Advanced rules for Proxomitron essential or not ?

Help for v2
21

Yes, exactly. This is what I am confused about. In view of the above why then bother with the advanced loopback rules - unless one doesn’t want to be bothered with alerts. In my case the occasional alert for a freshly installed or updated application wanting connectivity is no problem.
I guess I am looking for the lazy mans way of setting up Comodo PF. ;D

Thanks for your detailed contributions Toggie !

22

There is nothing wrong with doing it your way. I guess I’m just a little bit of a control freak 8) I also like to keep things nice and neat.

Having been testing and analysing over the last few days, I now have 72 individual rules for Avast!!!
That really bugs me 88)

Thanks for your detailed contributions Toggie !

Your welcome, I hope some of it helps.

23

Toggie,

First instance I did the pcflank test I did get alerts. When I denied the first one i could not access the internet site for pcflank to see the test results. And then I tried again but i got confused with the alerts and allowed the alert which was asking for a connection 127.0.0.1:8080. After that every time i ran pcflank test, there were no alerts and pcflank test just kept running thru.
Reading thru here, I understand you run proxomitron and you don’t fail the pcflank test. So I will install and try again and let you know.

Thanks

Hilmi

24

When you received the prompt for 127.0.0.1:8080 (that by the way is the default config for Proxomitron. It ‘listens’ on 8080 for connections from your browser.) I assume you told CPF to allow and remember. That being so, you will not receive any further prompts unless something changes.

Remember, Proxomitron is nothing more than way to block unwanted web nastyness, such as banners, ads, rogue scripts etc. It also allows one to change the way pages are viewed by inserting CSS into a page.

I have tried the PCFlank (and other) tests and from the results all seems well on my system whilst running CPF, Firefox and Proxomitron.

Toggie

25

Exactly the same here. Does this not indicate that all is well ? after all CPF prevented the text being sent due to denying the connection. Are we missing something obvious ? I did the following after downloading the executable:-

  1. Start IE as you normally would.
  2. Enter some text. Click Next.
  3. Deny the alert ‘iexplore.exe wants to connect to 127.0.0.1 Port 8080 TCP’ (Proxomitron localhost)
  4. Dripping tap - Failed.
  5. Paste supplied url into browser address bar for checking results.
  6. Browser cannot display web page.

The leaktest is geared to be used with IE.

Anybody prepared to stick their neck out and assure us that despite the dripping tap, we are safe ?? :stuck_out_tongue:

26

Any time you do a leaktest, your firewall should prompt you to allow or deny the connection. Given that you are doing a leaktest, you must deny the connection, or else you will fail the test…

When you thus deny the connection, you will of course not be able to access the website to see the results. Before running another leaktest, you need to reboot your computer.

When you are doing a leaktest like this, you’re not testing proxomitron, or your browser; you’re testing your firewall against unauthorized outbound connections. Depending on the specific test, it will try to exploit something, whether that’s your browser, email client, etc in order to connect. If you allow the connection in order to see the results, you will of course have failed the test. If you allow with remember, you will create a rule allowing the connection on a regular basis, and will need to manually remove that rule in order to restore your level of security.

LM

27

Thanks, LM, for setting minds at ease. I denied the connection (a no-brainer even for me ;D), and as stated in my previous post could not access the website, hence I surmised everything OK. Of course the leaktest should be rewritten to not show the dripping tap in this case, as it tends to confuse.
Regards.

28

Just a friendly tip :slight_smile:
Don’t forget to sweep through your computer with your antivirus program and rootkit prevention program after using these test-tools. Some may leave a nasty surprise for you, even though most tools are what they appear to be :slight_smile:

29

Now youv’e given me a helluva jolt, Triplejolt ;D
A peaceful evening’s testing of all available leaktests has been ruined. :frowning:
From now on let the other forum members scramble to do the leaktests.
Seriously, have you ever had a problem, and if so doing which test and how
did the “surprise” manifest itself ? Should be of interest to us.

Go well, and thanks for your concern.

30

It was a while back, I gotta admit that. I think I was using ZApro at the time and thought I’d give it a real challenge. This Firewall test utility had no problem penetrating it, and left me a Subseven to play with afterwards. Didn’t really know what it was so I left it there to see what happened. Didn’t take very long before my drive spun up and the NIC utilization bar peaked. I immediately unplugged the computer and started removing the infernal thing. The tool came from Astalavista.net, so I should’ve seen it coming :wink: