Why is PG trying to broadcast?

Discussion in 'ProcessGuard' started by beethoven, Jul 11, 2005.

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

    beethoven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Posts:
    1,044
    I received this alert from my firewall:
    Why o_O
     
  2. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    PG has never requested network access on my system and has no reason to. In addition the 224.0.0.2 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.
     
  3. beethoven

    beethoven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2004
    Posts:
    1,044
    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.
     
  4. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    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 224.0.0.2 traffic.
     
  5. Wayne - DiamondCS

    Wayne - DiamondCS Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,533
    Location:
    Perth, Oz
    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.
     
  6. Rainwalker

    Rainwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Posts:
    2,106
    Location:
    USA
    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 ?

    TIA
     
  7. Rainwalker

    Rainwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Posts:
    2,106
    Location:
    USA
    Could anyone please answer this.....

    TIA
     
  8. Rainwalker

    Rainwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Posts:
    2,106
    Location:
    USA
    Well............i checked it and things stopped working.........
    a comment would be nice......
     
  9. ooo

    ooo Guest

    Sounds mostly like a bug in the firewall
     
  10. Rainwalker

    Rainwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Posts:
    2,106
    Location:
    USA
    This makes no sense at all to me
     
  11. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    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?
     
  12. Rainwalker

    Rainwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2003
    Posts:
    2,106
    Location:
    USA
    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 :rolleyes:

    thanks for responding :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.