McAfee Desktop Firewall 7.5
Posted by Steven Parker on 29 March 2002 - 10:49 · 7 comments & 294 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 hardgiant on 29 Mar 2002 - 14:03
- bloody hell that form suxs
-
#2 Posted by neo on 29 Mar 2002 - 14:14
- yeah, what a pain in the ass.
but, tiny 2.0.15a, and Kerio 2.1.3 Firewall are the BEST currently for SoHo use...kerio as successor of Tiny is still a bit buggy, so i stick
with Tiny.
neo
-
#3 Posted by dkg_ctc on 29 Mar 2002 - 15:03
- I used the beat for Mcafee Firewall 7.5, and while it was ok...it was just that, ok. I found it a little limited in its capabilities. It also seemed a little unstable, at least on my system. I'm also currently using Kero 2.1.3, and the only real bug I've noticed is that if you double-click the Kerio icon in the system tray, it brings up a current connections window. If you double-click the icon again, it brings up ANOTHER current connections window. In my opinion, at least, it should only bring up one window, and then reuse that window for all subsequent double-clicks. Other than that, I like Kerio and haven't really noticed any prominent bugs.
-
#4 Posted by neo on 29 Mar 2002 - 19:28
- McAfee suxx, they 1st buyed Conseal Private Desktop, and renamed this to McAfee Personal Firewall....then came 2.0 of the same, which wasn't better, too feature limited, too much bloatware crap...then came 3.0, and the bugfixed 3.01, and 3.02 currently....and guess what the jump to 7.5 right now? come on guys, this isn't being
really serious! I dislike this one.
neo
Last edited by 2978 on 29 Mar 2002 - 19:29
-
#5 Posted by DJ Specs on 29 Mar 2002 - 22:54
- This Firewall blows bigtime, infact...ALL McAfee titles BLOW!
-
#6 Posted by hardgiant on 30 Mar 2002 - 04:20
- Actually this firewall isn't that bad....the zone alarm is getting on my nerves so I may try this one out.
-
#7 Posted by iconman on 30 Mar 2002 - 07:50
- I'd rather use the built in Microsoft Firewall that came w/XP
Protect your network’s security and integrity with McAfee Desktop Firewall to avoid costly theft, intrusions and damaging network traffic.
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.