Is there any risk in letting automatic rule deletion occur? That is, if some attack were sucessful, it could just trigger LS's hidden actions rather than the attack author have to do all the code writing him/herself (and get it right)? Or an attack which spoofs current user might then just set LS, rather than having to write code to interfere with LS. This question may not be well stated and I'm not seeking info how LS works.
LS may be annoying sometimes, but when I think about it, it's fine, it means it's doing its job and letting me know what is going on. On Wed, 19 Apr 2006, Little Snitch Support wrote: . . . > > Is it possible to have an option (maybe a preference) where a new > > rule that overrides old rules deletes the old ones? So I don't end > > up with 6 different rules for one app, when only the last > > introduced one is useful? > > That would be possible. Determining whether some rules contradict, > cancel each other out or overrule each other is quite tricky, but has > to be done by Little Snitch anyway. . . . _______________________________________________ Littlesnitch-talk mailing list [email protected] http://at.obdev.at/mailman/listinfo/littlesnitch-talk
