TDI-Based Open Source Personal Firewall

[James Tabor]

Hi
 From IRC some weeks ago. This looks good to me.

http://sourceforge.net/projects/tdifw

Thanks,
James

[Ged]

James Tabor wrote:
> Hi
>  From IRC some weeks ago. This looks good to me.
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/tdifw
>
> Thanks,
> James

I've already looked into it, and spoken to the guy who wrote it.
TDI isn't the best place to be sticking a firewall, it's a little high 
in the network stack.

I plan to implement one as an intermediate NDIS driver, however with the 
current state of NDIS, this isn't currently possible.

If it's still not possible when we come to needing a firewall, the TDI 
one will be the next best thing.
Anything is better than using packet filtering via the win2k ipfltdrv.sys

I'm attaching a network model which shows where TDI sits, and where the 
intermediate driver would sit.

Ged.

[jh]

Hi,
    What about these:
i-safer firewall
http://www.PSMKorea.co.kr
http://winsockfirewall.sourceforge.net

this is a bit dated now
Pseud IP Masquerade on Win32
http://www.hh.iij4u.or.jp/~yukon/soft/pipmasq/

are they any good for ReactOS.

Regards,
jh

[Ged Murphy]

Hi jh.

I can't read the first one, it's in Korean.
the second one is a big no no. Winsock it the worst possible place to
have a firewall. As for the 3rd, IP Masquerading is not really what
we're looking for.

What we need is a NDIS driver or something along the lines of what
Alex mentioned. (which sounded very interesting)
AFAIK, there is nothing out there at this level for Windows which is
open source. We'll have to write our own.

Ged.

On 10/27/05, jh [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi,
>    What about these:
> i-safer firewall
> http://www.PSMKorea.co.kr
> http://winsockfirewall.sourceforge.net
>
> this is a bit dated now
> Pseud IP Masquerade on Win32
> http://www.hh.iij4u.or.jp/~yukon/soft/pipmasq/
>
> are they any good for ReactOS.
>
> Regards,
> jh
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[Yuri Urazov]

Hi All:

Check

Simple TDI-Based Open Source Personal Firewall for
Windows NT4/2000/XP/2003

http://sourceforge.net/projects/tdifw

All the best,

YU

--- Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi jh.
>
> I can't read the first one, it's in Korean.
> the second one is a big no no. Winsock it the worst
> possible place to
> have a firewall. As for the 3rd, IP Masquerading is
> not really what
> we're looking for.
>
> What we need is a NDIS driver or something along the
> lines of what
> Alex mentioned. (which sounded very interesting)
> AFAIK, there is nothing out there at this level for
> Windows which is
> open source. We'll have to write our own.
>
> Ged.
>
> On 10/27/05, jh [e-mail]
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >    What about these:
> > i-safer firewall
> > http://www.PSMKorea.co.kr
> > http://winsockfirewall.sourceforge.net
> >
> > this is a bit dated now
> > Pseud IP Masquerade on Win32
> > http://www.hh.iij4u.or.jp/~yukon/soft/pipmasq/
> >
> > are they any good for ReactOS.
> >
> > Regards,
> > jh
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-general mailing list
> > [e-mail]
>
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

__________________________________ 
Start your day with Yahoo! - Make it your home page! 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

[Yuri Urazov]

Hi All,

Here NDIS level project.

Simple NDIS Hooking Based Firewall for NT4/2000

http://ntdev.h1.ru/ndis_fw.zip

All the best,

YU

--- Ged Murphy [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi jh.
>
> I can't read the first one, it's in Korean.
> the second one is a big no no. Winsock it the worst
> possible place to
> have a firewall. As for the 3rd, IP Masquerading is
> not really what
> we're looking for.
>
> What we need is a NDIS driver or something along the
> lines of what
> Alex mentioned. (which sounded very interesting)
> AFAIK, there is nothing out there at this level for
> Windows which is
> open source. We'll have to write our own.
>
> Ged.
>
> On 10/27/05, jh [e-mail]
> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >    What about these:
> > i-safer firewall
> > http://www.PSMKorea.co.kr
> > http://winsockfirewall.sourceforge.net
> >
> > this is a bit dated now
> > Pseud IP Masquerade on Win32
> > http://www.hh.iij4u.or.jp/~yukon/soft/pipmasq/
> >
> > are they any good for ReactOS.
> >
> > Regards,
> > jh
> > _______________________________________________
> > ros-general mailing list
> > [e-mail]
>
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
> >
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

