Discussion in 'ProcessGuard' started by beethoven, Jul 11, 2005.
I received this alert from my firewall:
PG has never requested network access on my system and has no reason to. In addition the 126.96.36.199 address is reserved for sending data to routers (see Internet Protocol Multicast - Reserved Link Local Addresses).
This suggests that your firewall may be misidentifying the program responsible (it would normally be Windows Explorer), possibly due to your settings for Explorer (Is it on your PG Protection List? Is it protected from being Read by other applications? Is your firewall on the Protection list also?) or an incompatibility with PG.
I am using a router as a hardware firewall in addition to the software firewall.
It is protected against termination & modification but not against reading - should it be?
Yes, it is.
Apologies for the delayed reply - I've been having a "holiday from the Internet" so am now catching up on things.
Try removing Windows Explorer from the PG Protection list to see if your firewall (which one?) still reports PG as being the "originator" of the 188.8.131.52 traffic.
If you ever want to confirm that a program really is broadcasting (Port Explorer does not) just use any packet sniffer program to capture any inbound/outbound packets, and have a look at which processes are doing the transmissions.
Greetings P2k..............just to be 100% sure on what you wrote........as i understand it, your saying under 'Protect this application from"......'Reading' should ALSO be checked.........correct ?
Could anyone please answer this.....
Well............i checked it and things stopped working.........
a comment would be nice......
Sounds mostly like a bug in the firewall
This makes no sense at all to me
No, the exact opposite. Checking Reading on an application in PG prevents other processes (without "Read From" permissions) from getting information on it - and that seems the most likely cause of a misidentification (assuming that the firewall is giving an incorrect application name, which seems to be the underlying problem).
Are you seeing the exact same issue that Beethoven has reported?
No to Beethoven..............i was only curious......wondering if i should check Reading in explorer....so as to tighten things up a bit....had to uncheck it pretty darn quick
thanks for responding
Separate names with a comma.