Jetico v2.0.2.9 and beta v2.1.0.2

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Stem, Mar 24, 2009.

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

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    =========================================
    23-March-2009 | v.2.0.2.9 and v.2.1.0.2 beta
    Pete Mierski translated language file to Polish language.
    Empty event in Applcation checksum rules fixed.
    Improved hash calculation.
    Documentation updated.
    JPF 2.1 beta only: UDP broadcasts support.
    JPF 2.1 beta only: resource leaks fixed.


    =========================================

    http://www.jetico.com/download.htm


    - Stem
     
    Last edited: Mar 24, 2009
  2. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    I'm trying the beta and it seems okay, except the stateful inspection enabled under: Network-> Allow ARP, still cause loss of Internet.
     
  3. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    On some ARP tests, not using the SPI option (whatever that is supposed to do) I see that Jetico is checking header info instead of the address physics.
    So, I can manually create rules to block gateway spoofing, but the spoof is allowed due to the way Jetico checks the info. Not much good at all at the moment.

    I will check this release and make a more detailed report to send to Jetico.



    - Stem
     
  4. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    Thank you for the research info, Stem.
     
  5. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    Hello,

    Just wondering if anyone is running this latest beta on an XP sp3 setup?

    I have attempted a number of installations but keep getting the old "cannot connect to service" error. I have not yet found a way to correct the problem.


    - Stem
     
  6. Tommy

    Tommy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Posts:
    1,169
    Location:
    Buenos Aires - Munic
    I will give it a try and give feedback.
     
  7. dukebluedevil

    dukebluedevil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Posts:
    177
    Stem,

    I tested the latest beta version on both XP Pro SP2 & SP3. I didn't get any errors with either installation. The only thing I did notice was that on SP2 the "installing drivers.." part took around 3 min to complete, whereas under SP3 it took less than 30 sec.

    Have you contacted Nail about this problem yet?

    I asked before about the ARP rule and was told: "JPF protocol level rule takes source/destination addresses from mac (ethernet) header. Stateful ARP condition also checks mac address from the ARP payload."
     
  8. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    dukebluedevil,

    I made post at the support forums about 4 weeks ago concerning the problems with the ARP, but no answer as of yet.

    It is the payload "source mac" entry in the ARP request that changes the internal ARP cache. Checking the header source mac is pretty much useless for security.

    This does not work correctly with the recent builds I have been able to install.

    - Stem
     
  9. dukebluedevil

    dukebluedevil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Posts:
    177
    Stem,

    You need to contact Nail directly by email at support@jetico.com on any problems, bugs, or questions that you have. As you can tell he doesn't respond very often in the forums, I think due to lack of time since he is working on other programs besides just JPF. You'll find that he is much more accessible and helpful by email.

    It sounds like the ARP inspection still needs more work. I have not tested this myself, since I don't really have the setup or know-how to do so. I really appreciate that you have been testing it. I hope that you will pass along all your finding to Nail so that hopefully JPF packet inspection will continue to improve. Thank you!
     
  10. Tommy

    Tommy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Posts:
    1,169
    Location:
    Buenos Aires - Munic
    1. Latest beta no problems regarding install on SP III
    2. Yes, Nail is not very often over there on Smokey's. A shame, i am trying to change this, but Nail is very busy regarding the development of about 3 more applications. This on the other hand is no excuse as he should know that a good support brings clients.
     
  11. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    Thanks for the replies.

    I will have to have another look. What is strange is the first beta does install/run, but the last beta, installed on the same OS image, fails, and the UI will not show, I have even changed NICs and drivers.
    I will have to create a new image to see if that sorts out the problem. It is just finding the time to make a new clean full install of xp.


    - Stem
     
  12. Stem

    Stem Firewall Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2005
    Posts:
    4,948
    Location:
    UK
    I have attempted installation on 3 different images, still no success. I was going to re-install windows, but decided not to waste my time.

    I know its a beta, but we should only be testing what as been added, not seeing if we can actually install the firewall or not.

    If Jetico ever actually improve on packet filtering, and not just keep adding more and more leak test prevention, then I may have another look.


    - stem
     
  13. dukebluedevil

    dukebluedevil Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Posts:
    177
    It is odd that the previous beta installed ok for you, but this one won't. Especially considering little has changed since the last beta.

    If you haven't already, please contact Nail about this problem along with your setup info and what programs you have installed & running so that he can at least look into it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 17, 2009
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. IvoShoen
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,317
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.