-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
HSO wrote on 08/02/12 09:02:
2012/2/7, Jordon Bedwell jor...@envygeeks.com:
Stop throwing around privacy like there is some big security flaw
in Linux, there are tools that do what everyone wants, it seems
to me that nobody is willing to even
All you talk about it's planed - some of programed some of in progress.
Look at:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Networking
2012/2/7, Jordon Bedwell jor...@envygeeks.com:
Stop throwing around privacy like there is some big security flaw in
Linux, there are tools that do what everyone wants, it seems to
An application that merges apparmor and iptables (as a wrapper) would be
fantastic! add a GUI to it that helps newbies use it and problem solved.
Perhaps Canonical could create such an application as part of their ongoing
work with apparmor?
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Jason Todd
The Network-Enhancement-Spec does NOT solve the problem of IPTables no longer
supporting rules by executables.
Is blocking outgoing connections at all useful enough to show at the top
level like this? = user
is not in a position to make an informed decision on whether the
application
Stop throwing around privacy like there is some big security flaw in
Linux, there are tools that do what everyone wants, it seems to me
that nobody is willing to even look or everybody is fed baby food,
what is the point of being on Linux if you aren't going to use the
terminal for what it's
Both MAC and Windows have applications for protecting users privacy regarding
outgoing internet connections. Control over outgoing internet connections is a
huge privacy area that is non-existent in ubuntu. Here's a great little program
for Apple MACs:
Stop throwing around privacy like there is some big security flaw in
Linux, there are tools that do what everyone wants, it seems to me
that nobody is willing to even look or everybody is fed baby food,
what is the point of being on Linux if you aren't going to use the
terminal for what it's there
Sounds like nethogs can solve the problem of knowing which processes are
currently sucking down bandwidth. As for your indicator idea, I think a
simple GUI front-end to nethogs would be the first step. The
application could reside with other system apps, and simply be fired up
when a user wants
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Robbie Williamson wrote on 29/01/12 21:39:
On 01/26/2012 11:12 PM, nick rundy wrote: ...
Just to be clear, I'm not asking that an application-firewall
(as Jason Todd was speaking of) be created to solve this problem.
I'm totally fine with a
2012/1/30, HSO a...@biznes.linux.pl:
Firewall in to Network Manager
NetHogs allgo. form source code in to System Monitor, code
For me - Cool :-)
Firewall - iptables + Some of part of code fwbuilder can be use ?
--
powiedz mi, a zapomnę, pokaż -- a zapamiętam, pozwól mi działać, a
Philip, thanks for your reply. I greatly appreciate it. You said,
If you don't like the connections a program makes, then configure it not
to do so. If you can't do that, then don't run such a bad program.
This is what I'm trying to do on Ubuntu! :) if I can't log the process name,
How do
Nick, the package is called acct all by itself.
IMHO it will not solve the problem you are facing. I have tried it and it is
not user-friendly compared to what you are used to. I have watched numerous
people go back to Windows largely because of user frustration/inability to
discover/control
Seems to be 2 separate issues in this thread:
1) Our system logging for firewall issues only logs PIDs via iptables
with no program name. Given other applications like netstat and nethogs
can do this, I think it's something we should try and work with upstream
to address. (my $0.02)
2) Users
Yes, good insights, Robbie.
Just to be clear, I'm not asking that an application-firewall (as Jason Todd
was speaking of) be created to solve this problem. I'm totally fine with a
solution that doesn't involve a
firewall. It's just that an application firewall allows me to solve this
14 matches
Mail list logo
