 | May 16 2007 |
8OO8 Well, this question was posted one year and nine months ago yet the developer has NOT replied. Perhaps the developer's silence speaks volumes, no? Unless I see any evidence to the contrary, I'd say that if you've got OS 10.4 installed and have its firewall enabled, UDP blocked and Stealth enabled, IPNetSentry is superfluous......unnecessary. Anyone disagree? Hmmm?
(Version 1.6c3) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
 | May 18 2007 |
PETER SICHEL As amazing as it may seem, some developers don't check here that often. Unlike many other firewall products, IPNetSentryX is not simply a GUI front end to UNIX ipfw. It is a full in kernel filtering engine that offers features not available anywhere else and compliments Apple's built-in firewall (you can use both side-by-side if you wish). - Detailed logging including bandwidth accounting. - Traffic Discovery to see the traffic on your network. - Intrusion detector and triggers to limit unwanted abuse. - Ethernet bridging to support transparent firewalls. - TCP Rate limiting to throttle the rate of specific services. - Network Kernel implimentation is wicked fast. IPNetSentryX is not trying to compete with Apple's GUI to UNIX ipfw, it's an independent implementation offering capabilities others don't. - Peter Sichel
(Version 1.6c3) | |
| Aug 16 2005 |
SIG I've got a really stupid question. Someone help me understand. Why would this be needed at all if stealth mode in Tiger was being used? In pinging my computer via 'test' of this software, there is zero result, therefore, my IP doesn't show up, or shows up in the software itself as 0.0.0.0. So I'm lead to believe through all the testing I tried at the online site, that this thing doesn't really do anyone any good, or am I just totally lost? Simply curious. I would imagine for anyone not using Tiger, this could be pretty nifty. Sorry, I simply have yet to see any issues with simple firewall settings, blocking UDP, enabling stealth (especially this) and I'm wondering what good this software actually does. None of the testing I did ever received a result at all. My computer was essentially not there for the online test system to indicate anything. IPNnetSentryX showed zero intruder results in the tab, nor notified me of any attempt to 'break in'. I don't get it. Please respond. I'd like to learn more. I won't provide a 'star rating' review as a result, as I feel any rating I may give would be unfair to the developers of a neat idea.
(Version 1.3c6) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| May 10 2007 |
ADFASDFASDFASDF This is EXACTLY what I intended to ask. :-)
(Version 1.6c2x) | |
| Jul 29 2005 |
ANONYMOUS Netbarrier has to be beat!!
(Version 1.3c6) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
 | Jan 20 2005 |
ANONYMOUS2 I agree with anonymous. Unless you're an expert, this guy doesn't want to answer any quesrions. Check out other sites reviews , too.
(Version 1.2.05) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jan 7 2005 |
HUBERT I cannot agree to the 'anonymous' comment below. I had instantly several replies from the developer and they were quite helpful. Good product, good support!
(Version 1.2.03) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 18 2004 |
ANONYMOUS I tried to contact the developers many times about six months ago and could not get a single response, and that was for a simple volume license agreement. If that is the type of response for sales, I can only imagine how hard it might be to get simple support.
(Version 1.2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Nov 8 2004 |
3818 WELL, all of the detractors should try the latest version! I have used IPNS for two years in Mac OS 9.x for two years: Truly, an great protection application! Now with OSX 10.3.6, IPNSX has matured into an EXCELLENT Firewall application. In fact, the truly neat thing is YOU can run BOTH IPNSX with Apple's inboard OSX firewall (w/o any conflict). You might say THIS combo IS TRULY an "Internet Condom" for the 21st. Century! Select all of the default rules, and RELAX: You are protected!
(Version 1.2c6) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Nov 13 2004 |
ANONYMOUS If only they had a company that responded to inquiries, I would have purchased long ago. As it stands, it is almost impossible to reach any of them. They list an e-mail address, but never answer it. I suppose they will answer it if it contains a credit card number.
(Version 1.2c7) | |
| Jul 15 2004 |
BASTIBENSE Why? Just block everything except the ports you want to use with some help of the Kernel firewall. :/
(Version 1.2c5) | |
| [ 1 Reply - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| Nov 8 2004 |
3818 Sorry YOU had a bad experience!
(Version 1.2c6) | |
| Mar 24 2004 |
STEPHEN KEESE I used IPNetSentry for OS 8 and 9 and liked the ability to identify the owner of the IP address where an intrusion attempt originated. I was able to warn the sysadmin at a local biotech company that a machine on his network was trying to probe my Mac within 10 minutes of the probe. He was very grateful for the notification. For me this sort of software makes it easy to be a good netizen. I haven't tried the current version but will soon.
(Version 1.2c2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Mar 24 2004 |
CRISPIN SATCHEMOE The idea behind this is a good idea (FYI - it is different from a firewall in that if a certain IP address is hammering away at your ports the app is supposed to block them specifically. They may never get through your ports with only the firewall but they are generating traffic that could slow or stop your server's internet access... an app like this claims to be is supposed to shut them out utterly and completely.) That said, because of the low reviews, I will not try this out.
(Version 1.2c2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jul 31 2003 |
SEAMUS FINNEGAN MULDOON O'REILLY I have tried 2 or 3 previous versions of this software and was unable to grok its vibe. I haven't had a drink since January 8, 1991 so this may be the problem. Anyway, this version runs which I guess is an improvement of sorts. Unfortunately, it makes my system less secure than running no firewall at all. When I go to the test site with IPNetSentry enabled my LAN address is grabbed. If I go to the same site with IPNestSentry and ipfw both disabled no info other than the IP address of my DSL modem is found. This makes me uncomfortable about IPNetSentry.
(Version 1.1c3) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
| Jun 28 2003 |
ANONYMOUS I don't see the big deal of 'intelligent' firewall software for a UNIX based system. Why not use the free Brickhouse to configure the built in firewall of Mac OS X?
(Version 1.1c1) | |
| [ 2 Replies - Reply ] | |
Replies:
| May 24 2004 |
ANONYMOUS Brickhouse isn't, in fact, free: it's $25.00 shareware.
(Version 1.2c3) | |
| Jun 24 2004 |
BEANER What is the purpose of these utilities that claim to configure the built-in OS X firewall? Why do they even exist? It seems extremely straightforward to me and I'm no rocket scientist... Maybe I misunderstood something and everyone is talking about some better/complex firewall, and not the one that is easily GUI-configurable in sysprefs::sharing::firewall. (?)
(Version 1.2c4) | |
| Feb 17 2003 |
3818 CAUTION: I have a real problem with this beta: 1. I have used IPNetSentry in MacOS 9.x.x with very good results, because Sustainable Softworks provided a default set of rules for end-users like me. THIS is not the case in the current beta. 2. I am currently using Apple's OX firewall in 10.2.4 in combination with SNORT NIDS; SunShield and HenWen; this combination works well with OSX and are included with OSX ,or are available as freeware on VersionTracker! 3.Sustainable Softworks needs to work on a BETTER install/uninstall facility and a default set of end-user rules, than currently available. 4. I agree with the pendents: do your homework before using this beta
(Version 1.0b2) | |
| [ Reply ] | |
|
Main
