Jetico Firewall User Reviews

[Bob Adkins]

According to a few scattered comments I have seen, Jetico firewall appears
to be promising. Has anyone tried it, and what's your opinions? Even rumors
would be appreciated at this point!

Bob

 

[Bill Rowland]

According to a few scattered comments I have seen, Jetico firewall appears
to be promising. Has anyone tried it, and what's your opinions? Even rumors
would be appreciated at this point!

Bob

Depends on the OS in question. I tried it this weekend (Saturday)
and the dang thing kept asking for permission for the kernel to access
the net. No matter what I did it, repeatedly, kept asking, so much in
fact that it significantly slowed the computer. To the point that I
had to disable it. That's when I got hijacked by several viscous
little programs. I just now (today) getting all the pieces put back
together here.

Body count:

1029 files missing
459 files deleted
634 files corrupted

Applications messed up:

Netscape v7.1
SlimBrowser v3.99.01
SuperBrowser
Photo Express v3.0
IE6 SP1

This is the KNOWN summary until a few minutes ago. I've managed to
get almost all the applications back up and running, but not all of
them are back to 100%. I may have to reformat and re-install everything.

What really ticked me off was the strange behavior with the Control
Panel. When I finally, and belatedly, decide to remove it the
un-install program hung the computer. The CPL worked just fine in SAFE
Mode, but in "normal" mode it opened a blank CPL and hung the machine
after a few minutes. I re-installed the Jetico personal Firewall and
everything was back to "normal operation", so long as I kept the cable
modem off line. The moment that I turned the cable modem back on the
problems started up again.

I have a BIG "Thank You" message to write to the makers of
"Add-Remove Pro v2.08" (Freeware) as it let me remove the program when
I couldn't get access to Control Panel.

One other point of interest should be noted. One of the programs
that infected the browser was a program that added a ToolBar function
to the Browser. Following some online instructions on the removal of
this "toolbar" I un-installed it. Using the provided application
(WUninst or something along those lines) STOPPED the computer COLD, in
it's tracks.

It worked "normally", i.e. it said it removed everything. But it
stated that you needed to restart the computer, in order for it to
finish removing all the files. Seemed like a normal enough request to
me. (BAD IDEA) Upon reboot the machine hung every time. Finally got
into Safe Mode and removed the un-installation program from the
startup section.

All of this caused by a firewall that is NOT ready for prime time
(yet)! Plus a few minutes (maybe and hour or two?) online with a
partially working firewall. AND one big IDIOT trying to make it work,
when I should have shut it down and gotten rid of it pronto.

Keep in mind most of these problems were caused by me "trying" to
make it work. Would I try this firewall again? Yes, when it gets a
little more mature. Right now? I'd stay away from it.

Another lesson learned the hard way I guess <G>.

HTH

Bill

 

[Aaron]

Very astute of you to ask others to try it first.

All of this caused by a firewall that is NOT ready for prime time
(yet)! Plus a few minutes (maybe and hour or two?) online with a
partially working firewall. AND one big IDIOT trying to make it work,
when I should have shut it down and gotten rid of it pronto.

Keep in mind most of these problems were caused by me "trying" to
make it work. Would I try this firewall again? Yes, when it gets a
little more mature. Right now? I'd stay away from it.

Another lesson learned the hard way I guess <G>.

HTH

Sometimes I wonder, why people actually trial new firewalls that they
know nothing about.

To find a more secure firewall?

Let's face it, most of us just don't have the experience, knowledge or
ability to tell whether a given firewall is really better than one of the
more established ones (no, downloading leak tests or going to grc for a
port scan doesn't count), so it doesn't make sense for us to trial it for
that purpose in mind.

This is as opposed to say an antispam feature, where we have concrete
stats to measure performance, or even browsers, where features can be
subjectively evaluated.

That reason alone, makes me very unlikely to trial a new unkwown
firewall. Even if the firewall appears to be faster, less memory hungry,
who knows if it is really doing it's job? And what use is a firewall that
you are unsure of?

Then perhaps it's to check out new features? Well the last time I checked
most firewalls have about the same features (leaving aside
coolnametechnobabble feature that turns out on close inspection to be
something mundane)

I understand that this is a forum about freeware and naturally people
like to try stuff, but I'm personally very wary about testing stuff like
firewalls that very few people have tested. Since a firewall (and
antivirus as well thesedays) integretes itself to the very lowest levels
of your system, and when something goes wrong, you better hope your
backups are up to scratch or you are using it on a test machine.

Using something more established isn't foolproof, but at least
you know that it has being tried on a large number of systems and that at
least it works reasonably.


Of course, the problem is that if everyone followed this advise, no one
would dare start the ball rolling by testing. So I salute the brave soul
who did this!

 

[Bob Adkins]

Keep in mind most of these problems were caused by me "trying" to
make it work. Would I try this firewall again? Yes, when it gets a
little more mature. Right now? I'd stay away from it.

Another lesson learned the hard way I guess <G>.

Thanks Bill. That was a wonderful, er, review.

You may have saved me a ton of grief, so I'm in your debt!

Bob

 

[Bob Adkins]

Very astute of you to ask others to try it first.

Aww come on now Aaron! Is the above statement asking others to try the
firewall? What part of "Has anyone tried it" don't you understand? You have
a very bad habit of reading things into my posts that aren't there, and I
believe it's intentional. Now you need to do the right thing, or you're no
better than a common troll.

Bob

 

[Aaron]

Aww come on now Aaron! Is the above statement asking others to try the
firewall? What part of "Has anyone tried it" don't you understand?
You have a very bad habit of reading things into my posts that aren't
there, and I believe it's intentional. Now you need to do the right
thing, or you're no better than a common troll.

Bob, looks like you misunderstood my comment. I was just joking around.
No malice was intended.

Bob

Aaron (my email is not munged!)

 

[Bob Adkins]

Bob, looks like you misunderstood my comment. I was just joking around.
No malice was intended.

OK, I'll recall my hit man. You can sleep tonight.

Bob

 

[Bill Rowland]

Thanks Bill. That was a wonderful, er, review.

You may have saved me a ton of grief, so I'm in your debt!

Bob

Bob, I'm not saying that it won't work perfectly with your system! It
may do just that.

But, like you I wouldn't put a whole lot of faith in one persons
results. Mine was bad, but that doesn't mean that I'm "gun shy", just
that I'll wait a while before I try again. On the other hand you may
have an even WORSE experience. I just don't know how it will turn out in
your case.

For me it was my "test machine". It's where I try these things out,
and try to recover them when it all goes wrong. It's an exact copy of
this machine I'm on right now, i.e. I Ghost an image every night and use
that on the test machine. It's a lot safer that way and I can try all
those "neat'O / peachy keen'O / be-all-do-all" programs that will fix a
sick machine. Beleive it or not some of them actually work (sometimes <G>)!

HTH

Bill

 

[Bob Adkins]

that on the test machine. It's a lot safer that way and I can try all
those "neat'O / peachy keen'O / be-all-do-all" programs that will fix a
sick machine. Beleive it or not some of them actually work (sometimes <G>)!

Hey Bill,

You obviously know what you're doing, and I give your personal experience a
lot of weight.

I know all too well that software can work great on 1 machine and give
itself a wedgie on the next. That's often the nature of Beta software until
it's run on a lot of different configurations.

I usually read reviews around the web, such as here on ACF, and at
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/1077527060/1
In the case of a firewall, the reviews would have to be numerous, and 90%
favorable before I would install it. Not many programs can hose a system
quite like a firewall!

Again, thanks for your review. I'm glad it was on a tryout machine!

Bob

 

[Bill Rowland]

Hey Bill,

You obviously know what you're doing, and I give your personal experience a
lot of weight.

I know all too well that software can work great on 1 machine and give
itself a wedgie on the next. That's often the nature of Beta software until
it's run on a lot of different configurations.

I usually read reviews around the web, such as here on ACF, and at
http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/1077527060/1
In the case of a firewall, the reviews would have to be numerous, and 90%
favorable before I would install it. Not many programs can hose a system
quite like a firewall!

Again, thanks for your review. I'm glad it was on a tryout machine!

Bob

You are most welcome.

Now for the "fun" (?) part! Fixing the broke machine.

If I can that's great! If NOT? Ghost is hanging around on the network
drive, so it won't be a total loss <G>! So far got eveything back except
NS v7.1. Got it installed but it won't run!?! Or more appropriately it
"acts like" it's going to start, i.e. lots of disk activity, but aftert
5 or ten secons .... nothing. Drive stops accessing. Ran a couple of
programs, to se what was going on. The boot loader fires up and ten
terminates after 6 or seven seconds. No errors or anything. The problem
is that this is a FULL re-install of the program and should have setup
all the registry stuf properly.

As you can see I like fixing screw up's as much as I like trying new
programs. Both are a challenge <G>. Like they "some days you get the
bear, and then some days the bear gets you" <BG>.....

TC

Bill

 

[jo]

I understand that this is a forum about freeware and naturally people
like to try stuff, but I'm personally very wary about testing stuff like
firewalls that very few people have tested.

I'm not.

I reckon I am the one in charge of my puter and trust my ability to
bodge my way out of trouble.
You pick an app you like the look of in principle and then you see
what it does. Throw a few leak test apps to check its app/outgoing
protection then off to hackerwhacker.com for a few port scans.
It's a bit of a nuisance in all of this that Outpost (for example) is
proclaiming an upcoming (current?) build as passing leak tests since
it is obviously simple to incorporate that functionality into any FW.
The leak tests that you want to pass are the ones the FW has not been
programmed to deal with.

Since a firewall (and
antivirus as well thesedays) integretes itself to the very lowest levels
of your system, and when something goes wrong, you better hope your
backups are up to scratch or you are using it on a test machine.

You don't really want to be testing any apps on a machine that you
can't afford to have fall over on you. I was once asked to look at a
machine that was randomly disfunctional across the board... turned out
the culprit was a hairdressing app she had installed from a cover
disk.
As for the 'integration to the very lowest levels'... this is one of
the things I look for an app not to do, and is a reason i have stayed
with an old build of AVP for so long. I hate the 'lowest level
integration' that some apps have and will look at anything to see if
it is small and efficient. If I turn a firewall off, I expect it to be
turned off, not nannying me by thinking i am too stupid to know what I
am doing by turning it off. I've put loads of time recently into
Look'n'Stop, a lovely lightweight buyware firewall that stops when you
tell it to. Unfortunately it looks like I might have to bin it because
it fails my 'easy to configure' test which is a real pity.

I'm rambling, will stop now...

 

[Aaron]

I'm not.

I reckon I am the one in charge of my puter and trust my ability to
bodge my way out of trouble.

Nice to be sure, but being able to roll back is even surer

You pick an app you like the look of in principle and then you see
what it does. Throw a few leak test apps to check its app/outgoing
protection then off to hackerwhacker.com for a few port scans.
It's a bit of a nuisance in all of this that Outpost (for example) is
proclaiming an upcoming (current?) build as passing leak tests since
it is obviously simple to incorporate that functionality into any FW.
The leak tests that you want to pass are the ones the FW has not been
programmed to deal with.

Well not sure what you mean, but if the firewall produces a rough hack
that stops only that *specific* leak test but not another one based on
the same idea than no, it doesn't help.

As for the 'integration to the very lowest levels'... this is one of
the things I look for an app not to do, and is a reason i have stayed
with an old build of AVP for so long. I hate the 'lowest level
integration' that some apps have and will look at anything to see if
it is small and efficient. If I turn a firewall off, I expect it to be
turned off, not nannying me by thinking i am too stupid to know what I
am doing by turning it off.

You know how it is with malware turning off firewalls, so I suspect
firewalls these days are very tough to shut down and occasionally they
even prevent you from uninstalling as some users of ZA free have found.

I know it's not supposed to prevent *you* from shutting it down, but how
does it know it's you? I like the way processguard does it, using
captcha.


I've put loads of time recently into

Look'n'Stop, a lovely lightweight buyware firewall that stops when you
tell it to. Unfortunately it looks like I might have to bin it because
it fails my 'easy to configure' test which is a real pity.

I'm rambling, will stop now...

Yes indeed since you just mentioned payware which is OT here?

 

[Bob Adkins]

You know how it is with malware turning off firewalls, so I suspect
firewalls these days are very tough to shut down and occasionally they
even prevent you from uninstalling as some users of ZA free have found.

I remember that all too well. Not pleasant memories either. After I
exorcised ZA loose from my system, I never even considered using it again.
It turned out to be a good thing. I didn't like the interface anyway, and I
had to audition some new fire walls, which I ended up liking a lot more than
ZA.

Bob

 

[jo]

Nice to be sure, but being able to roll back is even surer

Unless this implies the ghastly 'system restore'.

I went to restore an earlier registry today to try to get out of a
mess, only to find I had disabled backing up, and my only backup
option was from last Christmas.
I'll never be a techie.

Well not sure what you mean, but if the firewall produces a rough hack
that stops only that *specific* leak test but not another one based on
the same idea than no, it doesn't help.

That's what I meant, yes

You know how it is with malware turning off firewalls, so I suspect
firewalls these days are very tough to shut down and occasionally they
even prevent you from uninstalling as some users of ZA free have found.

I know it's not supposed to prevent *you* from shutting it down, but how
does it know it's you? I like the way processguard does it, using
captcha.

I'm not that scared of malware that I want protecting form it to that
degree. I never want software that takes control away from me.

Malware's only ever going to get onto my puter if I get sloppy and
invite it in...

 

[Bob Adkins]

I'm not that scared of malware that I want protecting form it to that
degree. I never want software that takes control away from me.

Malware's only ever going to get onto my puter if I get sloppy and
invite it in...

Watch it Jo. Words like that will get you burned at the stake.

Your words remind me of being invited to a beautiful island, with beautiful
beaches, babes, and terrific food. Only catch is, you have to wear a 150
pound suit of armor...

Bob

 

[Aaron]

Watch it Jo. Words like that will get you burned at the stake.

Why? The statement is perfectly logical. The only problem is the word
"if"....