Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Firewall compliant (patriot act)

  1. #1
    Titanium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    blk helo target, WA
    Posts
    3,415

    Firewall compliant (patriot act)

    Another user and I have been questioning connections made in the new Outpost Firewall version 2.6. I have noticed and posted in a few forums regarding "N/A"

    Here are his posts:

    I worked for a FW manufacturer, I know what is going on. My article is correct, and I am sad that Outpost 2,6 has features that have broken the trust I held in it.
    Examining my Outpost logs I discovered that many of the n/a connections were outbound transmissions to 224.0.0.2 - Internet Assigned Numbers Authority!!! This is BAD!!!

    OP2,5 didn't do this, and now I have returned to 2,5 the problem has stopped. Zone Alarm made the same connections from version 5 onwards, when it decided to sell its soul to Uncle Sam.

    NONE of my programs need outbound access to this US Authority!!!!

    Unless somebody at Outpost can assure me otherwise, I have to assume that Outpost has now been pressured by the US Patriot Law.

    Zone Alarm, up until 4,5 was free of this tactic, but all versions 5 complied. Norton, and all the others have also complied. Outpost, until the last version, seemed to be the only FW manufacturer to raise a finger to the Patriot Law requirements, which is why I liked it.

    I have now gone back to version 2,5 and will not update again until I have a full explanation of n/a, and confirmable assurance that Outpost hasn't gone the way of other security software.

    SADLY, OUTPOST 2,6 HAS GIVEN ME REASON TO NO LONGER TRUST IT!!!!!
    Ahem... 224.0.0.2 is a broadcasting adress...
    not routed in the internet.
    could be a clientservice like Retrospect backup-client os something.

    Repeat: 224.0.0.2 is broadcast. And very unlikely a security risk.
    I don't agree. In fact, a member of staff of a well known FW producer proved otherwise. This traffic was DEFINITELY routed through the internet.

    I proved this point also with ZA in versions after 4,5. Sadly, "unlikely to be a security risk" is no longer applicable to this, and other addresses.

    I have NO PROGRAMS that need to send outbound transmissions to this address. n/a applies to a function of Outpost 2,6 and some of its broadcasts to this, and OTHER US government addresses, were up to 9 MEGABYTES of information!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Please explain what I was "broadcasting".... (besides the contents of my hard disk).

    Ok, if you think it is broadcast, then I must have broadcast a whole episode of "Friends" every 20 minutes that I was using 2,6.

    Why does 2,6 need to "broadcast" so much information, when 2,5 doesn't "broadcast" anything???
    The US Government Law Enforcement agencies now insist that all firewalls, software and hardware, allow access to bypass them inbound. The firewall manufacturers are obliged to supply a "key" to this effect. Britain, among other countries, has given in to this request.
    The Patriot Act gives the US Government the right to plant "Spyware" in anybody's computer. This can be easily checked by reading the new Spyware Act, which specifically exempts the Law Enforcement Agencies from this Law, and specifically for this purpose.
    Also, I am led to believe, and have no reason to doubt, that the US Government has a type of Spyware that sits on another site, and by means of the "key" can leach information from any computer without actually being resident, and therefore remains undetectable.
    If you ask any of the main FW manufacturers if any of this is true, which I have done, they absolutely refuse to reply.
    Oh hell, here's the thread - it's an interesting read. I have gone back to version 2.5 - http://outpostfirewall.com/forum/showthread.php?t=13635
    Last edited by lynchknot; April 20th, 2005 at 22:04 PM.

  2. #2
    Triple Platinum Member Curio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    899
    Ridiculous isn't it - how can it be justified, after all if they have access to your PC why can't they plant evidence against you. It surely means anything on your PC could have been put there by someone else, I don't know how they got away with it.
    I'm using Windows 7 - you got a problem with that?

  3. #3
    Titanium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    blk helo target, WA
    Posts
    3,415
    I might as well run wide open with no protection then "Winrollback" boot at the end of the day.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    64
    AFAIK, a 224.0.0.2 address is a multicast address that unless specifically allowed will not be passed by most routers.

  5. #5
    Titanium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    blk helo target, WA
    Posts
    3,415
    it's blocked as well with protowall if you are using multicast blacklist.

  6. #6
    Old and Cranky Super Moderator rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Watching Your every move...
    Posts
    4,638
    Quote Originally Posted by lynchknot
    The US Government Law Enforcement agencies now insist that all firewalls, software and hardware, allow access to bypass them inbound. The firewall manufacturers are obliged to supply a "key" to this effect. Britain, among other countries, has given in to this request.
    The Patriot Act gives the US Government the right to plant "Spyware" in anybody's computer. This can be easily checked by reading the new Spyware Act, which specifically exempts the Law Enforcement Agencies from this Law, and specifically for this purpose.
    Also, I am led to believe, and have no reason to doubt, that the US Government has a type of Spyware that sits on another site, and by means of the "key" can leach information from any computer without actually being resident, and therefore remains undetectable.
    If you ask any of the main FW manufacturers if any of this is true, which I have done, they absolutely refuse to reply.
    Who exactly is this a quote from LynchY? Might wanna post the same over at Computer Cops...

  7. #7
    Titanium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    blk helo target, WA
    Posts
    3,415
    Quote Originally Posted by rik
    Who exactly is this a quote from LynchY? Might wanna post the same over at Computer Cops...
    Remember this thread? http://techzonez.com/forums/showthre...sist+firewalls

    Well, it looks like Outpost has sold out for the US market: http://www.outpostfirewall.com/forum...ad.php?t=13635

    I've gone back to 2.5 and it does indeed block system opened ports unlike the new version

    Last edited by lynchknot; April 21st, 2005 at 05:29 AM.

  8. #8
    Old and Cranky Super Moderator rik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Watching Your every move...
    Posts
    4,638
    Right, I remember but do you know who it was that originally posted that in the Outpost forums? Was it just a member user or what? Not that is that big of a deal. I just hate to start quoting myself if I don't know the source...
    Last edited by rik; April 21st, 2005 at 13:30 PM.

  9. #9
    Titanium Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    blk helo target, WA
    Posts
    3,415
    If you clicked my links it would eventually take you here; http://www.outpostfirewall.com/forum...39&postcount=8 - the author of that.

  10. #10
    Triple Platinum Member Curio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    London
    Posts
    899
    I think they were clever calling it the 'Patriot Act' not the 'Take Away All Your Rights To Any Privacy and We Own Your PC Act'.
    I'm using Windows 7 - you got a problem with that?

  11. #11
    Precision Processor Super Moderator egghead's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    In Your Monitor
    Posts
    3,506
    Quote Originally Posted by Curio
    I think they were clever calling it the 'Patriot Act' not the 'Take Away All Your Rights To Any Privacy and We Own Your PC Act'.
    if what you guys are saying is true than the software is already installed on our computers and sending out info like a beakan. I am probably wrong but the thought is scary when the new software firewalls decide to allow info to leak or flood out the computer.

    might have to buy webtv to surf with confedence....
    ------------------------------------------------------------



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •