is there ever going to be an update?

Discussion in 'LnS English Forum' started by SnowSurfer, Jul 26, 2005.

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

    SnowSurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4
    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)
     
  2. Cyber Surfer

    Cyber Surfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2004
    Posts:
    41
    "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. :rolleyes:
     
  3. Mongol

    Mongol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2004
    Posts:
    1,581
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    Amen to that, they don't get much better than Look N' Stop is in its current release... :cool:
     
  4. halcyon

    halcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Posts:
    373
    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.
     
  5. Frederic

    Frederic LnS Developer

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Posts:
    4,354
    Location:
    France
    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
     
  6. SSK

    SSK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    976
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Thanks Frederic! :)
     
  7. DonKid

    DonKid Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    S?o Paulo, Brazil
    Great News, Frederic.
     
  8. Defenestration

    Defenestration Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    1,086
    Looking forward to testing it :)
     
  9. halcyon

    halcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2003
    Posts:
    373
    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)?
     
  10. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    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.
     
  11. DonKid

    DonKid Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2004
    Posts:
    566
    Location:
    S?o Paulo, Brazil
    Me too. :D
     
  12. Defenestration

    Defenestration Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    1,086
    I agree completely that LnS should have a configurable limit (with a default of maybe 256).
     
  13. SSK

    SSK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    976
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Will the start-up service be integrated in the new version? :)
     
  14. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    YAY! hopefully ill be accepted a pre-beta tester. :D
     
  15. Frederic

    Frederic LnS Developer

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Posts:
    4,354
    Location:
    France
    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
     
  16. Frederic

    Frederic LnS Developer

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2003
    Posts:
    4,354
    Location:
    France
    In the new version (2.06) yes probably.
    Not in this beta package.

    Frederic
     
  17. Phant0m

    Phant0m Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    3,684
    Location:
    Canada
    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.
     
  18. SnowSurfer

    SnowSurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4
    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.
     
  19. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    i know itd be better if LnS had that feature but meanwhile couldnt u just use a prog like port explorer?
     
  20. SnowSurfer

    SnowSurfer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4
    just another program i need that the firewall could do i guess...
     
  21. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
  22. ita?

    ita? Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Posts:
    6
    Any fresh news on the date of release of 2.05p3 beta package? o_O
    The last announcement ( July 28th, 2005 ) by now is out of date....
     
  23. jifengcao

    jifengcao Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2005
    Posts:
    1
    Version 2.05p3 07-24-2005
     

    Attached Files:

  24. Edwin024

    Edwin024 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    1,000
    Where did you get that one from?
     
  25. FIrE wAll

    FIrE wAll Guest

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.