Page 1 of 2
Suggestion: Always create same executable name
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:23 pm
by Jellybean
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.
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 5:32 pm
by Dare2
Yes! I second that!
Perhaps make it a compiler option - always compile this as [ ].
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 6:01 pm
by ts-soft
create new executable with the same name, is a new file for the firewall, the firewall ask you or your firewall is bad
Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:30 pm
by Jellybean
My firewall
is bad.
Actually I don't think that should be the firewall's responsibility. There is a balance between security and usability.
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 6:49 am
by nco2k
yeah this "feature" would be awesome.
c ya,
nco2k
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:44 am
by Kale
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).
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 8:45 am
by nco2k
@Kale
hmm... whats the name of your firewall??
c ya,
nco2k
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 9:22 am
by Edwin Knoppert
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
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 11:50 am
by PB
> 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.
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:46 pm
by Dare2
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.
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:51 pm
by Edwin Knoppert
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..
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 12:57 pm
by PB
> a tool like this has nothing to do with firewalls is it?
Yep -- the original post is about coding a network app.
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:53 pm
by freak
> 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.
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:54 pm
by Kale
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'.
Posted: Mon Sep 05, 2005 1:55 pm
by Kale
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!