Kerio Personal Firewall 2.1.3
Posted by Steven Parker on 28 March 2002 - 22:33 · 8 comments & 310 views
About the Author
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Steven Parker
Forum name: Neobond
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by Intelligen on 28 Mar 2002 - 23:33
- kewl kewl
-
#2 Posted by yashiro on 29 Mar 2002 - 04:42
- Just letting people know that Kerio Personal Firewall is in fact a continuation of the Tiny Personal Firewall (under new administration /w same coding team).
Its a great little firewall. Make sure you visit [url=http://www.tpffaq.com/cgi-bin/faqmanager.cgi]http://www.tpffaq.com[/url] for configuration tips
Last edited by 3527 on 29 Mar 2002 - 04:44
-
#3 Posted by wog boy on 29 Mar 2002 - 04:45
- ok.. downloading at the momment.. other then being tiny what advantages does it have over black ice and zonealarm
-
#4 Posted by zionath on 29 Mar 2002 - 07:20
- The program is awesome!
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by Opio on 29 Mar 2002 - 07:51
- This prog claims to be FREEWARE but why is there a License / Registration section in the Administration area?
-
#6 Posted by mariusu on 29 Mar 2002 - 10:41
- zonealarm free has also a registration, but it is still free same kerio, free but you'll have to register i guess
-
#7 Posted by Dwarden on 29 Mar 2002 - 11:57
- KPF is free for home use ...
For bussines You need buy licence.
Registered user enter his licence number into that section and as
bonus You get rid of startup splashscreen
Changes:
2.1.3 - March 27, 2002
+ updated default rules
+ shield from non-winsock protocol drivers
- fixed synchronization issue between engine and kernel driver
- fixed leak in send routine
- fixed security issue when starting internet browser in About dialog
Kerio Personal Firewall is FREE for home and personal use. For corporate use please see the pricing and licencing policies section.
According to Google spokesman Nate Tyler, the company is merely trying to prevent other search crawlers from hurting the performance of its site.
"We have blocked other spiders from fully crawling our site because it would require too many server resources on our end to support that," said Tyler, who noted that Google takes great care when indexing other sites so as not to overload them.
According to a database maintained by The Web Robots Pages, there are 284 robots that actively crawl the Web under names including Googlebot, Inktomi Slurp, and AltaVista Scooter.
Most crawlers honor the Robots Exclusion Protocol, which specifies that robots should check a site for a file named robots.txt for a list of "disallowed" directories and adhere to it when indexing the site.
A comparison today by Newsbytes of robots files at other major Web destinations revealed sharp contrasts in the sites' attitude toward Web crawlers.
Some leading portals, such as those operated by Yahoo, AOL, Microsoft, Amazon and Lycos, have no robots file at all and apparently give search spiders free reign to index all of their pages.
Others, including AltaVista, only disallow bots from crawling in directories that contain program files.
Some big sites, however, attempt to block search crawlers completely. The robots file for the New York Times site, for example, appears to disallow search bots from accessing any of its archived content.
Ebay, which successfully sued a specialized search site that was trawling its online auction listings, uses a prohibitive robots file that begins with a simple comment: "Go away."
Similarly, CNN.com's file shoos away search spiders with a comment that states, "Robots, scram."
According to Danny Sullivan, editor of SearchEngineWatch.com, Google may be attempting to prevent other search sites from "harvesting" its proprietary newsgroup archives and other content.
"Having a robots file doesn't just protect your resources. It can also protect your intellectual property," said Sullivan, who added that a site's failure to restrict access to proprietary content through a robots file could limit its legal position in copyright infringement cases.
Sullivan noted, however, that respecting a site's robots file is entirely voluntary, and that "rogue" search bots are likely to ignore it altogether. For that reason, some sites may eschew robots files and instead block certain Internet protocol addresses that are associated with "impolite" spiders, he said.
In fact, some experts have argued that robots files provide snoops with clear instructions on how to find the most sensitive areas of a Web site.
Bertrand Meyer, a software expert who developed a computer language called Eiffel, observed in a 1998 message to the RISKS mailing list that itemizing disallowed directories in a robots file is akin to telling someone, "Here is what I am not telling you."
"I think there are some basic flaws in this mechanism. If I'm a bad guy, the robots file is the first place I'm going to start looking," Meyer said in an interview Wednesday.
A link to Meyer's posting is tucked into the beginning of the robots file at Sun Microsystem's site. The comments section of the file at Sun.com explains in considerable detail the company's justification for disallowing bots in seven directories.
According to Sun's file, which begins with the words, "A note to those who'd bother to look at this file," the company is not trying to hide proprietary content. Instead, the purpose of its robots file is to prevent users from downloading the pages without first registering with Sun, the file stated.