Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall - Firewalls ; Don't know if any other browsers these days have firewalls but the new Opera does and passes as stealth on shields up as well as withstands all pcflank can throw at it. Also passes the latest leak test so probably ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 21

Thread: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

  1. Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    Don't know if any other browsers these days have firewalls but the new
    Opera does and passes as stealth on shields up as well as withstands all
    pcflank can throw at it. Also passes the latest leak test so probably
    does stateful packet inspection too. http://tinyurl.com/z85y

  2. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    ASCII wrote:
    > Don't know if any other browsers these days have firewalls but the new
    > Opera does and passes as stealth on shields up as well as withstands
    > all pcflank can throw at it. Also passes the latest leak test so
    > probably does stateful packet inspection too.


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

    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

  3. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:09:29 -0700, ASCII wrote:

    >Don't know if any other browsers these days have firewalls but the new
    >Opera does and passes as stealth on shields up as well as withstands all
    >pcflank can throw at it. Also passes the latest leak test so probably
    >does stateful packet inspection too. http://tinyurl.com/z85y


    Spammer!

  4. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 04:57:18 GMT, ruens wrote:

    >On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 16:09:29 -0700, ASCII wrote:
    >
    >>Don't know if any other browsers these days have firewalls but the new
    >>Opera does and passes as stealth on shields up as well as withstands all
    >>pcflank can throw at it. Also passes the latest leak test so probably
    >>does stateful packet inspection too. http://tinyurl.com/z85y

    >
    >Spammer!


    I wouldn't call that spam. It's either a joke or a sad example of a
    clueless dude mislead by "security" sites.

  5. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    Root Kit wrote:
    >a sad example of a
    >clueless dude mislead by "security" sites.


    If you know of any effective attack against it,
    how about posting a URL,
    otherwise you're as clueless as those other idiots
    who sell hardware routers on commission
    and need to maintain their illusion of superiority

  6. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    ASCII wrote:
    > Root Kit wrote:
    >> a sad example of a clueless dude mislead by "security" sites.

    >
    > If you know of any effective attack against it, how about posting a
    > URL, otherwise you're as clueless as those other idiots who sell
    > hardware routers on commission and need to maintain their illusion of
    > superiority


    Buster, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.

    1. There's no such thing as "stealth" in IP. That's just braindead
    marketing babble of people who failed to understand how IP works.

    2. Client applications (like, say, web browsers) are not supposed to
    open listening sockets on external interfaces. Therefore there's no
    need at all to firewall them.

    3. Stateful inspection doesn't have anything at all to do with
    preventing data leaks.

    Now get lost.

    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

  7. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    "ASCII" wrote in :

    > Don't know if any other browsers these days have firewalls but the new
    > Opera does and passes as stealth on shields up as well as withstands all
    > pcflank can throw at it. Also passes the latest leak test so probably
    > does stateful packet inspection too. http://tinyurl.com/z85y


    Why would there be any advantage for firewalling just one application?
    Sandboxing: yes. Web browser: why? And why promote a BETA version?

    Must be a very minor feature if they don't even bothering mentioning it
    at http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/next/ on the page or in their
    tour video, nor is a firewall mentioned in their changelogs at
    http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/windows/.

  8. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    Ansgar -59cobalt- Wiechers wrote:
    >
    >Now get lost.


    Good idea, since you obviously have nothing to contribute.
    ....and go find some other venue to air the frustration with your devoid
    life, maybe play superman with an Amtrak.

  9. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    VanguardLH wrote:
    >
    >Why would there be any advantage for firewalling just one application?
    >Sandboxing: yes. Web browser: why?


    Just guessing that the primary interface (browser)
    to the major source of danger (internet)
    is the most likely focus of concern.
    Sandboxing would be an unnecessary encumbrance
    if all your applications were trusted

    >And why promote a BETA version?


    Not really 'promoting' it (I have no interest in the company) it was the
    version I finally upgraded to from an earlier legacy v6.06 that I used
    to run with everything from ATGuard to ZoneAlarm, but there are still
    enough unresolved bugs that I've now gone back to the stable v9.27.
    This version seems a little faster loading pages yet just as invisible
    and/or invulnerable, so I'll stay here for awhile.

  10. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    "ASCII" wrote in :

    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >>Why would there be any advantage for firewalling just one application?
    >>Sandboxing: yes. Web browser: why?

    >
    > Just guessing that the primary interface (browser)
    > to the major source of danger (internet)
    > is the most likely focus of concern.


    Which would be covered by a general firewall that enforces connectivity
    on any particular application, including the web browser.

    > Sandboxing would be an unnecessary encumbrance
    > if all your applications were trusted


    You just said that you didn't trust the web browser. Sandboxing doesn't
    sandbox every application. It sandboxes just the application that you
    want sandboxed. Have a look at Sandboxie.

    >>And why promote a BETA version?

