wonderful program , although , a bit pricey .

[Wills]

Have still been testing it out and it came on with a Message that Microsoft had been injected with a malicious.....and then flashed on the components..some were Windows\system 32\lsass.exe
Windows\system 32\svchost.exe

and recommended to disallow or whatever the word was and the window was in Red Print and there was an option to allow, but I tried clicking on it and it simply would not work.

i assume that when the program detects something like this you simply have to agree with disallowing it, is that correct.

Also I do not want to run a firewall like outpost or kerio, as the earlier post suggested; I simply would like to consider using this one.

Again I would appreciate comments.
The program is certainly stopping intruders again at 3 ports.

Does anyone know if it is possible to get the cd for this program or just the download that I got from Major Geeks?

Thankyou

i should say I was leary of disallowing the M$ entries that it listed in case it messed up the notebook, again any comments. These are the entries that I listed above.

[hollywoodpc]

Willis .
I certainly believe you CAN allow things but , I have used it for over a year . If it detects something malicious and the default is set to not allow , go with it . The default will be allow if it is deemed a fairly safe app . It has NEVER been wrong in the case of malicious applications . I feel if you go with the default on each thing it detects , you will be fine . If you allow something , it will then ask to submit . Click " ok " and the next time you come across it , their database will know exactly what to do . But , to answer your usage question . This IS all you need for firewall protection . The easiest of them all and better than most . Just remember the " extras " it has . Zero day threat detection is huge ! Hope that helps

[BlueZannetti]

Wills,

Do you have a router on your system between you cable/dsl modem and your PC? Although if you have only 1 PC, it might seem to be supefluous, it really isn't. A software firewall monitors inbound and outbound traffic and it can get busy if there's a lot of unsolicited inbound traffic, dragging down system performance. This task is basically offloaded to a NAT router - a separate piece of hardware - which can free up system CPU cycles. The advantages of this style of load balancing are obtained with any type of software firewall solution that you could employ.

It sounds like pcInternetPatrol deals with unsolicited inbound traffic in a manner similar to typical firewalls. In any event, if you put a decent router in the mix, that sets things up fairly well. There's lots of choice out there, most of it fairly cheap - $40-60 is pretty much all it takes for wired routers, wireless will go a bit more. Since you mention intruders trying to access ports, I assume you don't have a router.

Without knowing how your system is configured (e.g. other security related applications), it's difficult to give blanket advice. You can develop a sense of things by looking at how other folks are configured, see here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=62972) for some examples. These examples run from lean to heavily fortified. All will work well in certain circumstances. It doesn't require a major outlay of funds, nor is congesting you PC with a maze of interlayered measures required. Like any endeavor, moderation and considered design are the keys. In assessing what's needed, you want layering, not raw duplication.

Blue

[hollywoodpc]

Blue .
I know that was directed toward Willis but , here is something . I use Alpha shield , WITH a router and still have things try to get through on occasion . Simply because , if you initiate the " call " , you are basically allowing anything from that site . If the site has malicious intentions , those two things , as good as they are , will allow thse intentions through . Because YOU initiated it . So there is a need for more protection . Ok , I know you know that . Anyway , to simplify things , wills wants an easy , yet STRONG firewall . pcIP is the deal . Strong firewall with zero day attack prevention . Prevx Pro costs 20 bucks . You are getting alot of Prevx Pro's abilities IN this firewall . Plus the " normal " firewall abilities . Oh . And Willis . pcIP will be changing to something completely new . Same features but ALOT more features added . It will take firewalling to a whole new level . If you buy it , you will get the new one FREE . All I can say is it is due out in the Spring . OMG , I hope I did not just confuse you more . take care Blue . And Willis , good luck in your quest .

[hollywoodpc]

Oops . so you know . I do not work with or conspire with pcIP in any way . I just have my sources . I like to keep up with security applications .