[James Tabor]

Yuri Urazov wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Here NDIS level project.
>
> Simple NDIS Hooking Based Firewall for NT4/2000
>
> http://ntdev.h1.ru/ndis_fw.zip
>
> All the best,
>
> YU

Hi!
http://ntdev.h1.ru/ndis_fw.html

From above page;

Currently all my working on ndis_fw project is stopped probably until the end of 2004. More stable 
version of NDIS hooking driver is included as a part of TdiFw project. See 
tdifw-1.3.2\addon\ndis_hk\src in downloaded zip-file.

So ndis_fw is the original source for TdiFw, now at http://sourceforge.net/projects/tdifw .

Thanks,
James

[jh]

Ged Murphy wrote:
> Hi jh.

<snip>
> the second one is a big no no. Winsock it the worst possible place to
> have a firewall. As for the 3rd, IP Masquerading is not really what
> we're looking for.

<snip>
> Ged.

I have been using the i-safer firewall, so I look like having to use 
another one.
I like the way it is so unobtrusive, no pop-up windows announcing that 
someone wants to ping my machine.
What I don't like, is that it replies to unwanted packs, instead of staying 
silent.

Regards,
jh

[Ralph Shumaker]

jh wrote:
> I have been using the i-safer firewall, so I look like having to use 
> another one.
> I like the way it is so unobtrusive, no pop-up windows announcing that 
> someone wants to ping my machine.
> What I don't like, is that it replies to unwanted packs, instead of 
> staying silent.

Will ZoneAlarm work on ROS?  I know that it stays silent, ignoring 
"unwanted packs".  I don't think it's open source, but it works well on 
windows.

[David Hinz]

Ralph Shumaker schrieb:
> jh wrote:
> > I have been using the i-safer firewall, so I look like having to use 
> > another one.
> > I like the way it is so unobtrusive, no pop-up windows announcing 
> > that someone wants to ping my machine.
> > What I don't like, is that it replies to unwanted packs, instead of 
> > staying silent.
>
> Will ZoneAlarm work on ROS?  I know that it stays silent, ignoring 
> "unwanted packs".  I don't think it's open source, but it works well 
> on windows.
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

Since the goal of ROS is to be binary compatible with Windows NT, I 
would say yes, but I also think ZoneAlarm is a horrible Firewall, there 
are many better Firewalls available.
The best solution would be to create a new Firewall for ROS or change an 
existing one the way we want it, to include it in ROS.

Greets,

David Hinz

[Ged Murphy]

David Hinz wrote:
> Ralph Shumaker schrieb:
> > Will ZoneAlarm work on ROS?  I know that it stays silent, ignoring 
> > "unwanted packs".  I don't think it's open source, but it works well 
> > on windows.
>
> Since the goal of ROS is to be binary compatible with Windows NT, I 
> would say yes, but I also think ZoneAlarm is a horrible Firewall, 
> there are many better Firewalls available.
> The best solution would be to create a new Firewall for ROS or change 
> an existing one the way we want it, to include it in ROS.

Considering there is no decent open source firewall available for 
windows, and the fact that including one is a _must_, this is exactly 
what we will be doing.

Ged

[Richard Campbell]

That's your opinion.

Do you know that on this box i've never run a firewall or a virus 
scanner?  Occasionally i'll run a web based scanner to check suspicious 
files, etc. but i've never found need for a firewall/virus scanner.  As 
long as you stay up to date and don't run questionable files you are 
fine.  A firewall is not NEEDED as long as the OS is properly configured 
and working.

