Possible to 'ignore'/'not log' packets?

Discussion in 'Other Ghost Security Software' started by testie, Oct 31, 2007.

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

    testie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    There are a lot of connections initiated from my PC that are denied.. 90% by choice of course ;).. But the Denied list is rather cluttered with them because they are still logged there..

    Is it possible to 'not log' packets that are targeted by a specific deny rule? So that only rules that trigger the catchall drop rule at the end are logged?

    If not, would that not be a very handy feature?
     
  2. Jason_R0

    Jason_R0 Developer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Posts:
    1,038
    Location:
    Australia
    There is no real memory/performance benefit from allowing that, only one of "visual clutter reduction" which is probably what you want. That isn't possible with GhostWall, though it does sound like a neat little thing to add.
     
  3. testie

    testie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    You are right.. It has nothing to do with performance. But when I'm actively blocking a lot of connections and something isn't working it's now hard to see which packets are the culprit..

    By reducing the clutter only to only packets matching the drop-all rule you can more easily 'fix' problems when they occur. (Especially if you have all those busy windows processes on your network constantly spamming you with netbios request :S)...
     
  4. testie

    testie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    I do not know what the options are, but I would be willing to add it myself if I have access to the codebase..

    I do have some other 'feature requests'/wishlist items on my list as well ;)..

    Let me know if there are any options.

    For what it's worth: Ghostwall is exactly what I'm looking for but could even be a bit better..
     
  5. turion

    turion Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Posts:
    58
    Have you thought about writting your own firewall ? o_O
     
  6. testie

    testie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2007
    Posts:
    4
    Of course.. But why reinvent the wheel when there is a nice basis to be had.. Especially with kernel-based modules so much can go wrong.. Why make the same mistakes as well.. :S..

    Rather expand on a good basis and improve from there.. Benefits all the others as well instead of creating YAW (Yet Another Firewall).. Better create one great one..
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.