Whitelisting is a philosophy /approach – correctly mentioned by Ewen also in another recent topic – and not a list not a DB or whatever. This one of the main reasons that brought be years ago to use Comodo FW, in the first place.
I’m not sure what this topic is about – if it’s about AV’s, there’s no other faster approach than blacklisting, at least for WinOS, that has proven so far not ready for real multitasking.
If we’re talking FW’s, it’s becoming more and more difficult for me with every new release to tell what are the default whitelisted actions in CFP. The reasons behind this approach -improving usability for new users - are obvious, but are not so cozy for the average user, who would like to know if some Adobe (Qt, Acrobat…) or some recently installed mediaplayer, connects to some server without asking permission.
Evolution (or involution – take your pick) of windows will make maintenance of any database a nightmare - just thinking to the forthcoming subscription-based win7 (I have enough subscriptions in my life as it is, thanks, but no, thanks).
Here’s some interesting reading: Vista’s UAC security prompt was designed to annoy you | Ars Technica
However, the TCast approach to recommend – but not enforce – an action, I find beneficial for everybody.
LA, HIPS in Linux, cmon. Linux devs are not going to trace you down, because they give the software for free, and anybody can take a look at the code. You can safely control your outbound on a port’s basis. If you don’t like to look into iptables, take a look at Guarddog. ATM I’m on Mandriva, but I’d recommend you to start with PCLOS.
User controlled whitelisting is the only way, IMHO. Regards, Gabi
I get your point, but still I wouldn’t be completely comfortable with Linux - at least not until I’ve learned it. Of course that’s a common thing for every OS, but now I’ve not only learned how Windows works - I’ve also privacy concerns that I didn’t have two years ago. So staying on XP with CFP makes me really comfortable since I trust the system and my personal ability to maintain it.
The power of mainframes lies primarily in its I/O capacity; with that in mind, Microchannel’s superiority shouldn’t be that surprising?
Maybe why all financial transactions, airline reservations etc still have to go through mainframes.
But then again you knew that.
OS/2 Warp was amazing.
Only OS I can remember that could run apps with higher requirements than avaiable.
I remember having 4mb physical and being able to run Wing Commander, a game requiring 8mb...
Even Vista can't approach the functionality of the decade old Workplace Shell.
Ditto the Amiga hardware / Operating System combination.
I hoped BeOS would have taken over that niche..
The Pick database system.
The C/TOS operating system and hardware.
And just when you thought you knew everything...
Where are they now? Snuggled up comfortably as a footnote in the annals of computing history.
Market acceptance does not always equate to technical superiority. The reverse is equally true (just ask the *nix guys).
Marketing, being in the right place at the right time…
Heck, there are just too many reasons why one can fail in the software market…
Sorry to pull you up axl but IBM’s MCA (MicroChannel Architecture) was a desktop hardware platform, not mainframe.
MicroChannel Architecture was introduced as a desktop hardware replacement for IBM’s original AT architecture, somewhere around 1988. It was done when IBM realised just how much of the market was jumping on the clone bandwagon and not sticking with those three revered initials - I, B and M.
It had a totally redesigned interface bus, memory controller architecture and CPU bridge. Way ahead of its time, incredibly fast and efficient but no-one bought it. It required MCA interface cards, as opposed to standard XT/AT interface cards, and IBM controlled the licensing absolutely and charged an arm and a leg for it. Consequently, peripherals and add-ons for MCA PCs were ludicruously expensive.
Technically beautiful, but practically useless.
And just when you thought you knew everything...
No-one knows everything, despite what my wife tells me.
What YOU need is whatever product or combination of products YOU feel provides a level of security that is adequate for YOUR online habits and practices.
What is suitable for YOU may or may not be suitable for me.
