SW firewall speed drop :-( - Firewalls

This is a discussion on SW firewall speed drop :-( - Firewalls ; John Adams wrote: > Sebastian G. wrote: >> It simply >> doesn't work. > > Works for me. I get loads of ads blocked thanks to my hosts file. It's > not just to help block malware. Strange, I do ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 34 of 34

Thread: SW firewall speed drop :-(

  1. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    John Adams wrote:

    > Sebastian G. wrote:
    >> It simply
    >> doesn't work.

    >
    > Works for me. I get loads of ads blocked thanks to my hosts file. It's
    > not just to help block malware.



    Strange, I do that at my webbrowser without requiring any DNS manipulation
    and/or other administrative tasks, without clooging the logfile of my
    webserver running at 127.0.0.1, and due to regular expressions it's surely
    more effective. Even further, other applications are not influenced.

    BTW, it doesn't work well for ads for the same reason why it doesn't work
    for malware: DNS wildcards.

  2. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    John Adams wrote:


    > I do it at the application level too but the hosts file is a fallback.



    What part of the word "abuse" didn't you understand?

    > What is a "proper" packet filter?



    One that allows filtering by netranges and resolves DNS names?

  3. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    John Adams wrote:
    > Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
    >> Of course not. That would be pointless anyway.

    >
    > If it's completely pointless then why did Mircosoft implement the
    > ability to block outgoing progs in Vista?


    Popular demand.

    cu
    59cobalt
    --
    "If a software developer ever believes a rootkit is a necessary part of
    their architecture they should go back and re-architect their solution."
    --Mark Russinovich

  4. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    John Adams wrote:

    > Works for me. I get loads of ads blocked thanks to my hosts file. It's
    > not just to help block malware.


    For ad-blocking nothing beats WebWasher.
    And it works as a proxy (the right way?)
    Preventing ads from ever beeing downloaded
    --
    Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605

  5. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    Sebastian G. wrote:

    > BTW, it doesn't work well for ads for the same reason why it doesn't work
    > for malware: DNS wildcards.


    Then again. Filters like WebWasher filter on PARTS of the URL. Neat.
    --
    Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605

  6. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    Lars-Erik Østerud wrote:


    > For ad-blocking nothing beats WebWasher.



    With respect to interfering with proper functionality? I'd actually believe you.

    > And it works as a proxy (the right way?)



    The worst way, since it must use store & forward, therefore breaks
    pipelining. The mentioned software products also breaks compression and E-Tag.

    > Preventing ads from ever being downloaded



    Uh, oh, that's really special. Unless you consider almost any
    content-blocking extension for the Mozilla platform under the sun.

  7. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    Lars-Erik Østerud wrote:

    > Sebastian G. wrote:
    >
    >> BTW, it doesn't work well for ads for the same reason why it doesn't work
    >> for malware: DNS wildcards.

    >
    > Then again. Filters like WebWasher filter on PARTS of the URL. Neat.



    Adblock Plus doesn't even need any additional programs, and it has a huge
    performance advantage due to the available DOM content.

  8. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    Sebastian G. wrote:

    > Adblock Plus doesn't even need any additional programs, and it has a huge
    > performance advantage due to the available DOM content.


    But is it as customisable as WebWasher (parts of URLs, own list,
    exceptions)? And does it work both with IE6, IE7, FF and Opera?

    Where can I find more info (to test and compare)
    --
    Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605

  9. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    Sebastian G. wrote:

    > Uh, oh, that's really special. Unless you consider almost any
    > content-blocking extension for the Mozilla platform under the sun.


    Sadly I have to use IE6 and IE7 for things (bad applications).
    And even though I do that using IE-TAB, it uses the IE enginge.
    Will AdBlock work then? How does it filter? Does it remove
    images etc before they are fetched (like WebWasher). I like
    the speedup not having to waste bandwith on junk....

    I guess WebWsher works like this

    1) Fetches HTML-code for page
    2) Removes all things filters find
    3) Forwards HTML-code to browser
    4) Browser fetches IMG tags that still are in the code

    Of course a litt delay since it need to fetch the HTML, parse it, and
    send it to the browser, but it's not noticable at all on my PCs...

    How does AdBlock work in comparison, can you explain a bit more?
    --
    Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605

  10. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    Lars-Erik Østerud wrote:

    > Sebastian G. wrote:
    >
    >> Uh, oh, that's really special. Unless you consider almost any
    >> content-blocking extension for the Mozilla platform under the sun.

    >
    > Sadly I have to use IE6 and IE7 for things (bad applications).



    On the internet? Then discussing this is useless due to the inherent
    security issues. A malicious website could and typically does simply install
    its very own program code for displaying the advertisement,
    bypassing/undermining the proxy.

    > Will AdBlock work then? How does it filter? Does it remove
    > images etc before they are fetched (like WebWasher).



    Exactly.

    > Of course a litt delay since it need to fetch the HTML, parse it, and
    > send it to the browser, but it's not noticable at all on my PCs...



    For me it is, because I have a working HTTP 1.1 Pipelining.

    > How does AdBlock work in comparison, can you explain a bit more?


    AdBlock has the huge benefit that the browser already does the parsing, so
    it can work on the highly optimized (and well standardized) in-memory
    presentation.



  11. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    Lars-Erik Østerud wrote:

    > Sebastian G. wrote:
    >
    >> Adblock Plus doesn't even need any additional programs, and it has a huge
    >> performance advantage due to the available DOM content.

    >
    > But is it as customisable as WebWasher (parts of URLs, own list,
    > exceptions)?



    Sure.

    > And does it work both with IE6, IE7, FF and Opera?



    No, it only works for the Mozilla browser series. For Opera, there're also
    some extensions available even though it only has a slight filter integrated.
    Dunno for IE, and I don't care since they're trivially vulnerable to any
    kind of malware which does its own way of displaying ads.

  12. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    John Adams wrote:
    > If it's completely pointless then why did Mircosoft implement the
    > ability to block outgoing progs in Vista?


    Because people believe in that nonsense and want to buy that.
    Metaphysics in Informatics.

    It's just like with raw sockets in Windows XP.

    Yours,
    VB.
    --
    "Die Funktionsprinzipien des Rechtsstaates sind den Funktionsprinzipien
    des Präventionsstaates entgegengesetzt."
    Erhard Denninger
    Professor für Öffentliches Recht und Rechtsphilosophie, Uni Frankfurt

  13. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    Sebastian G. wrote:

    > On the internet? Then discussing this is useless due to the inherent


    Well, some sites (MS ones too) doesn't wokr OK with FF.
    At work (another issue) lots of web applications require IE :-(
    And since the IE core files always are on the system
    (and are used by applications for "itegrated" web windows)...

    Well, one need to protect as good as possible for IE as well
    (WebWasher removes ads inside apps using IE and engine too :-)
    --
    Lars-Erik - http://www.osterud.name - ICQ 7297605

  14. Re: SW firewall speed drop :-(

    Lars-Erik Østerud wrote:

    > Sebastian G. wrote:
    >
    >> On the internet? Then discussing this is useless due to the inherent

    >
    > Well, some sites (MS ones too) doesn't wokr OK with FF.



    Show me one. In contrast I can show you many which wouldn't work with IE.

    > At work (another issue) lots of web applications require IE :-(



    Web applications are something different than webpages. Of course you might
    use any insecure application client as long as you run it over an encrypted
    and authenticated connection. That's why Windows Update, at least until
    Microsoft broke it with version 6, is not a security problem.

    > And since the IE core files always are on the system
    > (and are used by applications for "itegrated" web windows)...



    that's a serious problem. But well, we already know that.

    > Well, one need to protect as good as possible for IE as well



    There is no even partially tangible protection for IE, by design.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2