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Blue .
I know that was directed toward Willis but , here is something . I use Alpha shield , WITH a router and still have things try to get through on occasion . Simply because , if you initiate the " call " , you are basically allowing anything from that site . If the site has malicious intentions , those two things , as good as they are , will allow thse intentions through . Because YOU initiated it . " }-hollywoodpc,

Absolutely. While a NAT router will reject unsolicited packets, the one's you've asked for are welcomed with open arms - malicious or not. Some additional measures are required, such as those applications mentioned in your sig or here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=62972), to provide additional checks and balances.

Cheers,

Blue

[BlueZannetti]

-{ Quote: "Oops . so you know . I do not work with or conspire with pcIP in any way . I just have my sources . I like to keep up with security applications ." }-Nothing wrong with a little passion and advocacy for something you find useful!

Blue

[hollywoodpc]

I knew I liked you for some reason . Oh . Since this is a firewall thread , I better say something firewallish ( there is another word Blue ) pcIP . How is that ? Take care and Willis , hope all works out

[Wills]

i can't use a router I am out in the boon docks and on dial up and am getting bombarded with attackers as I have indicated.
However the program is warding them off. The other poster said I had a choice to submit the Warnining message, I can't as this is a 7 Day Trial and since it is my First time using this type of Application that is why I panicked when it would not give me a choice and the Warning was in Red and the Default was Disallow and I could do nothing about the Microsoft

\Windows\system 32\lsass.exe

\Windows\system 32\svchost.exe

Being a Newbie and not having a choice I thought I might mess up my notebook.
I don't know if this program is super sensitive as a trial but is picking up a lot of attackers that is for certain.

I hope there are still experienced members/moderators out there.
I believe the program is good, but I am in practice mode right now.

Respectful Regards,

[hollywoodpc]

Not to seem arrogant but , I am experienced . Very much so . You are fine with the disallow . If it is SURE , that is when it will disallow . In other words , their " community " has found this to be a real threat and therefore will not allow it on your system . That is one reason the price is high . They have experienced people looking at these things constantly . Looking to see what is real and what is not . If it is unsure , you get the choice and you can submit it to them . And there are always people trying to sneak a trojan in on you . Costantly . Especially in the boonies on dial up . You have a good program there . Set and forget . You are very safe with that program . Good luck in your quest

[Wills]

Thx for this last reply. I appreciate very much the assurance. I will for sure be using the program obviously when I am on line, and check out where the attackers are from.

It is experienced comments such as yours that help in bolstering some confidence.

Thankyou

[hollywoodpc]

Kind words indeed Willis . Thank you . Good luck

[Wills]

Can one get the basic CD with the purchase of the download Application? Or is it simply the Download program????

Look forward to comments.


Respectfully,

[hollywoodpc]

Wills .

I believe it is only electronic . Check the site

[Wills]

Thx, the site does not say much.

Nor do the reviews, that is why I ask the question and there appears no contacts.

Respectful Regards.

[hollywoodpc]

If you have pcIP on your computer , right click the icon in the system tray . Ask administrator on call . Click that and send them a message . And tell them I sent you . If you have any problems , I think I have the cell # of the head guy here . It was developed by a Russian . Imagine that ! Good luck in your quest

[Wills]

Hi again, I tried to send a message to the administrator per the instructions of "hollywoodpc" and after trying to send it I got a message "You have an error in your SQL syntax".

Being a newbie I don't understand this, it is the first time that it has occurred.

i would appreciate some suggestions as i would like to send my queries on as was suggested.

Thankyou,
Respectful regards.

[hollywoodpc]

-{ Quote: "Hi again, I tried to send a message to the administrator per the instructions of "hollywoodpc" and after trying to send it I got a message "You have an error in your SQL syntax".

Being a newbie I don't understand this, it is the first time that it has occurred.

i would appreciate some suggestions as i would like to send my queries on as was suggested.

