Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You can also use medium type. See parameters passed/returned to/from NdisOpenAdapter: SelectedMediumIndex, MediumArray.
There is also a chance that you system is heavily loaded and user mode application can’t read driver log fast enough. In this case driver’s internal packet log is overloaded and it may drop some data blocks.
When you set High Security level then only packets are passed only there is a corresponding allow rule exists. So there is no wonder that your packets were blocked.
If you server works as an Internet Gateway using 3rd Stealth Level for the external card would be enough, by default all outgoing connnections are allowed but all incoming packets are blocked unless they belong to one of the locally established connections. However, this mode is strict enough, so some complex protocols which use multiply streams may have problems with it. If you use any of them you’d better use Stealth Level 2 or even Stealth Level 1.
High Security level is the best mode for the stand alone server which provides some certain services, like HTTP, FTP, e-mail and etc..
What a problems do you have when configuring firewall through Terminal Server Client session? The only possible problem is running the multiply instances of MMC console, because only one instance can work normally with firewall engine.
For the server environment I would recommend to run firewall as a service, starting MMC console only when you need to make some connfiguration changes. This would save you a lot of system resources.
I’m not sure but I think the problem is that LeechFTP uses passive FTP mode (bot connections are established by client).
In this case:
1) client sends command PASV to server.
2) server start listening newly allocated port and responses with command PORT with its number.
3) client connects to this port => data channel is established.I would recommend you to try some other FTP clients to check this issue, an example integrated into Windows http://ftp.exe. If I remember fine then explorer and IE also uses passive mode by default, but http://ftp.exe does not.
Localhost Monitor works at TDI level, so there are no actual packets there, but blocks of data instead. Some blocks can be splitted or merged, probably this is what you’ve expirienced…
Could you please be a little bit more specific? What do you mean by stating “not always known”?
At the time of connection establishment the IP address was not specified explicitely. Just treat 0.0.0.0 as anyt local IP.
“IP Address 0.0.0.0” is just any local IP address (it’s not always known from which concrete IP the connection will work from at the time of connection establishment).
Hmm, don’t you think that if you could disable/uninstall firewall remotely then this firewall won’t provide any security at all? If you have the proprietary rights on the remote system (administrator) then you can disable/uninstall firewall remotely (if it is configured to allow the connections you use for administrative purposes, otherwise you won’t be able to connect) or locally. Otherwise this is not possible.
There should be no problems specific to Windows 2003 Server… You should use the same registry settings as for Windows 2000/XP. I would recommend to remove everything (driver and registry entries), reboot and reinstall everything from the scracth.
Hope it helps…
In order to use WinpkFilter on Windows x64 a special 64 bit driver build is required. We are going to support Windows x64 after it will be finally released.
>Q. Has the Net Firewall been thoroughly tested on W2K Advanced Server?
Yes, it was. However, I should note that even thorough testing can’t cover all possible hardware/software configurations. It was even specially tested during 12 hours under heavy network load (using WAPT) trying to reproduce the problem you had. Regretfully with no result.
>Q. Is Net Firewall still in beta, and if so is the development of the application being aggressively pursued, or is it >considered a “stable version”? I am running version 2.2.1, which has the updated password protection.
It is stable and I have it running constantly on the few my own systems without having any problems like you described.
>Q. I am running F-Prot Anti Virus, a virus scanning agent, that I have been able to successfully employ as the agent >engine for Imail Server 8.1, has the software been tested running with F-Prot, although this is a not a packet filtering >application, and should not effect Net Firewall.
It’s hardly possible to test any product with all software available worldwide. One question, had you ever install other firewalls? If yes, are you sure that they were completely uninstalled? Some of firewalls forget or fail to remove their kernel components what can be followed by a certain conflicts.
>Q. The only other means of Internet security I employ is TCP/IP filtering, does this have any effect on the stability or >is it a possibility that employing TCP/IP filtering can create this problem?
NeT Firewall has not any known problems with MS native TCP/IP filtering, so it’s not an issue.
We are still trying to reproduce the problem you have, if you can provide more details about your system (hardware/software configuration, HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESYSTEMCurrentControlSetServices export and etc..) we would appreciate it.