Richard

Ged Murphy wrote:
> David Hinz wrote:
> > Ralph Shumaker schrieb:
> > > Will ZoneAlarm work on ROS?  I know that it stays silent, ignoring 
> > > "unwanted packs".  I don't think it's open source, but it works well 
> > > on windows.
> >
> > Since the goal of ROS is to be binary compatible with Windows NT, I 
> > would say yes, but I also think ZoneAlarm is a horrible Firewall, 
> > there are many better Firewalls available.
> > The best solution would be to create a new Firewall for ROS or change 
> > an existing one the way we want it, to include it in ROS.
>
> Considering there is no decent open source firewall available for 
> windows, and the fact that including one is a _must_, this is exactly 
> what we will be doing.
>
> Ged
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[Michael B. Trausch]

Richard Campbell wrote:
> That's your opinion.
>
> Do you know that on this box i've never run a firewall or a virus
> scanner?  Occasionally i'll run a web based scanner to check suspicious
> files, etc. but i've never found need for a firewall/virus scanner.  As
> long as you stay up to date and don't run questionable files you are
> fine.  A firewall is not NEEDED as long as the OS is properly configured
> and working.
>
> Richard

Many users of Windows like things that "just work."  That includes virus
protection and the like.  While I shy away from questionable files and
practices, sometimes prohibitively so, I retain a current, updated virus
scanner on my machine, "just in case."  People I work with aren't always
as careful as I am, and I've found one or two (relatively harmless)
things that way.  It doesn't bother me much, but it is nice to have.
Nobody's perfect.

As far as a firewall... I don't like software firewalls, but many do.
They like their functionality to block things and whatnot.

Also, people just aren't careful.  They don't care.  They click away,
and everything else.  That's 70%, if not more, of the computer users
that you have out there.  If those people aren't protected out of the
box, odds are they won't be -- and that puts the rest of us at risk,
especially if they get something that can do nasty bandwidth hogging things.

When you're talking about "real" end-users, firewalls and virus software
are a must.  They are there to prevent the Internet from falling apart,
in many ways, and while I don't like the fact that they are necessary at
all, they are, and that's a result of the world we live in.

- Mike
-- 
Michael B. Trausch                                      [e-mail]
AIM: MB Trausch                             Jabber:  [e-mail]

[Michael B. Trausch]

crashfourit wrote:
> I would say that the firewall needs to be integrated with the TCP/IP 
> stack and the network API.  This could give better protection for the
>  end user, but it could come with a curse. To do this, we would need
> to make sure that eliminate, as much as possible, the possibility of
> double free and buffer overflow attacks. Also, there need to be an
> option to log were all the traffic is coming from or going to. In
> addition, it needs filter, including incoming traffic, outgoing
> traffic. Also, it need to be able to destignuish between trusted
> addapters and non-trusted addapter with various levels between them.
> It would also be nice to have the option to filter out most
> everything when the screensaver is on or after a certain user
> inactivity period.

I don't know about that idea, really.  It pretty well completely
undermines the ability of the user to make the choice, even if they are
making a completely unreasonable one.  It's the style of forcing things
down one's neck that I just really don't get.

Other operating systems have this sort of thing built into their
kernels, such as Linux and *BSD, but it's not something that has ever
really been built-in to the Windows kernel, and various vendors have
created their custom, third-party solutions to that.  I think that
perhaps the ROS firewall should be something that could be installed in
the Add/Remove Components control panel, like you can add/remove
features to/from Windows using.  I don't think it'd actually be a bad
idea to do that with a lot of things that ReactOS could come "out of the
box" with.  That helps do something that's great:  Give the end-user a
choice.  If the end-user doesn't want to run the ReactOS optimized web
server or the ReactOS firewall, they don't have to.  They can use
anything that they want in its place.

- Mike
-- 
Michael B. Trausch                                      [e-mail]
AIM: MB Trausch                             Jabber:  [e-mail]

[Alex Ionescu]

I don't want to sound like a pedantic asshole, but can you guys stop the 
7KB replies? Some of our members have 56K modems.

1) Don't use HTML
2) Don't include the 
reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply
3) Don't keep forwarding some .vcf attachment on and on and on.

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

crashfourit wrote:
> True choice is needed, so I would add that there would need to be an 
> option to turn off the built in firewall and install one of their 
> choice. But I firmly believe there needs to be a built-in network 
> logging system that is hard to tamper with by other programs that can 
> be turned on or off by the user in the control pannel. The firewall 
> could be set up too that way.

