Messages

51

General Software Discussion / Re: Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 12:30 PM »

Thanks, IainB, Windows 7 Firewall Control Free does provide a very quick way of toggling each program's connection. I like it, I'm just not sure if I like it enough to replace NetLimiter as that does the same, albeit with an extra mouse click. NetLimiter just has a better appearance and makes is easy to see (from a distance) which programs are blocked/open (because it has nice colour icons representing the connection state).

W7FC is a good candidate, definitely simpler to use that messing about with Windows Firewall rules.

52

General Software Discussion / Re: Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 11:36 AM »

I think I've worked it out, well it seemed to work here but it's 0220 and I've got to get up in 2 hours  

Anyway, by default WFwAS, (Windows Firewall with Advanced Security), allows all outgoing connections so you have to set it to Block connections by default for the Private profile.
You then need to create rules for the programs you want to let through, including your browsers, just like you would with a normal firewall.

Once you've done that, you can limit the access your browsers have by using the netsh command like above but using the remoteip option, (not profile or enable).

eg. remoteip=any                     Full access
     remoteip=192.168.0.1/24      LAN access only

Sorry, my screw up with the mis-leading profile stuff above, (I think old age is catching up to me).

-4wd (July 09, 2012, 11:28 AM)

Thanks, (and get to bed!) I'll look at this again tomorrow now that you've discovered a bit more.

Hopefully it doesn't change what you've just said but I was manually setting up blocking rules on each of the browsers (just using the GUI for the firewall). So, all profiles (Domain, Private, Public) are selected and blocked and the rule enabled - so, I'm confused now why that isn't enough - hopefully it will be obvious when I see what you mean in the firewall control panel.


edit:

I think I see now...

I created a rule to block everything for the Private profile and this does block everything, including the browsers that wouldn't block before.

The problem with this approach is that "everything" is going to cause problems elsewhere or be too time consuming to start creating filters for all the programs that needs connections. It would be more secure, of course, but it seems like a backward approach to just blocking a couple of browsers (and Apache and MySQL sometimes).

I think I need a way to identify why some of the browsers are still getting through even when a rule says they are blocked for all profiles.

53

General Software Discussion / Re: Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 10:55 AM »

Right, I've had another look at Windows Firewall. Whatever it is doing, it is welcome to carry on as I haven't the inclination to figure it out - it makes no sense to me.

Blocking rules work for:

Firefox
Chrome
Internet Explorer


Blocking rules DON'T work for:

Opera
Safari
Palemoon Portable

I've not tested other browsers and programs as it wouldn't reveal anything to me. (All those browsers are installed under Program Files (x86).)

54

General Software Discussion / Re: Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 10:28 AM »

haven't figured out why Windows Firewall isn't doing anything regarding new rules.

-nudone (July 09, 2012, 10:19 AM)

Did you try restarting the service after changing the rules? It may work, though I have no way to try.

-eleman (July 09, 2012, 10:23 AM)

I've tried deleting and recreating and also creating new rules for other programs. It just seems like the Windows Firewall isn't doing anything at all.

I've not spent a lot of time looking at it - will try and figure it out later. Those commands 4wd mentioned are still going to be very handy if I can WF to work properly.

55

General Software Discussion / Re: Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 10:24 AM »

Forgot to mention the free, Privatefirewall, available here: http://www.privacywa...rsonal_firewall.html

This does, almost, have the single click button feature for toggling each program's connection. It is a right click, then select from menu type method so, not as good as a single click. If it was, I think I'd use it over NetLimiter.

56

General Software Discussion / Re: Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 10:19 AM »

Yep. I agree with everything you say about NetLimiter, superboyac.

At the moment, it looks like that's what I'll still be using - haven't figured out why Windows Firewall isn't doing anything regarding new rules. Plus, NetLimiter does provide a nice, quick, graphical way of seeing which connections are blocked/open/ask.

What I changed today, is my habit of closing NetLimiter's window. I've moved the few programs I tend to block/open into the "Hidden" NetLimiter tab and then made that the focus so it becomes an even easier list to control and identify.

57

General Software Discussion / Re: Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 07:42 AM »

Hmm, I did spot the command needed swapping around a bit, but I have a bigger problem it seems.

At the moment, Windows firewall doesn't block the browser I'm telling it to. This isn't related to the command(s) as I've gone in and manually tested out a few rules in Window Firewall - something I've not had a problem with before.

I thought maybe NetLimiter was getting in the way but it seems not.

So, at the moment, something very odd is going on.

