eeye Blink

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by tlove, Dec 30, 2005.

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

    tlove Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Posts:
    1
    Does anyone have any experience with/opinions of eeye blink?
     
  2. Upasaka

    Upasaka Guest



    Is this a rare medical condition??;)
     
  3. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,150
    Location:
    Mass., USA
  4. noway

    noway Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Posts:
    351
    I tried v2.x ?? "trial version" very briefly for use as a potential "firewall only" for single home computer, since I'm not interested in paying subscription fees or using the other features. If you have lots of memory to spare and if you don't mind paying the $$$ for the full version, I would certainly try it out. At the time I couldn't get past it's memory use which was about 80 MB...which was probably with the GUI open...I only had 384 MB PC100 installed at the time, so although it was impressive at first glance, I soon went back to something lighter.

    More recently, I have decided that if you have enough hardware to support it, choosing a firewall that uses some of the hardware is not such a bad thing, at least if you end up with a firewall that works exactly the way you want it to, also providing piece of mind, reliability and not having doubts that there might be something better and wasting time and money (hardware upgrade $$$) trying to find it.
     
  5. noway

    noway Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Posts:
    351
  6. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,038
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Thanks for the heads up, this will certainly be a nice product to play with, especially since eEye Digital Security is one of the better security companies. :)
     
  7. neonSurge

    neonSurge Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 16, 2006
    Posts:
    55
    I played with its professional version. In my opinion if the free version will be the same firewall, it can not compete with firewalls like ZA Pro, Outpost, Jetico or Comodo. It fails almost all leak tests except leaktest1.2.

    J
     
  8. noway

    noway Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Posts:
    351
    I'll probably try it when it becomes available. I don't consider leaktest results to be the sole indicator of whether or not a firewall can compete with another. To me there are more important considerations, such as:

    -do you like the GUI?
    -can you configure it to do what you want it to do?
    -does it need fixing all the time?
    -does it play well with your system?
    -do you have any issues with the product, such as product activation (what happens if the company goes belly-up like AtGuard/Sygate/etc. and you need to reinstall and the activation server is no longer there?) or trusting the product's developers (phoning home issues, etc.)?
    -is the developer interested in listening to users' suggestions?
    -price
    -memory use
    -etc.
     
  9. AJohn

    AJohn Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Posts:
    935
    ROFL:D
     
  10. TeknO

    TeknO Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2005
    Posts:
    147
    Location:
    Istanbul, TURKEY
    That's it. :)
    It was a good point of view from a firewall user.
     
  11. beads

    beads Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2005
    Posts:
    49
    Great list for firewalls. Should be made part of a sticky. I would add one more small item to the above list: Can the firewall be configured to block both incomming and outgoing traffic? For example Ports: 137, 138, 139, 140 and 445 on the outbound side?

    There will always be some sort of junkware that may try to use the obvious ports disguised as something else but MS Windows ports are by far the most commonly abused.:cautious:
     
  12. noway

    noway Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Posts:
    351
    Last edited: Oct 7, 2006
  13. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,038
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I´ve checked it out, and it seems to be a nice tool (first impression), the only things that I don´t like is the resource usage (way too high) and I´m also not that happy about the GUI. Not sure if I will replace ZA Pro with this one. ;)

    Oh and btw, I got a strange alert, according to Blink I am attacking the Wilders Security Forums (Via "XBM Cross Site Scripting and SQL injection"):

    Is there something wrong with my system, with the forum software, or is this a false positive? :ninja:
     
  14. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    That article is dated 8/16/2004 -- more than 2 years old. Plus it covers version 1.0 & the current version is 2.6.1.

    I checked. You are correct -- a truly outstanding security company.

    Quote from Wikipedia
    Based on what I saw at eEye's website, Blink is far more than just a firewall. Its Personal (free) version is reported to include the following capabilities

    +Personal Firewall (Application and System)
    +Identity Theft Protection
    +Protocol-Based Intrusion Prevention
    +Application Protection
    +Registry Protection
    +Execution Protection
    +Local Vulnerability Assessment

    eEye *COMMUNITY*The following blurb from eEye's web page covering Blink's Personal (free version) indicates that this application will apply the highly touted community concept of improving protection...
    I signed up to download a copy. eEye's notification email informed me that Blink is a beta and that the Personal Edition is free of charge "during the beta period." The Pro version costs $59 so I expect the Personal edition will eventually be priced maybe $10 - $20 less.

    I hope that using their beta will earn me some eEye brownie points so that they might give me a better price when it goes non-free -- IF I like the program.

    The download was 27,431 Kb zip file. If you're on broadband the download is VERY fast -- they evidently have a big pipe (a further indication that they are a substantial company).
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2006
  15. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
    eEye plans to keep it free in return for the reporting, at least that's what they said in their original press announcement. It's being used for intelligence gathering to see what else should be implemented.

    I've been giving it a go. Some parts of it are very nice, other parts of it need serious change.
    -The firewall is too noisy for my liking, but disabling it seems to be fine.
    -The "identity protection" is anti-phishing, which I don't really care about.
    -The execution protection is more for specifically defining things that should not run.
    -The registry protection is mainly focused on vulnerable CLSIDs (protecting kill bits and other such components with vulnerabilities, it's not like registry protection you see around here; you wouldn't want to add protection for anything that would ever be legitimately modified)
    -The application protection controls one global hook, one form of termination, and writing to another process's memory- this causes problems but can be disabled. Disabling per application requires manually configuring a config file.
    -The IPS is network IPS, which is great. Of course there's false positives, but that's the way these things go.. it shouldn't cause any real problems.
    -The vulnerability assessment needs a LOT of work.

