2.05b1 Preview.

Discussion in 'LnS English Forum' started by Frederic, Nov 24, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Frederic

    Frederic LnS Developer

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Posts:
    4,354
    Location:
    France
    Hi All,

    Here is a preview of the new 2.05b1 version:

    http://looknstop.soft4ever.com/Beta/En/2.05b1/preview.htm

    And here the content of the history section of the help file:

    Features Added:
    • DLL Filtering (Windows 2000-XP only)
    • Port & IP selection for the Application Filtering
    • Plug-in interface for localization, rule creation and log analysis by third party applications.
    • Detection of troyans that are using DLL injection or DNS request through svchost/services.
    • Detection of non-standard protocols and drivers under Win2000/XP.
    Changes:
    • Signature verification improvements (Windows 2000-XP only).
    • New attribute in Application Filtering to have only blocking access in the log or all access.
    • Addition of GB unit for statistic display in the Welcome page (however there is still the 4 GB limitation)
    • All miscellaneous options in one list in the Advanced Options dialog box.
    • In the "U/D #" column addition of a '-' or '+' information to know if the packet has been blocked or allowed.
    • In the Application Filtering, it is now possible to sort the lines by clicking on the column headers.
    • Addition of the 'TCP or UDP' selection to the list of protocols in the rule edition dialog box
    • Automatic log entries removal when reaching a limit (configurable by the user).
    Fixes:
    • Under some 2003 Server configuration, the network interface wasn't correctly detected.
    • The field "IP to exclude for auto-detection" was sometimes badly interpreted.
    • The rule names in the log are now correct even if some rule have been added without applied yet.
    • Crash when the maximum number of Internet Filtering rules was reached.
    Frederic
     
  2. AAP

    AAP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Posts:
    117
    Hello,Frederic

    It looks great i was thinking of buying
    2.4 should i hold on & get 2.5 ?

    & as always keep up the great work

    Good luck

    Hi,Paul
     
  3. tosbsas

    tosbsas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    789
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    whow - when can we try it??

    Ruben
     
  4. dukebluedevil

    dukebluedevil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Posts:
    177
    My thoughts exactly... :)

    Thanks Frederic by the way for the sneak peak.
     
  5. MickeyTheMan

    MickeyTheMan Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    1,016
    Upgrades are free unless it is major revision at which time you can rest assured Frédéric will label it 3.xxx
     
  6. Klaus

    Klaus Guest

    Will it be possible to write an ad-blocker/web-fliter plugin?

    LnS would be perfect then... :D

    -Klaus
     
  7. Klaus

    Klaus Guest

    Nevermind, didn't see this line:

    Plug-in interface for localization, rule creation and log analysis by third party applications.

    Aww...
     
  8. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Implementing ad-blocker/web-filtering technology into Software Firewall won’t bring it close to being perfect but further from being perfect. And from what I always observed, Software Firewall vendors that implements such features always ended up creating bloatware that is far from being easy on System Resources.

    Lets try to focus why many chooses Look ‘n’ Stop, one is being the most easiest on System Resources. And besides if you want ad-blocker/web-filtering technology get something separate.

    I use AdSubtract Pro v2.55 [http://www.adsubtract.com/], and I’m more than satisfied with it.
     
  9. Chuck57

    Chuck57 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2002
    Posts:
    1,422
    Location:
    New Mexico, USA
    Re:2.05b1 Preview. AAP, from

    what I understand, maybe Frederic or Phantom can correct me, if you get the LnS v2.04, the upgrade to 2.05 will be free. The current version is a great firewall.

    Once I get my desktop box back up and running and can get off this laptop, I'll be reloading LooknStop.
     
  10. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Hey

    My assumptions are that v2.05(non-beta) is considered as a major release, what isn’t considered a major release is the betas.

    I guess Frederic will need confirm... ;)
     
  11. Klaus

    Klaus Guest

    AtGuard.

    It can be done. The problem is, most vendors today don't really care about system resources in the first place. No matter what they (try to) write/implement.

    Of course low system resource usage should be 1st priority, thats why an web-filter plug-in(!) would be best. You won't have to load it if you don't need it.

    Take a look at Ad Muncher (http://www.admuncher.com/). It's small (~360 kb in file size), fast (written in assembly) and features everything you can think of. To have a LnS plug-in like this would make LnS the perfect software firewall - at least in my book ;)

    -Klaus
     
  12. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Hey Klaus

    I absolutely agree, except one thing the file-size. ;)

     
  13. Klaus

    Klaus Guest

    Hi

    We're both right. Look at the size of the installed file(s) ;)

    -Klaus
     
  14. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
  15. Frederic

    Frederic LnS Developer

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Posts:
    4,354
    Location:
    France
    Yes, this is absolutely correct.
    2.0x registered users can use free of charge 2.0y versions (x<y or even x>y :) ).

    Frederic
     
  16. Frederic

    Frederic LnS Developer

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Posts:
    4,354
    Location:
    France
    Hi,

    Unfortunately, this will not be possible with this version.
    A baseline needs to be present to have plugins.

    Frederic
     
  17. Harold77

    Harold77 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2003
    Posts:
    54
    Does this beta version have a fix for the Intel P4 Hyper-Threading problem in Win XP or is that still in the works?
     
  18. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Hey Harold77

    It is still in the works...

    Regards,
     
  19. tosbsas

    tosbsas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    789
    Location:
    Lima, Peru
    Once again - is that just pictures or any download somewhere??

    Ruben
     
  20. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    preview of the new 2.05b1 version ;)
     
  21. rerun2

    rerun2 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2003
    Posts:
    338
    Forgive me if this question has been asked already...

    Will App filtering for 2.05 have the ability to specify both local and remote ports and addresses?

    Continue the great work Frederic!
     
  22. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    Hey rerun2

    For the moment, Remote IP/Port.
     
  23. matrix201

    matrix201 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Posts:
    4
    There is no need imho to filter local ports for app.
    As far as I know it is chosen by the OS when connection is established so should be anyway in 1024-5000 range
     
  24. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    I find it quite necessary to filter both Local and Remote ports, for instance when in response to Client Applications with server capabilities, or running servers in general. For a small example look at the Application Layer Gateway Service which is used by many ftp-client applications, it’ll be bitch to specify port for incomings…
     
  25. matrix201

    matrix201 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2003
    Posts:
    4
    Hmm didn't think about running servers indeed.
    Also for example letting say ftp client answer to identd request when connecting to some place that requires it to speed things up on connection.
    Lets hope Frederic will add that too:)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.