58

General Software Discussion / Re: Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 06:49 AM »

Ah, I see, that looks good. Thanks, 4wd, I'll experiment later today and report back.

59

General Software Discussion / Re: Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 06:22 AM »

I think NetLimiter works okay alongside Windows Firewall. (My original use for NetLimiter was to mimic slow connections, I don't even really use it as a firewall except to block things in the way I mentioned above. My "real" firewall is the one built into Windows... 7.)

Thanks for the link, 4wd. That looks like it could do just what I need.

60

General Software Discussion / Is there a Firewall with a quick toggle per program, to open/close connection?

« on: July 09, 2012, 05:26 AM »

I use NetLimiter 3 Pro as firewall. This allows me to open and close connections per application - which I find very handy when testing local (wamp) versions of websites. I need to block my "development" brower's outbound connections to reassure myself that the site I'm testing is using the correct URLs.

The slight problem with this setup is that I tend to swap between live and local versions of the sight whilst fixing issues, which means I have to keep toggling the open/blocked connection of the browser. This wouldn't annoy me if it were just a quick click a single button process - but, instead, it requires four or more clicks (six or more if I have to go into the tray to open NetLimiter).

So, my question is:

Is there a firewall that has a quick single click type open/close connection button for each program it is monitoring. Even better would be something that allowed for creating a (desktop) shortcut that activated the toggle.

My request is for a toggle button thing per connected program - NOT a global type firewall block to disconnect all current connected programs.

Thanks.

61

Living Room / Re: O Fortuna Misheard Lyrics

« on: July 07, 2012, 08:13 AM »

Disturbing. And fantastic. But as Renegade said, words don't quite do it justice.

edit:
I've watched it about six times now. The animation is pretty amazing too.

62

Living Room / Re: Google Tablet

« on: June 28, 2012, 10:53 AM »

If only. What a beautiful world I could help make... for the radioactive cockroaches that will dominate.

63

Living Room / Re: Google Tablet

« on: June 28, 2012, 08:47 AM »

Hehe, you have no faith. What about all the little sea microbes that emit their own light - they could genetically modify them and make a screen out of a few billion of them. Perfect.

...they just haven't got the courage to try it.

Colour E-Ink is already available and apparently Amazon is going to be using it.

-4wd (June 28, 2012, 08:44 AM)

Oh, spoke too soon.

64

Living Room / Re: Google Tablet

« on: June 28, 2012, 08:22 AM »

Nudone, do you find that the fact that a book can show you two pages at once is more a "feature" than an artifact of being the cheapest/more convenient way of producing it?
Personally, I believe that the fact that it closes on itself (as I suppose such a tablet would) is far more of a nuisance than the few occasions where I need to ping-pong between two pages (which often are not side-to-side but back-to-back due to poor editing tongue ).

Yes, good point. Dual screen would be annoying in that way. I've changed my mind. What I really want is a bigger screen tablet (which I think I commented about before somewhere; a large tablet would be good for digital artists and designers - like a mobile Wacom Cintiq - if they can make it light enough to carry and hold).

I admit, 99.9% of the time, I'm happy reading a single (PDF) page on the iPad. But sometimes there are double page spread illustrations/diagrams to view - so, I just automatically thought double screen made sense, but just a bit larger screen that can fit a double page view on it would be perfect.

So, I now want an iPad sized device with a borderless screen so nothing wasted. Oh, and lighter and with better battery - and, colour e-ink screen that can also emit light when necessary.

Colour e-ink... got to be available within five years. Easy.

65

Living Room / Re: Google Tablet

« on: June 28, 2012, 07:58 AM »

Oh, that's disappointing. Having said that, I wouldn't have wanted a device that size (screens are too small with big fat ugly borders). Portability and "blinking lights" are obviously all that matters. I guess I just want a book, albeit, a magical book with only two A5 sized pages - which then have the power to change/update to new content. I'll start looking for one on Amazon in about 10 years time.

edit: (yet, again)
Didn't quite appreciate the size of it. I thought it was Kindle size - it's crazy big. The big fat ugly borders ruin though.

66

Living Room / Re: Google Tablet

« on: June 28, 2012, 06:16 AM »

True. Maybe a few adventurous Chinese manufacturers will try something like a dual screen Android (I'd still be prefer dual e-ink screens - lighter, no fans, potentially larger screen, longer battery life, etc. Just seems like an obvious thing to try, to me).

67

Living Room / Re: Google Tablet

« on: June 28, 2012, 05:35 AM »

Oh. Never had any idea about it (I really don't know what the latest gadgets are, maybe I should start following a few tech blogs).

