Jeff Deitz wrote:
>> The thing is, it's not really like keys at all. It's more like there's a
>> door keeper, and the other program is wearing a mask with your face
>> printed on it, and he waves them through after seeing them through the
>> corner of the eye. Using the corner of the eye is looking at the name of
>> the application; Using the whole eye (or even both eyes, which would be
>> amazing) would be to inspect more data.
>
> Actually it is. Again this is what you would like to see a personal firewall
> become and not what the current definition of what a personal firewall is
> today. Please, if someone can point me in the direction of where these new
> terms and definitions are coming from I would really appreciate it.
Uh, no, this is what I would like to see a personal firewall move AWAY from.
I think it's neat that they can remember if you want a specific
application to be able to access the outside world. This is entirely
commendable. Unfortunately, they did it wrong. They did not look at
enough information. I'm not trying to define what a "personal firewall"
should do, but I am trying to say that if they're going to do something,
they should do it properly.
If it were to be using a "key", it would have some sort of magic cookie
or encryption key or something. It doesn't. It's just a signature; Maybe
it would be even better to compare it to a voiceprint or a thumbprint.
Unfortunately, using the name of a program is not sufficient; That's
like allowing anyone with your name to access your bank account;
Especially since it's possible for someone to change their name.
-
[To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe firewalls" in the body of the message.]