[Sylvain Petreolle]

+1
--- Alex Ionescu [e-mail] a écrit :
> I don't want to sound like a pedantic asshole, but can you guys stop the 
> 7KB replies? Some of our members have 56K modems.
> Don't use HTML
> Don't include the
>
> reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply-to-the-reply
> 3) Don't keep forwarding some .vcf attachment on and on and on.
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu

Kind regards,
Sylvain Petreolle (aka Usurp)
--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Tired of a proprietary Windows on your computer ?
Use free ReactOS instead ( http://www.reactos.org )

[Alex Ionescu]

Hi Richard,

While I agree with your general statement (I don't run an 
antivirus/firewall myself for the same reasons), your argument and 
reasoning is flawed. You are assuming that all exploits that exist are 
patched. They are not. In fact, if you're running Windows XP patched 
with the latest available updates and have your RPC port open (you 
probably do), I can crack your machine -right now-. Without a firewall 
nothing will stop my exploit packet from reaching you; there is no 
published vulnerability for this bug. Do you use IE? I know of 4 
unpatched bugs still in IE6 today that aren't "in the wild". One of them 
can be used to crack your system after going on a web-page. Once again, 
without a firewall, you'll get infected (even with one you will, but the 
payload wouldn't be able to do anything).

Best regards,
Alex Ionescu

Richard Campbell wrote:
> That's your opinion.
>
> Do you know that on this box i've never run a firewall or a virus 
> scanner?  Occasionally i'll run a web based scanner to check 
> suspicious files, etc. but i've never found need for a firewall/virus 
> scanner.  As long as you stay up to date and don't run questionable 
> files you are fine.  A firewall is not NEEDED as long as the OS is 
> properly configured and working.
>
> Richard
>
> Ged Murphy wrote:

[Richard Campbell]

I'll give ya an ip if you'd like :)

Alex Ionescu wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> While I agree with your general statement (I don't run an 
> antivirus/firewall myself for the same reasons), your argument and 
> reasoning is flawed. You are assuming that all exploits that exist are 
> patched. They are not. In fact, if you're running Windows XP patched 
> with the latest available updates and have your RPC port open (you 
> probably do), I can crack your machine -right now-. Without a firewall 
> nothing will stop my exploit packet from reaching you; there is no 
> published vulnerability for this bug. Do you use IE? I know of 4 
> unpatched bugs still in IE6 today that aren't "in the wild". One of 
> them can be used to crack your system after going on a web-page. Once 
> again, without a firewall, you'll get infected (even with one you 
> will, but the payload wouldn't be able to do anything).
>
> Best regards,
> Alex Ionescu
>
> Richard Campbell wrote:
> > That's your opinion.
> >
> > Do you know that on this box i've never run a firewall or a virus 
> > scanner?  Occasionally i'll run a web based scanner to check 
> > suspicious files, etc. but i've never found need for a firewall/virus 
> > scanner.  As long as you stay up to date and don't run questionable 
> > files you are fine.  A firewall is not NEEDED as long as the OS is 
> > properly configured and working.
> >
> > Richard
> >
> > Ged Murphy wrote:
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[crashfourit]

There's an old saying that goes like this: "It is better to be safe than 
sorry." I would like to have a superb firewall and virus scanner with 
the OS correctly configered.  It just makes harder for something to go 
wrong.

Richard Campbell wrote:
> I'll give ya an ip if you'd like :)
>
> Alex Ionescu wrote:
> > Hi Richard,
> >
> > While I agree with your general statement (I don't run an 
> > antivirus/firewall myself for the same reasons), your argument and 
> > reasoning is flawed. You are assuming that all exploits that exist 
> > are patched. They are not. In fact, if you're running Windows XP 
> > patched with the latest available updates and have your RPC port open 
> > (you probably do), I can crack your machine -right now-. Without a 
> > firewall nothing will stop my exploit packet from reaching you; there 
> > is no published vulnerability for this bug. Do you use IE? I know of 
> > 4 unpatched bugs still in IE6 today that aren't "in the wild". One of 
> > them can be used to crack your system after going on a web-page. Once 
> > again, without a firewall, you'll get infected (even with one you 
> > will, but the payload wouldn't be able to do anything).
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Alex Ionescu
> >
> > Richard Campbell wrote:
> > > That's your opinion.
> > >
> > > Do you know that on this box i've never run a firewall or a virus 
> > > scanner?  Occasionally i'll run a web based scanner to check 
> > > suspicious files, etc. but i've never found need for a 
> > > firewall/virus scanner.  As long as you stay up to date and don't 
> > > run questionable files you are fine.  A firewall is not NEEDED as 
> > > long as the OS is properly configured and working.
> > >
> > > Richard
> > >
> > > Ged Murphy wrote:
> >
> > ros-general mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[Michael B. Trausch]

crashfourit wrote:
> There's an old saying that goes like this: "It is better to be safe than
> sorry." I would like to have a superb firewall and virus scanner with
> the OS correctly configered.  It just makes harder for something to go
> wrong.