I see there are a few on eBay (not cheap). I'll see what the reviews say about them but it will still come down to whether they make PDF reading pleasurable on whether I get one. If they were e-ink devices I'd have more faith in them.

Thanks for mentioning them, 4wd.

edit:
Read a few reviews, plenty of people saying "[mobile dual screen] this is the future of computing" BUT battery life terrible and other typical complaints, fan noise, etc.

So, not quite what I want.

68

Living Room / Re: Google Tablet

« on: June 28, 2012, 04:18 AM »

I understand why 16GB wouldn't be enough but for my own use, 2 gig is probably enough - as I've used hardly anything on the iPad.

On a tablet, I only do web stuff and read PDF files (it has to be PDF as they are all web design/developer related manuals). So, I admit, my tablet use is really like a glorified eReader. I even bought a kobo Touch eReader to see if I could use that instead of the iPad but, obviously, it's a bit rubbish for web browsing and PDF books.

But, yeah, if you are watching lots of vids and need a catalogue of MP3s then I see why you'd need lots of gig.


Not that anyone is asking, but I think we're lacking a decent large format eReader. Kindle sized devices are okay for portability but try reading a manual on one with lots of illustrations, charts, etc. They are totally rubbish. I'd love an e-Ink device with a screen as large as an iPad (or larger), colour isn't required - just long battery life, nice crisp text and, let's go for it, a double screen so it's like a proper book. (Someone has got to make such a device eventually - until then, I don't think we are anywhere near having a proper electronic book.)

69

Living Room / Re: Google Tablet

« on: June 28, 2012, 03:40 AM »

Not sure if I want one or not. Screen is smaller than I'd like but resolution makes up for that I suppose. Battery life is my concern... Recently had a kobo Vox eReader (now waiting to sell on eBay) that looks similar in size and that has terrible battery life.

Another issue, how smooth is the "overall experience". Just bought a cheap Chinese Android 4 tablet last week and it's kind of unresponsive (compared with an iPad). Can't complain at the price I suppose but it's enough for me to decide to sell it. (Firmware has been updated to something "better" than the installed Chinese default - I just wonder is it the machines hardware or just Android 4 that is the problem.)

edit:
Right, I see the battery life claims to be 10 hours or so. Considering that the screen res is higher than what I'm used to looking at on the iPad 1, I think I can accept it. Okay, you've talked me into it. I'll buy one.

70

Living Room / Re: Humour And A "Serious" Product - Opinions Needed

« on: June 20, 2012, 01:19 PM »

A quote I heard on one of the doctor House episodes: "If you could reason with religious people, there wouldn't be religious people."

-Shades (June 20, 2012, 01:11 PM)

Going to stamp that on my brain. Very pithy quote worth remembering.

As a wannabe Satanist, "Satan Remover" get a thumbs-up, just for the name-check.

71

Living Room / Re: Microsoft's New Surface Tablet Hybrid

« on: June 19, 2012, 12:50 PM »

Just sat through the full 47 minute video. Looks like a winner to me. Makes the iPad look like the obese iPod it has always been. I really, really can't wait to swap my iPad for a "Surface" now I've seen that it's a PC crammed into a tablet.

72

General Software Discussion / Re: From ZDnet writer - Final Thoughts on Windows 8: A Design Disaster

« on: June 19, 2012, 07:28 AM »

This does not look like a disaster to me: http://www.microsoft...e/en/us/default.aspx

-Stoic Joker (June 19, 2012, 06:53 AM)

Oooh. It all makes sense now. A decent iPad killer. Sign me up.

73

General Software Discussion / Re: Chrome permits bad websites to send spam from one's email account???

« on: June 18, 2012, 11:15 AM »

I'd go with Hotmail hacked. It's happened to me, same kind of thing, everyone in my Hotmail contacts started receiving spam saying it was from me.

74

General Software Discussion / Re: From ZDnet writer - Final Thoughts on Windows 8: A Design Disaster

« on: June 18, 2012, 07:56 AM »

Is Metro okay for keyboard access? Just wondering if you can flick through things quickly with just the keys.

75

Living Room / Re: Ads in Skype

« on: June 17, 2012, 08:43 AM »

@nudone:
Same trick as the US Navy pulled in WWII (Navaho Indians were used as radio operators, because their language is hard to decipher).

Ah well, it sounds like security through obscurity...   

-Shades (June 17, 2012, 08:31 AM)

Ah right, i'd heard of that but didn't know the reason why.