Gatekeepers

[Griffin NoName]

Anyone know about Yoggie GateKeeper Pico or Yoggie GateKeeper Pico Pro ?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Sounds like a gimmick and it's definitively too expensive.

Nowadays even wireless routers have an embedded firewall and you can close all ports but http and mail if you so desire; by the nature of NAT it will be harder to get hacked. More control? Install a SW firewall (like ZoneAlarm) and that way you'll have control of not only what's coming in but what's going out. For an extra layer of security install Spybot S&D, use the TeaTimer that comes with it, and it will tell you in real time every time a program wants to add stuff to the registry. Also don't use Internet Explorer as your main browser*.

Unless you are the kind of person that is constantly opening the attachments** of emails regardless where they came from or the extension of the file, you should be fine.

* & ** those two are big holes and if you don't do something about them sooner or later you'll get a breach.

** side note on attachments, I don't open "beautiful presentations" regardless of the source, and I tell the system to show the extensions of all programs to verify that if I'm opening a file it's what is supposed to be, to complete I don't use MS Office any more unless I have no option (rarely), and OpenOffice is less vulnerable to macro attacks. More so, as I use gmail as my main email account I usually can 'see'/preview the attachment before I need to open it (preview excel files in html, of display presentations in the browser courtesy of google).

[Griffin NoName]

I can't see it as a gimmick compared to s/w on the machine IF it truly uses no system resources. On that basis, is it then a gimmick compared to a router firewall? Presumably not if one has no router or no router firewall (which is my current set up, although may not be for long, but that's a personal thing, and I am more interested in whether these items do have a place in the world than what my own choices are).

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The basic argument is: if a router is a good thing to have (and if you have more than one computer chances are it is), provides the same service (probably better and with more control), and it is cheaper than the gizmo in question (heck! you should be able to get a router for half that amount), then it may make more sense to get a wireless router than a pseudo firewall on a stick.

In theory it should work on its own, eat less resources etc, etc, etc. In practice most of those things (even sound cards) will use the CPU anyways.

I may be wrong, the product may be the best thing since slice bread and it may have been recommended by some xyz magazine (I have no clue on that) but to me it sounds like a gimmick and I would be very skeptical on the claims they make, unless I see positive proof.

Edit: did you read the reviews? I wouldn't use the thing based on that...

[Griffin NoName]

mmmm mixed reviews - if they fixed the bugs by now (??) then there may be a place for it for certain types of users, depending on clear tests rather than subjective reviews from who-knows-how-savvy some review writers may be.

I'd say the Jury is still out (at the very least on the "idea") and it'd be interesting to see if any competitive items come on to the market.

Zono, I know it is hard to not go for/advise the obvious/best solutions, but many people who depend on me for advice are completely computer illiterate, would never in a million years, however many computers they have, have any linked together etc etc. Therefore I am often looking for the best solution not in the usual meaning of the concept. They are people who have resisted having cell phones - too modern - too techy; they are people who want a cell phone which only makes phone calls; they tend, if they have a computer at all, which can take years of persuasion, will use it for one thing only - never mind what that one thing is - could be the calandar !!

In one case, I even put a router in without letting on it is a router because it would freak them out.

I've got one person at present who keeps asking why users have to have firewalls of any kind at all. They know there are software or hardware firewall choices but wont have a computer because they shouldn't need any kind of firewall.

Part of my work when I was working was assessing not only the right system for a company in technical terms, but the right system being suitable for the level of competency within the company and the level of on-going support that the company could afford. Fox example, installing systems and software for medieval cambridge colleges is a whole lot different from installing for a company like Philips.

Hope that throws some light on what must sometimes seem a rather odd angle I take on things.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Ooohhh, it isn't for yourself...
---
I would be careful anyways, by nature something that blocks data can block some data that you may want, and if I were you I would try how configurable/manageable the thing might be before the inevitable complaints from users.

[Griffin NoName]

Well blocking data is fine; they wouldn't know data if it hit them in the face

As to configurable, would you configure a baby's dummy?  What's wanted is stick this gadget in that hole there and stop squealing !

Which is sort of the marketing ploy of this gadget.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

What's wanted is stick this gadget in that hole there and stop squealing !

Users will never stop squealing. In fact a user will never be happy with his/her SW until it is forcefully changed, which will always bring pleasant memories of those things that the old SW did and the new doesn't/it's too complicated (different) to do.