Outpost Firewall Free 2009 v6.5 Released

Yes, free version permits such rules for every application going out there (as well as before and after application global rules)
The thing I don't know is if there's a limit to the text that can be entered, as such a list could get pretty long for a web browser, for instance. But if there's a limit, I suspect several rules each holding n-addresses could be made

 

@wat0114

I see in your illustrations that you can set specific single IPs. Can a range of IPs be set also? Like x.xx.x.xxx-x.xx.x.yyy

 

Hi bman412,

no, I don't see that as being possible.

 

Anybody know if Outpost Free will protect against BO attacks?

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

No, but you can add IP/mask




- Stem

 

Users could debate if a feature like this fits with a FW. A believer in pure FW's that deal only with packet filtering against incoming and outgoing rules would say no. If that is the case, the concept belongs in a "suite".

Other thoughts I had on your good idea are:

1) It is really a customized white list of sites, if the FW allowed you to psw protect the list or kept it otherwise protect it it could be very hard to steal it.
2) it is similar to a white list of countries some suites already have that
3) it reminds me of site checkers like phish tank in FF, there are others

Thing is as a user I don't want to open the site to find out if it is "dirty"

 

Very good to hear that! It also may save some time when it comes to firewall customization and security tightening.
Kind of generalized antibot.

Version number is the same.

In the end it doesn´t matter. Packet filtering e.g. for Browser can´t prevent "viral packet attaching" (like smuggling) isn´t it...

 

No its not.

April 26th: Outpost 2009 Free 6.5.2724.381.0687 released
May 1st: Outpost 2009 Free 6.5.1 2725.381.0687 updated

Agnitum Security Products Update Notification.

Agnitum are not going to provide a changelog, as I asked them for an update but they will not provide this information publically. Users should check to see if they have the latest version installed.

 

Not even the paid version does. This is something I have discussed with Agnitum people. Lets see what happens in following versions.

But, should they implement such, I doubt they would give it in the free version as well... But, who knows...


Regards

 

Re: Outpost Firewall Free 2009 v6.5 Realeased

i dunno about the free version - but i do know that in outpost paid, when the program wants to update blocklist ips etc, the program asks for permission as it does with any other app - if you deny, then nothing ever can download.

i do think that regardless, a free version of a solid security tool, no matter if it's limited, is a very generous gift, and shows that first and foremost, beyond being businessmen, these are people that started out as and are out to protect computers from threats - a damn cool endeavor if i do say it myself.

 

Re: Outpost Firewall Free 2009 v6.5 Realeased

As I put forward on thread it appears there where problems with the first release. If you read further than post 13 on thread you will see that.


- Stem

 

so i gather that issue was resolved?

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1457738&postcount=64

 

tusen takk - your kindnesses towards me shan't go unrewarded

 

I have split some posts off to ARP Spoofed packets so not to disrupt this thread further.


- Stem

 

BTW this version passes AKLT 3 test in Windows XP 32bit 100%. But it couldn´t stop a load of unknown http tunnel traffic looked like a undetectable bot which used google uk (great britain) as concealment.

 

Any difference with the Pro version?

 

If the pro version offers ip range blocking then there should be a way to prevent some of their smuggling lanes.

 

Is there any chance of seeing your snap shot (jpg) of this http traffic here or over at the OP user support forum?

 

One example of active tunnel traffic here:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2k1s13.jpg

This one is a static http packet when using google germany:
http://i40.tinypic.com/zugh8x.png

You can get a lot of informations out of these packets, they tunnel every firewall, kind of global spy alliance.

But something I don´t understand why they sabotage regularly firewalls around the globe, in some way their tunnel power must be limited or it is just a challenge for them to break firewalls.

Without IP Range Blocking they can use nearly every way to tunnel systems, most proxies won´t help either.

 

I noticed that Avira's firewall will give quite a few alerts that an IP packet was blocked - even though I have a router. Is this the kind of thing you are talking about?

 

I had no opportunity to check avira firewall so far, so I can´t tell you that actually. Imho, no firewall today is (probably will ever be) able to block this traffic. So Comodo and Outpost two of the best were not able to do so, I assume that the others are not able too. It seems that this viral matrix is deeply embedded in todays internet.

The solution is permanent https or quantum encryption but not practicable for all of us usual internet users.
So you should get used to be spyed out from the matrix, I know some people who are really so pissed of that
fact that they use internet only from cd/dvd and without harddisks so then they have at least the feeling
that this spy alliance doesn´t index, modify, misuse or analyze their harddisks. Maybe rude and massive http filtering mechanisms could block their viral system but do you know a company which is able to do that?

One thing I can tell you, I checked traffic from more then 10 computers in different locations and it is always the same communication, I saw the same tunnel techniques everywhere independent from computers setup and officially all these systems are literally clean and malware free and apply to security norms.

 

What is interesting is that sometimes the Avira pop-ups happen at sites like Google. Not sure if it is what you mention, but I don't see the packets being filtered by other firewalls. How major a privacy risk is this tunneling?

 

Nobody knows that exactly. It is said that it is the world largest
entity control system. If you asked me directly I´d say it is complete privacy undermining. Disastrous.