    >
    > Not really 'promoting' it (I have no interest in the company) it was the
    > version I finally upgraded to from an earlier legacy v6.06 that I used
    > to run with everything from ATGuard to ZoneAlarm, but there are still
    > enough unresolved bugs that I've now gone back to the stable v9.27.
    > This version seems a little faster loading pages yet just as invisible
    > and/or invulnerable, so I'll stay here for awhile.


    And as for the part that you snipped out, just WHERE does Opera claim
    that their beta 9.5 version contains a firewall within just their
    browser?

  11. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    VanguardLH wrote:
    >"ASCII" wrote in :
    >
    >> VanguardLH wrote:
    >>>
    >>>Why would there be any advantage for firewalling just one application?
    >>>Sandboxing: yes. Web browser: why?

    >>
    >> Just guessing that the primary interface (browser)
    >> to the major source of danger (internet)
    >> is the most likely focus of concern.

    >
    >Which would be covered by a general firewall that enforces connectivity
    >on any particular application, including the web browser.
    >
    >> Sandboxing would be an unnecessary encumbrance
    >> if all your applications were trusted

    >
    >You just said that you didn't trust the web browser. Sandboxing doesn't
    >sandbox every application. It sandboxes just the application that you
    >want sandboxed. Have a look at Sandboxie.


    I never said I didn't trust the browser, just offered a guess as to why
    it would include firewall behavior.

    >>>And why promote a BETA version?

    >>
    >> Not really 'promoting' it (I have no interest in the company) it was the
    >> version I finally upgraded to from an earlier legacy v6.06 that I used
    >> to run with everything from ATGuard to ZoneAlarm, but there are still
    >> enough unresolved bugs that I've now gone back to the stable v9.27.
    >> This version seems a little faster loading pages yet just as invisible
    >> and/or invulnerable, so I'll stay here for awhile.

    >
    >And as for the part that you snipped out, just WHERE does Opera claim
    >that their beta 9.5 version contains a firewall within just their
    >browser?


    I don't recall them ever making such a claim, even though I was
    surmising that it behaved as if it had a built in firewall.

    Hey I'm not like that other twit that's only here to bicker and flame, I
    was simply curious about the behavior of a browser I had just installed.

  12. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 23:54:46 -0700, ASCII wrote:

    >I never said I didn't trust the browser, just offered a guess as to why
    >it would include firewall behavior.


    Which it doesn't.

    >I don't recall them ever making such a claim, even though I was
    >surmising that it behaved as if it had a built in firewall.


    Which it hasn't.

    >Hey I'm not like that other twit that's only here to bicker and flame, I
    >was simply curious about the behavior of a browser I had just installed.


    Wrong. You were making ridiculous claims based on foolish "security
    testing tools" providing output you didn't understand how to
    interpret.

    Opera is a good browser. It doesn't need clueless promotion.

  13. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    "ASCII" wrote in :

    > I don't recall them ever making such a claim,


    Read your Subject line.

    > even though I was
    > surmising that it behaved as if it had a built in firewall.


    Oh. Guess I won't waste more time trying to find out where was that
    firewalling within Opera. If they had added it inside the app, I wanted
    to see why they thought it was necessary. Please don't make up stuff.

  14. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    VanguardLH wrote:
    >"ASCII" wrote in :
    >
    >> I don't recall them ever making such a claim,

    >
    >Read your Subject line.


    My subject line, not Opera's, and it was because I got online results
    that would indicate some firewall behavior was taking place. I thought
    there might be a new trend in current browsers that I was unaware of,
    sorry to see this group has fallen so far.

    >> even though I was
    >> surmising that it behaved as if it had a built in firewall.

    >
    >Oh. Guess I won't waste more time trying to find out where was that
    >firewalling within Opera. If they had added it inside the app, I wanted
    >to see why they thought it was necessary.


    I only guessed why it behaved as it does, I have no idea why some
    Norwegian company thinks something is necessary, if they even think that
    in the first place

    > Please don't make up stuff.


    No need
    You're doing a good enough job of that as it is

    You know, I've got a little extra time the next few days so I won't
    plonk you guys, maybe just see the depths of intellectual depravity that
    has come to inhabit this forum.
    carry on kids...

  15. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    Root Kit wrote:
    >
    >>I never said I didn't trust the browser, just offered a guess as to why
    >>it would include firewall behavior.

    >
    >Which it doesn't.


    Returning a full 'stealth' rating from an online nmap site is definitely
    firewall behavior, even if you deny it.
    Just how much commission do you get from selling those hardware routers,
    enough to put chitlins on your plate?

  16. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    "ASCII" wrote in :

    > VanguardLH wrote:
    >>
    >> Please don't make up stuff.

    >
    > No need. You're doing a good enough job of that as it is


    Oh, yeah, it was me claiming Opera had a web browser, sure.

    > You know, I've got a little extra time the next few days so I won't
    > plonk you guys,


    While killfiling does eliminate "noise" in a newsgroup that you inhabit,
    it also does mean the plonked get the last word. I have no qualms about
    you killfiling me.

    > maybe just see the depths of intellectual depravity that
    > has come to inhabit this forum.
    > carry on kids...


