Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online in Security http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r15862468 en Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:56:30 EDT Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:56:30 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15879669 CrazyM :
said by jvmorris See Profile :

And CrazyM definitely had a website on customizing rules for AtGuard and (the early versions of) NIS/NPF.
Still available at http://www.crazym.ca/nis/index.html

Regards,

CrazyM
--
"The best thing we can do in cyberspace is exactly what we do in the real world: do our best to manage the risks." - Bruce Schneier]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15879669 Wed, 12 Apr 2006 02:57:53 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15874757 jvmorris : It is rather interesting how situations change, isn't it? ;)

When I first became concerned about firewalls back in 1999, I was on a dial-up connection with a single PC. From there I progressed to a dial-up connection supporting a local LAN (which relied on Microsoft's Internet Connection Sharing (ICS) software). Amazingly, I found that AG still worked fairly well in this situation (but it did miss a few things) while installed on the gateway machine. There was, however, the little matter of doing some customization to Microsoft's default setting for ICS, at least at that time.

Later on, I got an SMC Barricade 7004 ABR. It was (and is, I think) one of the few NAT routers that supported dial-up connections. Between its NAT functionality and rudimentary firewalling, it pretty much eliminated a lot of the unsolicited intrusions that I had devoted excessive time to for years. Unfortunately, the 7004 ABR worked quite nicely, but logged very little of the traffic it was stopping. I felt suddenly very 'left out' on knowing what was happening 'out there'. (I didn't have a spare box to stuff into a DMZ.) All of my software firewalls pretty much went quiet at that point. (AG, NIS/NPF, Sygate, TPF/KPF) Indeed, at this point, what I refer to as PSFs (Personal Software Firewalls), became much more discriminating and (in that sense) much more useful in what I saw in their logs.

Indeed, everything I subsequently saw fell into one of three categories:
• Something I'd installed (on one or more of the PCs here) trying to initiate an outbound communication. Mostly these were innocuous, but every now and then, . . . .
• An indication that one of the kids had changed the configuration on one of their PCs and that was consequently trying to do something on the LAN that I didn't want being done on the LAN.
• An indication that one of the kids had gotten sucked into installing something on one of their PCs that I will kindly describe as crapware, if not downright malware.
So, the 7004 ABR Router itself was a big bonus in cutting down on maintenance and management activities. It also picked up some attempted WAN intrusions that looked quite innocuous when I had been relying on AG on the ICS host machine. (Indeed, these were about the only thing the 7004 ABR ever logged!)

When I changed my connection from dial-up to DSL, I ended up with a new, combination DSL modem/NAT router/hardware firewall (it was part of the package) and things actually got quite boring as far as the installed PSFs were concerned. (And that was probably a good thing as Symantec started distributing buggy LiveUpdates for the single version of NIS that I was still running.)

Now, the PSFs are primarily for intra-LAN security purposes here. If I had a laptop that got connected sometimes here and sometimes at work or travelled, it would most definitely have a PSF on it. (And one of those will be coming into the mix rather shortly, I suspect.) Similarly, if our machines had multiple Internet connections -- some dial-up, some via a LAN DSL connection, some via a LAN cable connection, and especially any relying on wireless LAN connectivity, you can bet your bippy it's not going to get used here until it's got a PSF installed.

That's almost enough pontification for the moment -- with one exception: I'm now starting to look for something that will integrate logs from various PSFs (I use a different PSF on each box) and the hardware firewall on the NAT router. (I see another development project coming. ;) )
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15874757 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 13:33:36 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15874309 Thomas M : What a wonderful "Retro"-thread ;)

said by jvmorris See Profile :

I don't think anyone knew (or was ever willing to divulge) just who "AtGuard" was;
Yes, the moderator "AtGuard" was a real mystery! I also believe, he/she might have been a former programmer of WRQ...

Well, after upgrading my machine to Win2k I finally switched to "Look n' Stop". Not the perfect firewall. But I like it, since it is slim & tight as AtGuard was in the good old days ;)

Thomas :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15874309 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 12:18:42 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15873156 Nitrox : Atguard was the first firewall I used and it was awesome for it's time. When Symantec took over, I did use Norton Internet Security version 1 and it was also pretty good as it was not that much different from Atguard. From version 2 and on I stopped using Norton because it had become bloated and fully taken over by Symantec.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15873156 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 08:58:28 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15872200 Khaine : Its so sad that Atguard died off, and that most firewalls that took its place i.e. kerio have also fell away. I think only really 8-Signs is left in this market segment.

I really hope that the development team can restore atguard to its former glory. I only used it briefly but the impression it left on me; and the members of the forums supporting it are ever lasting, and is one of the major reasons I am so interested in IT security.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15872200 Tue, 11 Apr 2006 01:30:28 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15870725 LoPhatPhuud : This was great news for me. I found about AtGuard about the time it went to Symantec. I used it for a short period, but then went NPF. As with all the Symantec products I ahve used over the years, the bloatware factory eventually drove me away.

Currently I use Kerio 2.1.5, and while it serves the simple purpose I installed it for, its it reaching the end of its usefulness. I tried Kerio v4 on my Desktop and laptop and it failed miserably on both.

On the Desktop, there is a problem that causes Adobe Creative Suite 2 programs to lock up using over 50% of the CPU. On the laptop, Kerio v4 refuses to recognize the active wireless adpater and instead locks into the unconnected NIC and I end up with a 169.254 address.
--
When angry count four; when very angry, swear.
Microsoft MVP Windows-Security 2005
Gladiator Security Forum]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15870725 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 21:41:19 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15870341 jvmorris : Speaking of old timers, someone was looking for aa. Don't suppose you have any idea, do you? Hasn't logged in here in ages, apparently.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15870341 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:43:51 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15870323 BlitzenZeus : It is nice to see more of the people who were part of the AtGuard forums, a few of us like jvmorris See Profile and hpguru See Profile found ourselves here for other reasons towards the end, along with all the forum moves.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15870323 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:41:03 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15870289 hpguru : Hey its great to see you Albert! And welcome to DSLR! :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15870289 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 20:37:39 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15869862 Jrb2 : Big welcome back Albert :)
It's really so good to hear from you again !

Most warmest regards, Jan.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15869862 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:32:44 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15869843 ghost16825 : Will it be open source?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15869843 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 19:31:01 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15869588 albjan : Jan, thanks for informing me.
Looks like a reunion thread, all that names from the past (jvmorris, hpguru, svs, jrb2 etc. etc.)
Nice to see you guys.
Hope that the new AtGuard will have the same performance as the old one.

Regards, Albert.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15869588 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:51:55 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15869140 hpguru :
said by BlitzenZeus See Profile :

AtGuard has no/poor support for newer NT operating systems, and doesn't run properly on new NT operating systems, so unless people are still using their old computer which should be retired for everyday use not many people are going to be running it.
AtGuard v3.3 beta supposedly resolves those compatibility issues but I have yet to test it. I know where you are coming from however. I am willing to give it a shot just to see if these guys can pull it off but I will need some very compelling reasons to switch from 8Signs to AtGuard.
--
Get hpHOSTS! Member ASAP
hpHOSTS Online
Paranoia is no substitute for understanding.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15869140 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 17:36:01 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15868881 BlitzenZeus : AtGuard has no/poor support for newer NT operating systems, and doesn't run properly on new NT operating systems, so unless people are still using their old computer which should be retired for everyday use not many people are going to be running it.

I haven't ran it for years, once XP came out I had to move to another firewall, and I have been using Kerio 2.x which was Tiny 2.x for years since.

It was a great firewall, but even the addons people have wrote don't make up for certain things, I find that Tiny/Kerio 2.x is much easier to configure when it comes to the firewall part of AtGuard, I was able to drop about 1/3 of my rules with the move to Tiny/Kerio, which also allows for easier ICS configurations.

The only people running it now are die-hards, or people who didn't buy the software, usually the latter....
--
My hourly rates:
$25 per hour.
$35 per hour if you want to watch.
$45 per hour if you want to help.
$75 per hour if you tried to fix it, and failed.
The biggest error is sitting in front of your keyboard.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15868881 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 16:59:53 EDT Re: Great News! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15867891 lawrence171 :
said by Bill_MI See Profile :

The 2.x fwdrv.sys has been plaqued by instability. Some never see it, others see it regularly. I'm in the middle on this one. Also of late, fwdrv.sys seems to be 100% *incompatible* with WinPCap 3.1 when used with Ethereal.

I tried Kerio 4... not bad but if AtGuard regenerates it was THE best IMHO. I rate Kerio/Tiny as #2 but instability like rolling dice.

EDIT: I figure someone noticed how supply of the AtGuard-like market has sure dried up in the last year. Sunbelt does seem to be the only serious competitor.
I had the fwdrv.sys error as well. IRQ_NOT_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL blue screen? I resolved mine via driver updates for all my network component drivers.

I hope AtGuard will come back with all the modernizations as well.
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15867891 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:42:18 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15866495 ZZZZZZZ : Still use it on my 98 drive..:)
--
Go Leafs Go...lol :)
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15866495 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 10:59:54 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15865657 hpguru : Agreed. The firewall driver will have to be rewritten as well because filtering at the TDI layer is no longer sufficient protection.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15865657 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:59:27 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15865639 Cudni : If rejuvenated AtGuard can deliver on its promise of delivering a pure firewall product unencumbered by various non firewall addons that its competitors have implemented while keeping streamlined GUI and allowing for fine control of it then it will gather following of loyal users that would rival those that rallied for the battle of Middle Earth :)

Cudni]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15865639 Mon, 10 Apr 2006 06:46:11 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864501 Khaine : Atguard is coming back?

Sweet!

Ever since atguard development was halted I've been looking for a firewall to replace it. Kerio did an admirable job, but didn't work with hibernation and kept locking up. Currently I'm looking at core force, as it looks promising, but a returned reinvigorated atguard would make for worthy competition.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864501 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 23:11:56 EDT Re: Great News! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864373 Bill_MI : I have an Agent Instance of Dave's complete AtGuard newsgroup if anyone needs it. 1/12/03 thru 9/29/05. Forgot I had it. :-)

Aha... I think the most promising SP4 'fix' was SP3's tcpip.sys. I think I decided not to go there.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864373 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:47:23 EDT Re: Great News! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864292 jvmorris : Yeah, at least the fundamental file authentication issue needs to be addressed, but that's not exactly a difficult problem.

As I recall, the 'path check' problem was an anomaly resulting from Microsoft's change in the API that WRQ was relying upon; not a problem in the application itself. (It would do the fully qualified filepathname check on Win 98 SE here, but not on the Win 2000 Pro box, when we got it.)

And the version of Tiny that then became available? Well, many of us thought it was so much like AtGuard that we wondered if it was a rip-off concocted by disaffected WRQ developers. (Apparently, this was not the case; and -- if we could reverse engineer the logging functionality -- it's not all that hard to believe that the Tiny people could do something similar for the entire application.) BlitzenZeus didn't go to Tiny/Kerio out of total frustration. (Maybe someone should let him know what's going on here? He's one of the people I forgot.)

As for issues using 3.22.11 on Win2K/SP4, well . . . I think many of those were addressed on David's Atguard Forum, which should be available shortly on the new website.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864292 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:32:05 EDT Re: Great News! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864263 Bill_MI : The 2.x fwdrv.sys has been plaqued by instability. Some never see it, others see it regularly. I'm in the middle on this one. Also of late, fwdrv.sys seems to be 100% *incompatible* with WinPCap 3.1 when used with Ethereal.

I tried Kerio 4... not bad but if AtGuard regenerates it was THE best IMHO. I rate Kerio/Tiny as #2 but instability like rolling dice.

EDIT: I figure someone noticed how supply of the AtGuard-like market has sure dried up in the last year. Sunbelt does seem to be the only serious competitor.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864263 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:25:15 EDT Re: Great News! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864222 lawrence171 : What's wrong with Kerio/Tiny?

Tiny/Kerio 2.x was a basic firewall which everyone praised.

4.x is also quite good...
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864222 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:16:32 EDT Great News! http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864122 Bill_MI : I grabbed what I think is the very last (and license free) WRQ release of 3.22.11 on Dec 18, 1999. The files are dated 12/17/99 1:51pm. I only ran AtGuard on NT4 and Win2K (never used 95/98/ME at all).

I recall the biggest vulnerability was lack of an EXE check by anything other than filename. No CRC or even path check was done.

So.... why DID I gravitate to Tiny/Kerio? I'm still running Win2K - anyone know of AtGuard issues on Win2K/SP4? I don't recall a problem but it's been ages since I tried 3.22.11.

Any plans/thoughts on Win2K compatibility in version 4?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15864122 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 22:00:02 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863591 jvmorris :
said by lawrence171 See Profile :

AtGuard's time has pasted...

Though its return (if it should) shall be an intersting one.
I beg to disagree. The last full-blown implementation of AG was for Win 98 or possibly Win NT 4.0. WRQ was already entertaining doubts about further development of the product (for the consumer market) when Win 2000 appeared. (Yes, folks, way back then is where AG stood.) Indeed, if I recall what Brendon Woirhaye told me correctly, they only went to their initial Win 2000 implementation because it was funded (to some extent) by Symantec. Symantec was unimpressed by the migration and decided to do their own implementation, best known as NIS/NPF 1.0 (which I also own).

There were some very nice enhancements in NIS/NPF 1.0 that addressed some fundamental problems with regards to bringing AG into a bigger market share in the consumer market. And one of these was the introduction of custom rules (as part of the application). Indeed, if you look through the posts on the old Forums (now available again), you will find a great deal of confusion on the part of consumer purchasers as to how best to configure rulesets for even the most popular internet-enabled applications at that time. Symantec did a passable job of addressing that issue. Also, at least on Tom Rapid's "Unofficial Atguard Users Forum", there was a lot of bitching from the old-timers about the 'bloat' introduced into the application as a consequence. There's just one problem (which I addressed back then) -- there wasn't any! All of the main executables were precisely the same size (down to the byte) as they had been in the last WRQ release. Unfortunately, this is where things also began to get out of hand in the original Symantec implementations of AG (NIS/NPF to those who may be wondering). Symantec started adding more and more callable DLLs to support the additional functionality -- and some of these were not well designed. Indeed, some of them showed, more than anything else, a lack of the Symantec programmers to fully understand the structural nature of AtGuard that was readily available to them for further exploitation. Rather than using these features, Symantec often introduced additional (and totally unnecessary) functionality. Those of us who worked with Sven and Albert in those early days were very puzzled about this as we proceeded to deconstruct the Symantec implementation. (And, yes, I still have -- somewhere -- the conversations that occurred in the course of that deconstruction.) If anything, as time passed, things simply got worse with the Symantec implementation (and admittedly this is simply my judgment). Add another DLL here to address this problem; add another DLL there to address THAT problem -- don't worry about consistency and integration. While the way this was being done was rather obvious to anyone intimately familiar with the code, Symantec was not receptive to any criticism of their approach, no matter how private or how constructive its intent. By the time of the initial 'meltdown' of the Symantec code (which is discussed extensively in this very forum), there were over 100 executable modules in NIS/NPF! As far as many of us could tell, Symantec seemed to be operating without the presence of any sort of System Architect for the application as it evolved (which is discussed in other threads in this very Forum).

If elanplus2 manages to reconstitute any sort of reasonably competent development team that is (also) competently managed, it will not be at all difficult to bring AtGuard up to acceptable standards for every MS OS that has been developed to date. And I suspect you will also be astonished at the small size of the resulting application's executables.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863591 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:24:11 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863544 hpguru :
said by elanplus2 See Profile :

We think there is a need for a slim, high performing desktop firewall that's not "suited" together with anti-virus, intrusion detection, anti-spy-ware, etc. etc.
Good! Then I hope you will consider removing the content filtering capabilities as well. No offence but IMHO you will never match the capabilities of The Proxomitron in that arena. ;)
--
Get hpHOSTS! Member ASAP
hpHOSTS Online
Paranoia is no substitute for understanding.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863544 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:17:07 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863477 lawrence171 :
said by Just Bob See Profile :

said by lawrence171 See Profile :

AtGuard's time has pasted...

Though its return (if it should) shall be an intersting one.
Certainly 3.22.11 would not complete well with the current state of the art. However, I'm ready to lay down some cash for version 4.0.
If its as efficient as it used to be :)

AtGuard was about 4 MB to download back then :-D
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863477 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:03:35 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863465 Just Bob :
said by lawrence171 See Profile :

AtGuard's time has pasted...

Though its return (if it should) shall be an intersting one.
Certainly 3.22.11 would not complete well with the current state of the art. However, I'm ready to lay down some cash for version 4.0.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863465 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 20:01:30 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863413 lawrence171 : AtGuard's time has pasted...

Though its return (if it should) shall be an intersting one.
--
What I used to be I no longer am... God, why can't you freeze time for my sake?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863413 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:53:22 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863410 Jrb2 : What ??? AtGuard-forum back ? A new AtGuard ?
Whoooohoooo !!!!! :)

Yes yes yes yes yes !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YEAH !!!!!!!
I'm so excited !!!!!!!!!!!!

Using AG for years and years.

Joseph, I'll inform Jim and Albert (we all know each other from NISFileCheck (I still use it!!!) and Jim's guidelines for AG/NIS/NPF.
Great to see Sven and others too :)

Whooohoooo :) :) :)
Cheers, Jan]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863410 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:53:04 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863350 jvmorris : Go for it -- and more power to you.

And, as always, if you encounter any problems, you know who to call, right? GhostBusters :)
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863350 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:43:34 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863318 Budman NC : Wow. This is great news! I'm sure Atguard will do great.

Buddy]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863318 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:37:46 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863106 elanplus2 : Lots of questions; understandably so. I was hoping to have the entire site up by now but I am still weeks away from that so I will hit some of the highlights.

AtGuard Corporation is a completely separate entity from WRQ or Symantec or anyone else for that matter. All of us were WRQ'ers at one point or another (in fact a couple were part of the original AtGuard development team back in the mid to late 90's) which is how we all met. We always believed in AtGuard and were very disappointed to see it go to Symantec and consequently die at WRQ. After years of complaining about the loss, we recently decided to do something about it and to bring the product back to market - outside the bounds of WRQ.

We think there is a need for a slim, high performing desktop firewall that's not "suited" together with anti-virus, intrusion detection, anti-spy-ware, etc. etc. We just hope the general public does too.

I'll post another topic the next month or so when the entire site is launched. The first priority will be getting the v3.3 beta out the door so those of you who have signed up to participate in the beta will hear from me before then. (3.22.11 was the last version WRQ produced.)

P.S. - Bob, you are correct - the 1970 Lotus Elan Plus 2 is undergoing a frame off restoration in the garage - slowly.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863106 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 19:03:29 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863055 Just Bob : Oops...I'm sorry. That question was, of course directed to elanplus2. (Lotus?)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863055 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:45:43 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863042 jvmorris : When you guys get over this kinky obsession with silk T-shirts, can we get back to the question of what 'sources' we've failed to identify? :)

I am embarrassed to admit that there are some 'players' whose names have now receded into the mists of time, but I know they're out there. There were other 'third-party' developers in addition to Sven and Albert (some of whom I will acknowledge preferred anonymity), but it would likely be worthwhile to ensure they're aware of this new website also.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15863042 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:42:54 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862989 controler : I heard they gave out the damn 100% silk T-Shirt too and I did not get it. Oh How I love silk.

con]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862989 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:31:08 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862962 hpguru :
said by Just Bob See Profile :

Are you at liberty to say a few words about AtGuard Corporation?
I was only a user of AtGuard. I never worked for WRQ. Never got my damned T-shirt either. :(]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862962 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:24:20 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862922 Just Bob :
said by hpguru See Profile :

It was 3.22.11. I should still have it but I'll be surprized if the disk is still readable.
I think I may still have that on a cd.

Are you at liberty to say a few words about AtGuard Corporation?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862922 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:15:34 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862911 hpguru : It was 3.22.11. I should still have it but I'll be surprized if the disk is still readable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862911 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:13:05 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862903 jvmorris : Roger that.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862903 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:10:15 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862896 jvmorris :
said by controler See Profile :

Shoot I think My last version was 3.2 now I will have to dig back through my Cd's to find out LOL
Look for 3.22.09 or 3.22.11. I think there was, in fact, a 3.22.10, but I don't remember the details. (That may have been the 'buggy' Win 2K release, which Symantec consequently revised.)
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862896 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:08:54 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862873 hpguru : He runs a hosting company in France which I bookmarked but all my backups are packed up atm (I'm moving).]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862873 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:05:17 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862861 controler : Yep last version I have is 3.22]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862861 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:03:45 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862848 SvS :
said by jvmorris See Profile :

And CrazyM definitely had a website on customizing rules for AtGuard and (the early versions of) NIS/NPF.
Last time I checked Dave was hosting the site, so if it didn't made the migration to the new List of Lists host it may be offline. Anyway, Jim should have an archive and an offline version of the site is still shipping with Log Viewer so I have a backup copy as well.
--
Linksys, Norton Internet Security/Personal Firewall Logging Software - »www.logviewer.de.vu]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862848 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 18:01:02 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862811 controler : Shoot I think My last version was 3.2 now I will have to dig back through my Cd's to find out LOL]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862811 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:54:37 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862764 jvmorris : I had him once in my e-mail list; think he actually posted here at BBR/DSLR on a few occasions, for that matter. Will have to dust off some old e-mail archives probably to find an address, but it may now be obsolete.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862764 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:45:33 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862749 jvmorris : Well, I see that Sven's hooked in. Now, if we could just locate Albert Janssen. And CrazyM definitely had a website on customizing rules for AtGuard and (the early versions of) NIS/NPF. Where's eburger?

I'm sure that hpguru and Sven can make lots of useful inputs.

My own 'wishlist' would include
• Consideration of TCP Flags
• Consideration of ICMP Message Codes
• Extension (as required) to cover IPv6
• Possible extension (as required) to cover other protocols
• Executable authentication (at least SHA1 and going beyond the primary executable).
• Getting the settings out of the registry, while providing a programmer's interface for people like Sven, Albert, and Howard.

And, for God's sake, let's not turn it into any more of a Suite than it always was! :D
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862749 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:43:38 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862700 hpguru : Anyone know how to get in touch with aa? He popped in at Arne's Proxo forum once but unfortunately that thread no longer exists.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862700 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:35:14 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862674 jvmorris :
said by elanplus2 See Profile :

David's been kind enough to send me his NNTP newsgroup posts. I am in the process of getting them converted to our forum format.

I am not familiar with Tom's AtGuard archive. If anyone has any leads, I will try to track it down.
What I want to know is whether you managed to 'convert' David into posting into an HTML-based forum? ;) I kinda miss His Royal Grouchiness. :)

I don't think anyone knew (or was ever willing to divulge) just who "AtGuard" was; I always thought he might have been another WRQ employee that simply didn't want to let go of a good thing. I think someone once gave David a fairly complete list of the "Unofficial AtGuard Users Forums", which David then hosted on his List of Lists. If that got lost, then the provider should be identifiable in the NNTP newsgroup postings -- or CrazyM may have them.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862674 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:31:37 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862640 jvmorris :
said by John2g See Profile :

Tom Rapid was an Austrian policeman, as I recall.
Tom Rapid, yes, that sounds right.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862640 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:25:04 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862627 SvS :
said by elanplus2 See Profile :

It will be version 3.3 which is point release update (to take care of the immediate XP compatibility issues) to the original AtGuard code.
This does include the "logging issue"? A lot of people will love to hear to about this... :)
--
Linksys, Norton Internet Security/Personal Firewall Logging Software - »www.logviewer.de.vu]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862627 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:22:14 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862616 Just Bob : How well does it run on w2k? :)

I can test it for who on both w2k and xp pro. Email to follow.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862616 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:19:50 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862613 jvmorris : That's great! And tell the old curmudgeon I still hate his guts! :D :D :D
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862613 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:19:06 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862590 elanplus2 : Step 1 was to gather up all the old AtGuard content. This has been done for the most part.
Step 2 was to update the code for XP. This is almost complete and will be version 3.3.
Step 3 will be to update the product for any known vulnerabilities and other "modern-izations". This will be where we focus our attention next.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862590 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:15:00 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862549 John2g : Tom Rapid was an Austrian policeman, as I recall.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862549 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:05:44 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862540 elanplus2 : David's been kind enough to send me his NNTP newsgroup posts. I am in the process of getting them converted to our forum format.

I am not familiar with Tom's AtGuard archive. If anyone has any leads, I will try to track it down.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862540 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 17:04:30 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862523 elanplus2 : I used to be a marketing manager at WRQ, but I am no longer affliated with the company.

I will be posting the old FAQs and the user guides soon. I am also working on adding some of the other various newsgroups and forums that existed over the years to the site.

jvmorris is correct in that Symantec and others only licensed AtGuard - WRQ never divested its rights to the product completely.

-- Prasantha]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862523 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:59:43 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862507 jvmorris : Yes, indeed, and its the presence of one memorable debeli post near the end that convinced me. What I've seen so far looks legit.

Now, if someone could find Tom (who was Austrian as I recall) or "AtGuard", maybe these guys could extend the historical archive. I think CrazyM is still a mod over at Wilder's, isn't he? He may know where to get an archived copy of David Stockbridge's NNTP newsgroup, also.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862507 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:57:08 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862493 hpguru : There are a number of vulnerabilities in the old AtGuard codebase. Have these been addressed or has the code simply been updated to support XP?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862493 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:55:09 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862468 John2g : Probably why the AtGuard Forum was successful. I always had the highest regard for Eli/debeli, the WRQ employee, who seemed to have a lot to do with the development of AtGuard. Happy Days!
--
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862468 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:48:40 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862437 jvmorris : No, John.

WRQ licensed rights to use the AtGuard codebase to Symantec, but these were not exclusive rights. A similar license was issued to a Japanese firm as I recall and I think WRQ continued to use some of the code base in its commercial products, at least for some years. They just didn't like the load of providing end-user tech support and (to the best of my knowledge) completely got out of end-user products in favor of their commercial product lines.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862437 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:44:05 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862418 jvmorris : The posts look legit so far (as best my memory serves me).

I would be a lot happier, however, if this wasn't hosted on GoDaddy.

Now, if someone could just come up with the Unofficial AtGuard Users Forum that "Tom" used to host and that "AtGuard" moderated, I would be reasonably happy. At that point, I think the only things missing would be the AtGuard forum that David Stockbridge hosted for several years and possible some of the FAQs, but I think CrazyM has almost all of those now.
--
Regards, Joseph V. Morris]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862418 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:41:04 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862347 John2g : I thought that all the rights to AtGuard were sold to Symantec.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862347 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:29:32 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862338 Just Bob : Atguard.net is registered at GoDaddy and the contact is Prasantha Jayakody, who is the marketing manager at WRQ, but he's using a hotmail address.

I hope this is for real. I'd like very much to see a modern version of this firewall.

Edit: Let's make his job title "integration market manager".]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862338 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:27:32 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862315 elanplus2 : In response to Cundi's question about the code base ...

It will be version 3.3 which is point release update (to take care of the immediate XP compatibility issues) to the original AtGuard code.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862315 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:20:54 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862270 John2g : What an excellent firewall it was! WRQ should not have stopped development and sold it to Symantec.
--
Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862270 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:11:23 EDT Re: AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862226 Cudni : What Atguard version is it? Based on original code or...?
»www.atguard.net/support/forum/vi···p?t=1793

Cudni]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862226 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 16:01:03 EDT AtGuard Support Forums back online http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862217 elanplus2 : If anyone is still using AtGuard and needs technical support, the forums are back on line at »www.atguard.net/support/forum

We were able to keep all the oringinal posts so you should be able to find answers to most of your questions by searching the archives. Unfortunately, we didn't have access to the original user database so none of the previous registrations were retained.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15862217 Sun, 09 Apr 2006 15:58:10 EDT