It seems like you're asking for two different things here. A WHOIS lookup on an IP address will show you who "owns" that block of IP addresses. A reverse DNS lookup on an IP address will show you what DNS entry maps to that IP address. Little Snitch already does the latter but not all IP addresses map to DNS entries, hence the reason you sometimes see the dotted quads (e.g., 17.254.0.91) in LS's dialogs. If you wait a few seconds at LS's alert dialog and the reported IP address resolves to a domain name, LS will show you that name. Otherwise, if the hostname can't be determined for a given IP address, LS can do little but show you the IP address since it doesn't map to a name. This has been my experience with LS. However, more robust reporting functionality would be nice to have as an advanced option. Derek F, this is an observation and not a criticism so please don't take it the wrong way but your reply I think highlights part of the problems that we lesser mortals have with apps such as LS. I can see that you are a web designer so techie speak is meat and drink to you but "reverse DNS lookup" and the like only serve to confuse tiny minds like mine and I think that that was the point originally being made. I want LS to protect my machine and to leave me in peace as much as possible whilst it is doing it. When it wants my confirmation of something I want simple explanations. The LS website says, for example, about the current beta version which seems to be causing the trouble that "The "Code Injection Alert" can now be switch on or off in the Little Snitch preferences." Now I have absolutely no idea whatsoever what a "code Injection" might be, what it looks like, smells like or even what colour it is! Whether it is dangerous or not goodness only knows and I would have no idea whether otr not switching it either on or off will adversely affect my security. I accept that simple explanations can be irksome for those who do know their stuff, but a reasonable compromise would be much appreciated. Cheers iBozz |
- [Littlesnitch-talk] Re: LittleSnitch_1.2.3beta3 is driving... iBozz
- Re: [Littlesnitch-talk] Re: LittleSnitch_1.2.3beta3 i... Tom R. no spam
- Re: [Littlesnitch-talk] Re: LittleSnitch_1.2.3bet... Jim Wickman
- Re: [Littlesnitch-talk] Re: LittleSnitch_1.2.... Paolo
- Re: [Littlesnitch-talk] Re: LittleSnitch_1.2.... Tom R. no spam
- [Littlesnitch-talk] Re: LittleSnitch_1.2.... Michael Spencer