Thankyou,
Respectful regards." }-

For all billing issues: billing@pcinternetpatrol.com
For media inquires: press@pcinternetpatrol.com
For technical issues: support@pcinternetpatrol.com
For partnership questions: partner@pcinternetpatrol.com
For questions about dealership: dealer@pcinternetpatrol.com
For sales related issues: sales@pcinternetpatrol.com
For suggestions and comments: comment@pcinternetpatrol.com
Hope that helps and Good luck in your quest

[Wills]

thankyou for the sites, i have sent my questions to the support site.

i hope to get a response :)

Respectfully,

[worldcitizen]

Very happy with pcInternet Patrol so far. I've never liked firewalls which in the end leave the decision up to the user because how am I supposed to know what is malicious and what is not especially if the program is disguised and injected into a valid program? Zone Alarm won't tell me that - it will just ask me to allow/disallow if a program changes and that is a major flaw in it - relying on the user.

Hollywoodpc said they are going to change the program a lot. I am very happy with it so I hope they don't stuff it up in order to appease traditional firewall users (like BlackIce did) because this is a real time firewall not a firewall which is going to let anything through if it is malicious.

I agree with the stealth bit. Everyone goes crazy about stealthing but in the end give full access to any program they THINK is ok. So they basically open their stealth ports for the intruder if they can't verify the actual program against some sort of original list which PIP does online in realtime.

The guy who programmed PIP knew exactly what he was doing and it's only $10 more than ZA Pro and does 10 times the job. ZA just throws the decision back to the user. With the highly sophisticated malware around these days we need far more intelligent firewalls than Zone Alarm.

Dave

[hollywoodpc]

WorldGuy . lol . Where ya been ? Yes , they will change it but , for the better . My understanding is , it will still do the job it does now . Features will be enhanced , meaning , you can actually set it up in different ways . That is not the final word though . Only a possibility . To give advanced users more control but , still leave it in the hands of the pros if you wish . Nice if that happens . That was one of the things I told them would be nice to have . pcIP is , by far , the easiest AND one of the most powerful firewalls available . One other note . pcIP WILL detect MANY trojans and alert you BEFORE your AV does .

[Wills]

Does this mean that legit apps that could be injected with malicious code could get onto the computer without the intervention of PC Internet Patrol simply based on the Name of the App???

Just a question after reading the last post>

Thankyou

[hollywoodpc]

Hi Spanner .
As I have noted before , the audit test is a fake in a sense . Even with pcIP installed , you will fail as far as ports go . The telnet issue has more to it than telnet . This is looked at as telnet with whatever else was in it at the time it was checked by them . Apparently their telnet version was the same as what you found . In other words , nothing in it other than the legitimate app . Does that help a little ? Hope so . Good luck

[hollywoodpc]

And Wills .
To answer your question , No . That is the primary goal . It does prevent code infection . That is the type of firewall it is . That is how it was explained to me and it has caught it on mine before it could happen . Very nice

[hollywoodpc]

Hi again Spanner .
I wish I could answer that . Why not send them an email . their support has been super for me . Very helpful . As you have seen though , just because I have had a positive experience does not mean you will . lol . These guys are good though . Try the " ask admin on call " first . Right click your tray icon and you will see it . If that does not work , drop them an email . I kind of understand how it works but , I cannot explain it too well . They WILL help you though . IF their support is still as it has been for awhile . Please let me know how it goes ok .? Thank you and wish I could help further .

[hollywoodpc]

It has stopped intrusions . Perceived as attacks . It has an auto lookup too . You can trace the address . I have other protection so , it catches things that may slip through the firwall and AV . It stops MANY trojans DEAD . I love that ! It will catch most viruses as well . I dare say that if VB would test it on ITW , it would pass easily . If you run it by itself , it will catch viruses . Trojans , worms and pings . Intruded attacks and all . It is almost an all in one solution but , I want layers . Just more comfrtable that way . To answer your question , YES . It will stop most of the above with efficiency . Hope that helps . Please let me know if I can help further ok .? Thanks

[hollywoodpc]

I have not looked into that . I do know it is sad . But , it is still a great product . It does protect from more than just pings and hacks . Wish I could answer that for you . I cannot . Sorry