    Yes, we're the children based on your so-adult opinion announced as fact
    based your conjecture on some unindentified behavior in a web browser
    where YOU say they have some functionality which has obviously been
    proven that you didn't have a clue about your statement. Yes, it was
    our fault in interpreting your misleading claim. You contrived, you
    mislead. When you got caught, like a child, you tried to recover with
    justifications hoping to provide you with excuses and now you try to
    redirect the blame. Pathetic.

    I never said that they do not have a firewall built into their browser.
    I said that they make no mention of such functionality. I found nothing
    to substantiate your unfounded claim. If you wanted to validate your
    claim regarding your *guess* about behavior, you couldn't do some better
    investigation before spouting your claim? Since you are an Opera user,
    you couldn't go ask in the Opera newsgroups (a list of which is
    available at http://www.opera.com/newsgroups/)? Instead of professing
    knowledge and announcing added functionality (but which was based on
    conjecture), you could've asked over there first.

    I don't use Opera but thought it was something to review if only to
    figure out why they thought an application-embedded firewall had any
    value. Since I don't use Opera, there would be no past history of
    experience with it by me nor would I have been visiting the Opera
    newsgroups to know about any such feature enhancement. You made the
    claim so I figured you were an Opera user. Not many users go extolling
    a product unless they actually use it. It's been awhile since I've seen
    a user touting a feature that doesn't exist in a product. I've seen
    spammers do it but not actual users.


    So now to move onto your claim although based on conjecture ...

    When you tested Opera and did the stealth and leak tests, did you
    disable any and all software firewalls running on your test host?
    Obviously if you wanted to test Opera's conjectured firewall abilities,
    you would have to disable all other firewall, security, anti-virus,
    anti-malware, or other protective software to ensure that they weren't
    already providing the firewalling effect that you noticed.

    Did you also disable any upstream firewalls, like in your NAT router?
    Did you bypass the router and hook your host directly to the your
    Internet access point (dsl/cable modem, satellite, whatever)? Many
    users do these tests and then claim success but were never testing the
    software on their host. Instead they were testing the firewall that is
    in their router.

    "Passes as stealth on Shields Up". Not sure why you would make that
    claim. The web browser is a client process that issues connect requests
    (it initiates the handshaking to establish a socket with the server that
    was listening for the inbound connection requests). The web browser is
    not a server process listening on a port. The web browser isn't going
    to respond to a ping or accept connection requests on a port on which it
    isn't listening. The web browser issues outbound connect requests to
    somewhere else that listens on, for example, port 80 (for HTTP). The
    web browser is not listening for inbound connection requests on port 80.

    Leak tests have a client (that you allow to run) on your host try to
    make an outbound connection to see if the firewall blocks that attempt
    or prompts you for permission to allow that connection. Since you
    obviously need to permit the firewall to allow connections for your web
    browser to be useful (unless you are unique in wanting to use it to only
    render your own local HTML files), the web browser is always "leaking"
    through the firewall. It is the leak clients you are testing, not the
    web browser.

    PCFlank doesn't explain just how its leak tests function? You didn't
    see the button was labelled "Download" and that you were downloading an
    ..exe program to execute locally that would then test your firewall (and
    that the .exe you downloaded was not the Opera web browser)? You need
    to spend some time reading the GRC and PCFlank web sites to understand
    just what those tests do and how they execute.

  17. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:59:29 -0700, ASCII wrote:

    >Returning a full 'stealth' rating from an online nmap site is definitely
    >firewall behavior, even if you deny it.


    More babble.... nmap does not use the term "stealth" - and ShieldsUp
    does not build on nmap.

  18. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    These are the only security enhancements that I can see. But that's no
    reason to pounce on the OP. I guess this is Usenet after all...


    Security

    * Improved back-end for Fraud Protection, now enabled by default.
    * Added support for Extended Validation (EV) certificates.
    * Added automatic updates of root certificates.
    * Introduced a new security notification scheme in the address field:
    o gold lock on green field for secure sites with Extended Validation
    o silver lock on yellow field for regular secure sites
    o question mark on gray field for HTTPS sites with problems
    o no notification for normal sites
    o fraud warning on red field for blacklisted sites
    * Opera now distinguishes between local servers on localhost, intranet
    servers, and remote servers on the Internet. Local servers can use remote
    resources, but not vice versa.

    http://www.opera.com/docs/changelogs/windows/950b2

  19. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    Gary wrote:
    >These are the only security enhancements that I can see. But that's no
    >reason to pounce on the OP. I guess this is Usenet after all...


    The vehement attack over semantic distinctions of what a firewall
    involves, suggests a woefully vacuous level of immaturity. Reminds me of
    a know it all that once posted here under the name Duane Arnold of Elgin
    Illinois, seems he worked at some retail outlet pushing hardware routers
    and swore up and down that nothing was better.

  20. Re: Opera 9.5 Built in Firewall

    On Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:41:38 -0700, ASCII wrote:


    >to run with everything from ATGuard to ZoneAlarm, but there are still


    ATGUARD? Lmao!

    Please tell me you aren't still using that relic.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast