CLI app - allow access? - Firewalls

This is a discussion on CLI app - allow access? - Firewalls ; ZA frquently tells me CLI Application (Command Line Interface) is trying to access the trusted zone and I don't know whether to allow it or not. Everything seems to be running OK without it. What sorts of apps would this ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 24

Thread: CLI app - allow access?

  1. CLI app - allow access?

    ZA frquently tells me CLI Application (Command Line Interface) is
    trying to access the trusted zone and I don't know whether to allow it
    or not. Everything seems to be running OK without it. What sorts of
    apps would this usually refer to? A little research indicated it's
    related to Linux. Are some Windows apps built around Linux? I'm seeing
    the window now with only the System Config window*, Word, ZoneAlarm &
    Firefox open; in the tray LogMeIn is also enabled, there's my AV
    running (Avast) and a Status Monitor for my Canon multifunction.

    *The one that comes up after rebooting when you've changed some startup
    items


  2. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    karlengel@excite.com wrote:

    > ZA frquently tells me CLI Application (Command Line Interface) is
    > trying to access the trusted zone and I don't know whether to allow it
    > or not.


    Then you should uninstall ZA. Which is generally a good idea if you want a
    working system.

    > Everything seems to be running OK without it. What sorts of
    > apps would this usually refer to?


    Well, you should know. It's your system!

    > A little research indicated it's related to Linux. Are some Windows apps
    > built around Linux?


    Well, your _should_ know...

  3. Re: CLI app - allow access?


    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    > karlengel@excite.com wrote:
    >
    > > ZA frquently tells me CLI Application (Command Line Interface) is
    > > trying to access the trusted zone and I don't know whether to allow it
    > > or not.

    >
    > Then you should uninstall ZA. Which is generally a good idea if you want a
    > working system.
    >
    > > Everything seems to be running OK without it. What sorts of
    > > apps would this usually refer to?

    >
    > Well, you should know. It's your system!
    >
    > > A little research indicated it's related to Linux. Are some Windows apps
    > > built around Linux?

    >
    > Well, your _should_ know...


    Not surprising you didn't want that response archived!


  4. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    karlengel@excite.com wrote on 10 Dec 2006 22:58:54 -0800:

    > ZA frquently tells me CLI Application (Command Line Interface) is
    > trying to access the trusted zone and I don't know whether to allow it
    > or not. Everything seems to be running OK without it. What sorts of
    > apps would this usually refer to? A little research indicated it's
    > related to Linux. Are some Windows apps built around Linux? I'm seeing
    > the window now with only the System Config window*, Word, ZoneAlarm &
    > Firefox open; in the tray LogMeIn is also enabled, there's my AV
    > running (Avast) and a Status Monitor for my Canon multifunction.
    >
    > *The one that comes up after rebooting when you've changed some startup
    > items


    Are you sure it's CLI Application, and not just cli.exe? cli.exe is part of
    the ATI Catalyst drivers. I'm guessing your "research" is flawed.

    Dan



  5. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    wrote in message
    news:1165825782.243053.213890@j72g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
    >
    > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >> karlengel@excite.com wrote:
    >>
    >> > ZA frquently tells me CLI Application (Command Line Interface) is
    >> > trying to access the trusted zone and I don't know whether to
    >> > allow it
    >> > or not.

    >>
    >> Then you should uninstall ZA. Which is generally a good idea if you
    >> want a
    >> working system.
    >>
    >> > Everything seems to be running OK without it. What sorts of
    >> > apps would this usually refer to?

    >>
    >> Well, you should know. It's your system!
    >>
    >> > A little research indicated it's related to Linux. Are some
    >> > Windows apps
    >> > built around Linux?

    >>
    >> Well, your _should_ know...

    >
    > Not surprising you didn't want that response archived!



    Except that a response that dupes their post completely undoes the
    "X-no-archive: yes" header and why using that header is such a stupid
    idea that only newbies think is effective, or maybe they hope no one
    will respond to their post (and copy it in the reply).


  6. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    wrote in message
    news:1165820334.215886.105830@n67g2000cwd.googlegr oups.com...
    > ZA frquently tells me CLI Application (Command Line Interface) is
    > trying to access the trusted zone and I don't know whether to allow
    > it
    > or not. Everything seems to be running OK without it. What sorts of
    > apps would this usually refer to? A little research indicated it's
    > related to Linux. Are some Windows apps built around Linux? I'm
    > seeing
    > the window now with only the System Config window*, Word, ZoneAlarm
    > &
    > Firefox open; in the tray LogMeIn is also enabled, there's my AV
    > running (Avast) and a Status Monitor for my Canon multifunction.
    >
    > *The one that comes up after rebooting when you've changed some
    > startup
    > items
    >



    Is this the CLI application listed in Task Manager's Processes tab?
    Maybe you have ATI software installed for your video card.


  7. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    In message <4u4kuhF16lcs3U1@mid.individual.net> "Spack"
    wrote:

    >Are you sure it's CLI Application, and not just cli.exe? cli.exe is part of
    >the ATI Catalyst drivers. I'm guessing your "research" is flawed.


    The poster is using ZA -- I'd suggest that their choice of software
    indicates a lack of research ability to begin with.

    --
    I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous.

  8. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    DevilsPGD wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 15:20:35 GMT:

    > In message <4u4kuhF16lcs3U1@mid.individual.net> "Spack"
    > wrote:
    >
    >> Are you sure it's CLI Application, and not just cli.exe? cli.exe is part
    >> of the ATI Catalyst drivers. I'm guessing your "research" is flawed.

    >
    > The poster is using ZA -- I'd suggest that their choice of software
    > indicates a lack of research ability to begin with.


    Indeed. I guess it also explains why they believe it might be an XP
    application using Linux as it's core ...

    Dan



  9. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    karlengel@excite.com wrote:

    > Not surprising you didn't want that response archived!


    Not surprising that you're talking nonsense. If I didn't want my posting to
    appear on the internet, I wouldn't have posted it.

    And Google isn't the only news2web gateway. Some other do ignore
    X-no-archive. And I don't mind. I just dare to make Google hurt itself (you
    know, after all, they really store everything, but just don't present it on
    the interface).

  10. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    Vanguard wrote:

    > Except that a response that dupes their post completely undoes the
    > "X-no-archive: yes" header and why using that header is such a stupid
    > idea that only newbies think is effective, or maybe they hope no one
    > will respond to their post (and copy it in the reply).


    Or Google is stupid for actually interpreting such a header and censoring
    their very own output, making themselves more unusable. D'oh, that's really
    stupid.

  11. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    Spack wrote:

    > Indeed. I guess it also explains why they believe it might be an XP
    > application using Linux as it's core ...


    Yeah, as if coLinux ever got stable enough...

    *SCNR*

  12. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    news:4u5qmdF1650p0U1@mid.dfncis.de...
    > Vanguard wrote:
    >
    >> Except that a response that dupes their post completely undoes the
    >> "X-no-archive: yes" header and why using that header is such a
    >> stupid
    >> idea that only newbies think is effective, or maybe they hope no
    >> one
    >> will respond to their post (and copy it in the reply).

    >
    > Or Google is stupid for actually interpreting such a header and
    > censoring
    > their very own output, making themselves more unusable. D'oh, that's
    > really
    > stupid.



    Google just carried on the tradition from Deja News that they bought.


  13. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    Vanguard wrote:

    [X-no-archive header]

    > Google just carried on the tradition from Deja News that they bought.


    Not every tradition makes sense.

  14. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    Sebastian wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:43:24 +0100:

    > Spack wrote:
    >
    >> Indeed. I guess it also explains why they believe it might be an XP
    >> application using Linux as it's core ...

    >
    > Yeah, as if coLinux ever got stable enough...
    >
    > *SCNR*


    coLinux is not a "Windows app built around Linux". It's not an application
    per se, it's an operating system environment. If you can point to an
    application that installs a Linux environment solely to run itself in, then
    fair enough, I will concede the point.

    Dan



  15. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    Spack wrote:

    > Sebastian wrote on Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:43:24 +0100:
    >
    >> Spack wrote:
    >>
    >>> Indeed. I guess it also explains why they believe it might be an XP
    >>> application using Linux as it's core ...

    >>
    >> Yeah, as if coLinux ever got stable enough...
    >>
    >> *SCNR*

    >
    > coLinux is not a "Windows app built around Linux". It's not an application
    > per se, it's an operating system environment. If you can point to an
    > application that installs a Linux environment solely to run itself in, then
    > fair enough, I will concede the point.


    The point is that the coLinux environment can provide network access for
    Linux through routing to the Windows' NDIS layer via a well-defined
    interface and a driver. Thus you can make a Linux application access
    Windows network functions, and therefore actually provide a situation as
    described.

    At any rate, the *SCNR* should be clear enough. :-)

  16. Re: CLI app - allow access?

    "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    news:4u6iftF16f8unU1@mid.dfncis.de...
    > Vanguard wrote:
    >
    > [X-no-archive header]
    >
    >> Google just carried on the tradition from Deja News that they
    >> bought.

    >
    > Not every tradition makes sense.



    So why are YOU participating in that non-sensical tradition by using
    "X-no-archive: yes" in YOUR headers?


  17. X-no-archive, what is it good for? (was: CLI app - allow access?)

    Vanguard wrote:

    > "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    > news:4u6iftF16f8unU1@mid.dfncis.de...
    >> Vanguard wrote:
    >>
    >> [X-no-archive header]
    >>
    >>> Google just carried on the tradition from Deja News that they
    >>> bought.

    >>
    >> Not every tradition makes sense.

    >
    > So why are YOU participating in that non-sensical tradition by using
    > "X-no-archive: yes" in YOUR headers?


    Because it makes Google hurt themselves (which is fun), and it doesn't
    disturb otherwise?

  18. Re: X-no-archive, what is it good for? (was: CLI app - allow access?)

    "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    news:4u7nukF177gmmU1@mid.dfncis.de...
    > Vanguard wrote:
    >
    >> "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    >> news:4u6iftF16f8unU1@mid.dfncis.de...
    >>> Vanguard wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [X-no-archive header]
    >>>
    >>>> Google just carried on the tradition from Deja News that they
    >>>> bought.
    >>>
    >>> Not every tradition makes sense.

    >>
    >> So why are YOU participating in that non-sensical tradition by
    >> using
    >> "X-no-archive: yes" in YOUR headers?

    >
    > Because it makes Google hurt themselves (which is fun), and it
    > doesn't
    > disturb otherwise?



    Since Google will run their scanner across ALL posts looking for that
    header and since auto-expire is a batch operation, you aren't hurting
    anyone by using the header. You just make yourself look foolish.
    Their expiration process will run whether you use the header or not.


  19. Re: X-no-archive, what is it good for? (was: CLI app - allow access?)

    "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    news:4u7nukF177gmmU1@mid.dfncis.de...
    > Vanguard wrote:
    >
    >> "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    >> news:4u6iftF16f8unU1@mid.dfncis.de...
    >>> Vanguard wrote:
    >>>
    >>> [X-no-archive header]
    >>>
    >>>> Google just carried on the tradition from Deja News that they
    >>>> bought.
    >>>
    >>> Not every tradition makes sense.

    >>
    >> So why are YOU participating in that non-sensical tradition by
    >> using
    >> "X-no-archive: yes" in YOUR headers?

    >
    > Because it makes Google hurt themselves (which is fun), and it
    > doesn't
    > disturb otherwise?



    You just make yourself look foolish. Google will run their scan on
    ALL posts whether you use the header or not. Auto-expiration will
    occur whether you use the header or not. They aren't just going to
    look at posts with the header since obviously they have to look at all
    posts to see if the header were used. More likely is that they parse
    EVERY post on receipt to set an attribute for the post in their
    message store to indicate which posts will expire.

    I suppose you think you spitting in the ocean will make a difference
    in the tide levels.


  20. Re: X-no-archive, what is it good for?

    Vanguard wrote:

    > You just make yourself look foolish.


    I don't make myself look anyway. No one cares for the headers.
    BTW, you're using Outlook Express. How stupid does that look?

    > Google will run their scan on
    > ALL posts whether you use the header or not. Auto-expiration will
    > occur whether you use the header or not. They aren't just going to
    > look at posts with the header since obviously they have to look at all
    > posts to see if the header were used. More likely is that they parse
    > EVERY post on receipt to set an attribute for the post in their
    > message store to indicate which posts will expire.


    Thanks for reiterating what I already wrote: Google just censors the output
    presented at the interface. And doing so is downright stupid, since it
    makes Google Groups less readable due to seemingly missing postings.

    > I suppose you think you spitting in the ocean will make a difference
    > in the tide levels.


    It does, obviously. Not that I'd mind actually doing so...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast