Suggestion: Always create same executable name

Jellybean · Post by **Jellybean** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:23 pm

As it is now, programs ran from the editor seems to get a randomish name. This makes network programming a pain because of the firewall. I need to click ok before every run or disable the firewall entirely, neither is funny to do. What about always using the same filename? It would ease the problems a lot.

Post by **Dare2** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:32 pm

Yes! I second that!

Perhaps make it a compiler option - always compile this as [ ].

ts-soft · Post by **ts-soft** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 6:01 pm

create new executable with the same name, is a new file for the firewall, the firewall ask you or your firewall is bad

Jellybean · Post by **Jellybean** » Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:30 pm

My firewall is bad.

Actually I don't think that should be the firewall's responsibility. There is a balance between security and usability.

nco2k · Post by **nco2k** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:49 am

yeah this "feature" would be awesome.

c ya,
nco2k

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:44 am

ts-soft wrote:create new executable with the same name, is a new file for the firewall, the firewall ask you or your firewall is bad

I can specify in my firewall that 'this' program changes frequently so it doesn't throw an error when it changes. So one name would be great for network programming especially if it let you specifiy extension too (*.scr).

nco2k · Post by **nco2k** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:45 am

@Kale
hmm... whats the name of your firewall??

c ya,
nco2k

Edwin Knoppert · Post by **Edwin Knoppert** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:22 am

Jellybean wrote:My firewall is bad.

Actually I don't think that should be the firewall's responsibility. There is a balance between security and usability.

Not with ZA, unf. i have a register app and it complains on each compile

PB · Post by PB » Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:50 am

> I can specify in my firewall that 'this' program changes frequently so it
> doesn't throw an error when it changes

Which is a massive security risk because the firewall will never know if you
changed it on purpose, or whether a virus has infected it. Better to always
get a prompt for 100% safety.

Post by **Dare2** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:46 pm

With the PureBasic executable, is is probably better to have one "PureBasicTempUser.exe" that the Firewall lets through than a containerload of "Purebasic[digits].exe" that no longer exist. And I am slack about checking what my FireWall has listed as OK.

On my win2K system, last time I looked I had pageloads of temp PB executables on the thing.

A single "PureBasicTempUser.exe" would be deleted and rebuilt so often (on my box anyhow, the way I test run) that it is low risk as a platform for something nasty.

Anyhow, user chooses is always better (more courteous anyhow) than manufacturer dictates.

Edwin Knoppert · Post by **Edwin Knoppert** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:51 pm

A FW was mentioned but we should agree a tool like this has nothing to do with firewalls is it?
If this is a security problem end-user should this by himself.
Nonsense..

PB · Post by PB » Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:57 pm

> a tool like this has nothing to do with firewalls is it?

Yep -- the original post is about coding a network app.

Post by **freak** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:53 pm

> What about always using the same filename? It would ease the problems a lot.

I agree. I will discuss this with fred when he is back.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:54 pm

nco2k wrote:@Kale
hmm... whats the name of your firewall??

c ya,
nco2k

ZoneAlarmPro, just right click the app in the program control and select 'changes frequently'.

Kale · Post by **Kale** » Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:55 pm

Dare2 wrote:A single "PureBasicTempUser.exe" would be deleted and rebuilt so often (on my box anyhow, the way I test run) that it is low risk as a platform for something nasty.

Exactly!