    The intelligence gathering, the way they do it, will bother some people, but these things are all always a matter of trust. I would not recommend this for those that want easy software and aren't comfortable with the idea of a corporation looking over their shoulder (which will, however, be used to add blocking.. some will like this, some will not, just review their privacy policy so you're aware of how it works). This is also based on corporate security software, so (except for the firewall) it's not like much of anything else on the consumer market. Most of what you'll see is the firewall, but when something goes wrong it will take some know-how to resolve. At least the way it is now. The only real gripe I have with it is the memory usage, which is around 50 MB (give or take a few). I just hope that will change.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2006
  16. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    eEye gathers data. So also does Prevx, the company which employs the poster quoted above.

    In connection with their data capturing process, eEye states:
    Concerning data gathering activities by Prevx, Kareldjag's review of Prevx stated in part...
    That review includes a response thereto, from a representative of Prevx, quoted in part as follows...
    So it would seem that *trust* is involved with respect to data gathering by eEye and by Prevx. Why then, I wonder, did the poster see fit to infer that this aspect of eEye's Blink is something unique or adverse to good privacy?

    The fact that the poster is employed by Prevx causes his negative comments about Blink to resemble "trashing a competitor."

    The poster's use of the term "corporation looking over their shoulder" implies corporate spying on the part of eEye. Concerning Prevx, however, this same poster referred to similar actions by Prevx as being reviews by "experts." In my opinion, that sort of word-smithing does not fit in with what purports to be an objective, impartial review.

    Representatives of other HIPS companies post in these forums from time to time (representing Greenborder, Online Armor, Process Guard, GSS, et al). I have never observed any of them to *review* a competitor's product as this Prevx employee has done here, muchless to offer negative comments as he has done.
     
  17. stapp

    stapp Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2006
    Posts:
    7,291
    Location:
    England
    Great post Bellgamin!
     
  18. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    To all,

    I suggest that all focus on technical comments and avoid the personal accusations.

    It is quite reasonable to ask how the data mining of eeye Blink differs from that of Prevx. Perhaps the answer will come back that it doesn't, perhaps there will be specific items that would give some people reason for caution. I don't know where the answer lies, but I do know that answer is a critical one for all to see before casting accusations all to casually about and making non-sequiter references to other posts regarding entirely different issues.

    Regards,

    Blue
     
  19. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,654
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Hi Bellgamin,

    I'm probably going to regret posting this - and I'm not going to comment on this thread further to avoid the potential of getting dragged into a flamewar, but I think I have to speak up here on a couple of points.

    Personally, when I read that I didn't see it the same way as you. I see it as just a comment, which could equally be applied to any of the vendors who collect data.

    This is the part that made me want to respond. Please remember that Notok was a member here,first and foremost before he joined Prevx. The rest of the vendors you mention, myself included, typically visit here to comment on issues related to their products. I'm not sure whether that should grant him any latitude - but at least he should have the benefit of the doubt.

    I've refrained from posting on many an occasion because of my affiliation, even when I've had something of relevance to say. I think it would be a sad loss for Wilders should Notok feel it's easier to pass by, than participate.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2006
  20. Longboard

    Longboard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2004
    Posts:
    3,187
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Good God:
    @Mike Nash, you demonstrate admirable poise but:
    Better your restrained relevance than my useless drivel eh

    Notok ..respect.. you are in tricky position

    Bellgamin: hard but maybe fair.

    I looked at eeye Blink some time ago: good concept the "community", that is new afaict, is there reason to believe this is a better option than :
    >lock it down first: white list only
    > ease restrictions on an "opt in" basis

    As opposed to free for all based on "community" lessons and handing management over to some nebulous group who may not really have my best interests at heart and Could be open to manipulation ( heh like Google )

    cf PG v PrevX

    Both seem to have advantages
    interesting that big corporates are extending their expertise to SOHO types

    Sorry: non technical ramble.
     
  21. djg05

    djg05 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,504
    I respect the points being made here but can we get down to the nitty gritty and someone say just how well it performs, for instance:-

    Leaktests
    Memory used
    Is there a performance hit
    Is it an intuitive interface or is it a head scratcher

    Perhaps Stem could take it for a test drive?
     
  22. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    Hi David,.. yes of course. I am currently downloading. I will install later this afternoon.
     
  23. gagman

    gagman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    68
    Location:
    France
    If you download it, you can find included in the zip file downloaded a user guide, with a lot of screenshots.

    I know nothing about this new soft because I didn't manage to install it : when installing, I was prompted for the license key (provided during the download step), but then the soft must access to eeye server to check the key. In my side, it fails !
     
  24. djg05

    djg05 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    1,504
    Thanks Stem

    Await with interest.
     
  25. noway

    noway Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Posts:
    351
    My beef with this one and others that use Product Activation is what happens if, after you have spent great time configuring it the way you want and thinking it is exactly what you want...then Symantec buys it and kills it or they go payware, etc.? Then if you want to reinstall it, the activation servers are no longer there and you have to find another app real quick and spend time all over again getting it to work properly, etc. This wouldn't be so bad if it was a text editor or an audio player, but it is a security app and I want to feel secure that, if I like it, I can use it as long as I want and reinstall it as many times as I want, with no restrictions. I wonder what the people still using AtGuard/Conseal/Kerio 2.1.5/Sygate/older (better?) versions of Zonealarm, etc. would be using if these apps had implemented Product Activation! Unless there was some way of bypassing this process that would allow me to reinstall without activating over the internet, I would not even bother trying such apps.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.