Rated 5 out of 5 stars

by pc supp on April 11, 2014 · permalink

... Furtherly cool would be, if: We could protect the site we "whitelisted" and are currently on and which IS secure, by BH FW especially, and also, if we could tell BH FW to block ALL content, which does not by standard flow to or from the site (or sites) we whitelisted, helpful for that is also the logging-tab we could wish for as a wishlist item, but believe me, you do not always wanna yourself look up the log tab and then enter manually all relating sites, which are connected to the site you, we, whitelisted, because it can and it mostly a LOT of other sites, mostly social net sites docked on to the site, but also ads and etc. So, an auto- option would be cool, where we can allow all "normal" (and also considered truly safe) traffic to and from our whitelisted site(s). As I said, it'd be cool, if BH FW also, on top of that, gave us all an option, by which we could simply block ALL other internet content except the whitelisted and to our whitelisted sites related secondary sites. That way, it would be the same as I already did in my pglgui in Linux, I added my own blocklist which goes from 4 times zero to four times 255, of course. I whitelist from this "true scratch and bottom", as one might call it. Some 4.2 billion IPs blocked. Normally, pglgui blocks "only" around 3 billion IPs, if all blocklists are selected. Acessing filesharing networks is definitely not possible with such strict setting, that is why it's preferrable to run a virtual machine with a less strict pglgui blocking for other than "normal" surfing.
And btw, by "protection" of our by us ourselves trusted and thus whitelisted sites, I do mean, that all other than the standard traffic from the allowed normal secondary sites IS NOT allowed and blocked. Meaning, any of those sad minority of maliciously motivated hackers or even bots would be blocked from entering the "session" we are in AT ANY site at all, allowing only us, the site, and the allowed, normal secondary sites. We could also feature a "trial run", no fear, haha no going commercial this time and not ever I hope for BH FW, LOL, no, but I mean a run, where we tell BH, what secondary sites normally dock on to our whitelisted, to be fully, entirely, protected site. It then saves those secondary site adresses, shows them to us, we can, if we want, even tick off some of them, or even all of them, which would of course be crazy, since we need at least some of them. From when we click on, it would say, your site is now fully protected against intrusions by method of IP-blockage of all other net sites, except further whitelisted elements, of course. We ourselves must be careful not to blocklist too many elements. To forego trouble, BH FW could feature profiles for blocking those and those ranges, without BH FW getting "bloated", running slowly or causing the browser, mostly firefox, to run any more slowly than normal. I did not experience ANY lag caused by BH FW, but only a drastic functionality decrease when acessing special net sites, because of which, I am taking the time to write this. Thank You, BH Firewall. Blue Hell, sounds REALLY good. Of course, there are other tools, but there IS NO other INSIDE-browser firewall for Firefox, there are only other kinds of security tools. At least, BH FW DOES something -- it blocks content I need. I see, it can block. So, I find it cool, secure, a program done by good, ethically good, because protective people. I would not ever want people to give in to mafiosos who demand money from poor bakery owners. Instead, we need protection, but by a tech tool. In time, ANY user will open up his pglgui so much, and pglgui under Linux as of now DOES sadly NOT feature profiles for different blocklist sets, so bluehell IS of use and IS of help to us all. Thank You. Philadelphia Freedom! :)