In some cases, it's kind of like the concept of mating:  If you don't do
it, you can't have some of the risks that come with it.  However, in all
honesty and seriousness, there are only a few things that you must do to
be absolutely safe, and they're easy, but they aren't something that
someone in today's world would probably be willing to do:

* Don't use the Internet.  Unplug entirely from phone lines and
      networks.
    * Don't insert any media into your workstation, whatsoever,
      including from "trusted" sources.  See the Sony hooplah for
      example.

Otherwise, if you're going to use things, use them smartly.  You cannot
count on the "general" public doing that, however, which is part of the
reason for virus-scanners and firewalls and the like.  I hide my machine
behind a firewalling NAT so that nobody can get into it, not because it
isn't properly configured, but because I'm not going to give someone the
chance to get in where there may be another exploit lurking.  Think
about how many lines of code are in Windows XP and its related services
and applications.  I'm willing to bet, with the steady stream of updates
ever-flowing from Microsoft, that there are more exploits then what is
known about, be they remote, local, DoS, bugs, whatever.

Regardless, no computer is truly safe:  Even if the only network that
touches it is SneakerNet, people can get at it and do nasty things to
it.  Precautions just make sense, and they should be available if it's
possible, and ultimately, the end-user should be able to exercise their
right to choose what firewall/anti-virus configuration suits them.

- Mike
-- 
Michael B. Trausch                                      [e-mail]
AIM: MB Trausch                             Jabber:  [e-mail]

[Wesley Parish]

On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:47, Ged Murphy wrote:
> David Hinz wrote:
> > Ralph Shumaker schrieb:
> > > Will ZoneAlarm work on ROS?  I know that it stays silent, ignoring
> > > "unwanted packs".  I don't think it's open source, but it works well
> > > on windows.
> >
> > Since the goal of ROS is to be binary compatible with Windows NT, I
> > would say yes, but I also think ZoneAlarm is a horrible Firewall,
> > there are many better Firewalls available.
> > The best solution would be to create a new Firewall for ROS or change
> > an existing one the way we want it, to include it in ROS.
>
> Considering there is no decent open source firewall available for
> windows, and the fact that including one is a _must_, this is exactly
> what we will be doing.

I've thought occasionally, since the MS Win[9N][xT] TCP/IP stack is based on 
the *BSD one, that it should be possible to adapt the OpenBSD firewall/s to 
the MS Win-compatible TCP/IP stack.  I thought of it when my Mum's MS Win05 
box went online, but haven't had the time to do anything about it.

What do people think?

Wesley Parish
> Ged
>
> ros-general mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.reactos.org/mailman/listinfo/ros-general
-- 
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.

[jh]

Ralph Shumaker wrote:
> jh wrote:
> > I have been using the i-safer firewall, so I look like having to use 
> > another one.
> > I like the way it is so unobtrusive, no pop-up windows announcing that 
> > someone wants to ping my machine.
> > What I don't like, is that it replies to unwanted packs, instead of 
> > staying silent.
>
> Will ZoneAlarm work on ROS?  I know that it stays silent, ignoring 
> "unwanted packs".  I don't think it's open source, but it works well on 
> windows.
> _______________________________________________
> ros-general mailing list

I now use 'SoftPerfect Personal Firewall', it past the test at gr.com
(ShieldUP page) with flying colours, totally silent.

Here are some paragraphs from their help page

SoftPerfect Personal Firewall works at the NDIS level and it is not able to
determine what application is trying to access the Internet or a network
resource. However, it is able to catch non-IP packets such as ARP or NETWARE.

License agreement

This software is provided 'as-is', without any express or implied
warranty. In no event will the authors be held liable for any damages
arising from the use of this software.

Permission is granted to anyone to use this software for any purpose,
excluding commercial use, and redistribute it freely.

If you wish to use the software for commercial purposes please contact us
at [e-mail] to obtain a commercial license.

I hope that this one is not in the wrong place.

Regards,
jh