is there ever going to be an update?

is there ever going to be an update to look and stop?

(question has probably been beaten to death but yea..i think its an issue)

 

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

Sound familiar? It is working very well, so I don't forsee any upgrades in the near future to the 32 bit version, but the 64 bit version is still under revision.

 

Amen to that, they don't get much better than Look N' Stop is in its current release...

 

There's plenty of "broken bits" in LnS that could be fixed.

Details are in this English forum, if one is determined enough to look.

I'm not going to post about them again.

I'm looking for an alternative to LnS myself, because these issues remain unfixed.

 

Hi,

A 2.05p3 beta package will be available soon.

It will contain all the beta drivers and some other beta stuff as requested here:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=85349

Additionnaly some other fixes will be also included. Here is the list of these additional changes in this beta release:

Fixes:

• The "extra save" feature now saves the filename paths correctly with 2 '\' when needed, so the import of the .reg file is working for the list of Applications.
• Confirm on Exit now works also when using the Quit from the Trayicon menu.
• Help key (F1) correctly handled in all dialog boxes.
• Memory leak in the icon handling for the list of connected applications.
• Yellow icon not refreshed when the Edit button was used.
• Internet filtering (Win2000/XP only): fix in the driver about the Different And criteria which was not working.
• Internet Filtering: TCP SPI (Win2000/XP only): better handling of timeouts and closing connections.
• Internet Filtering: Fixed some problems with rules handling IP fragmentation flags.
• Application Filtering (Win2000/XP only): the handling of port & IP ranges was not working.
• Application Filtering (Win2000/XP only): new installation of the driver to avoid the problem of load order which caused lnsfw1 to be disabled.

Added:

• Service automatic uninstall when Look 'n' Stop in uninstalled.

Changes:

• When the password is deactivated, its value remains and is no longer reset to null.
• The automatic log cleanup removes 10% of the items when the limit is below 1000 (instead of removing by default 100 items).
• When a ruleset filename has been translated by a plugin, a check is performed to verify the file exists, if not, the default ruleset filename is used.
• Internet Filtering: TCP SPI (Win2000/XP only): the number of simultaneous connections is now 256.
• Protocols handling (Win2000/XP only): a modification through the dialog box (addition/removal/blocking/allowing a protocol) has now an immediate effect.

Please contact me at looknstop@soft4ever.com if you'd like to be a pre-beta tester.
Some alpha-testers reported a strange issue with this package, and we would like to solve it, if confirmed, before releasing this beta package.

Thanks,

Frederic

 

Thanks Frederic!

 

Great News, Frederic.

 

Looking forward to testing it

 

Nice to hear there are many requested fixes.

How about the maximum number of simultaneous connections (with TCP SPI)? Will this remain at 256 (re: some p2p/tcp issues discussed elsewhere)?

 

Excellent news Frederic

It appears you been keeping very busy, no doubt people will be very pleased, I know I sure am.

After you get it set, I like to see if there is still that memory consumption issue.
-----

Hey halcyon

As I always had been saying since the beginning, there shouldn’t be limit, should have custom control for SPI simultaneous connections. Microsoft Windows alone does enough of that, we don’t need our third-party software limiting (without custom controls) in some manner, connections to Internet.

Many of today’s p2p software contains customs controls for different aspects of connecting, adjusting, limiting should be done through p2p software to fix up problems people may experience.

 

Me too.

 

I agree completely that LnS should have a configurable limit (with a default of maybe 256).

 

Will the start-up service be integrated in the new version?

 

YAY! hopefully ill be accepted a pre-beta tester.

 

This is unfortunately hard-coded with the current design (for simplification and better performances).
Don't forget that there was some fixes/changes in TCP SPI and very often now it is working better.
Actually as I said in some old posts I prefer to understand precisely why the limit causes some issues sometimes, than simply increasing the number which could only mask some potential issues.
With the bug I've fixed, and if there was no limit, the TCP SPI would have used many and many dynamic memory and the problem would have been worse for the user and for me to understand.

Frederic

 

In the new version (2.06) yes probably.
Not in this beta package.

Frederic

 

If there were design problems, and no limit or larger number set, and SPI alerts shown, these packets would be giving a more thorough investigations. At the moment more people are quick to install Look ‘n’ Stop and disable the TCP Stateful Packet Inspection feature because it is known to be of an issue, or they experiencing themselves problems that they normally wouldn’t want to deal with. This being said, less likely a chance you have to investigate, and find defectiveness in the TCP SPI design.

If there is no limit or larger number set, there be less likely chance SPI alert would be shown unless it is legit block, or if there is bug in the way Look ‘n’ Stop SPI is handling. And in this case, tight limit wouldn’t have made any difference, see the following;

And that being said, this should validate what I say.

While I’m not against a limit, a more reasonable limit for being hard coded, let’s say there were custom control, you apply the limit you recommend by default, if the user adjusts it larger, and the user may experience a problem, then it is the user who should adjust it back to the default setting or fiddle to experiment.

Though how I see it, to offer greater increase, this alone shouldn’t impact on performance, what would impact the performance is the greater number of simultaneous connections done by client, and more it does, little more work by the firewall. True if the firewall had a limit for simultaneous connections, it can prevent additional performance loss, but this is also denying us from the choice that we can and should be permitted to make on our own systems. A lot of us use software of many varieties that uses a lot of system resources, but because it does a task we like so well (and better than anything else we know of), we, a lot of us really overlook the bad point of system resources being more used in the software.

I’m a very big p2p software user; some p2p software has little more system resource appetite, and especially more you download little more the appetite grows, but if you look at us, we don’t just stick to the one download for the session and avoid problems, we pile bunch of downloads at once, and as much as we desire. If performance usage becomes unbearable, it is the job for us to make the adjustments in the p2p software settings to be more restrictive and limit the control for downloads we can do at once, and/or simultaneous connections we permitted to-do, this is how it should work, and not see the software firewall hard coded a limit, offering a custom control to my opinion is a more thoughtful approach.

 

one thing that bothers me with look and stop is i cannot see what ips the programs running are connecting too. maybe there is a hidden setting im missing but i would like to know which program is connecting to what.

also when a program asks to use the internet i would like to see what it wants to connect to (resolved would be nice but i can look up an ip).

just some random things i guess.

 

i know itd be better if LnS had that feature but meanwhile couldnt u just use a prog like port explorer?

 

just another program i need that the firewall could do i guess...

 

In the meantime, you may want to check out SysInternal's TCPView. It's free and doesn't require any install.
http://www.sysinternals.com/Utilities/TcpView.html

 

Any fresh news on the date of release of 2.05p3 beta package?
The last announcement ( July 28th, 2005 ) by now is out of date....

 

Version 2.05p3 07-24-2005

 

Where did you get that one from?

 

same here a think the fire wall is great but start to loose intrest in it now he
never tells us whats going on there be beta out for 2.05p3 there no link been
posted for the beta ? i bought this last year but think i will try somthing else soon it shame becuse this could beat some fire wall hands down
if he got his act together and start working on this firewall it could be the best on the market.