When using WideCap, you have to specify each application. It does not protect the whole OS.History has shown that this is *not* the best way to ensure that your activities are anonymous. I suspect further investigation would reveal a security hole or two.
- Kyle On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 7:30 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey, > > http://widecap.ru/en/ > > I found this when looking at FreeCap. WideCap is supposed to proxify > the whole OS I think and it handles DNS too. I havn't tried it as I > wanted opinions first. It is free trial for 30 days and then $20 Egold > after that (too bad it's not freeware/opensource). > > From the website: > > Advantages of the WideCap: > System integration - WideCap is fully functional Winsock Service and > Namespace provider. That means simply integration into your network > subsystem. Forget about this ugly FreeCap's injection, needle to run all > programs throught FreeCap, possible errors and incompatible with some > firewalls and anti-viruses. WideCap acts as virtual network driver > covering all your TCP/IP activity. No launchers - just run your program > as usual and work via proxy. > > New proxy engine - fully rewritten proxy engine taken from the FreeCap > to handle reloading everything on-the-fly. No more program restarts > after changing the proxy chain or Widecap configuration. Plus boosted > perfomance with proxies handling. > > > > Here is some things from the FAQ I thought was interesting: (it does > UDP) > > Q: What kind of traversing WideCap does? > A: Using WideCap you can traverse only TCP or UDP connections. But UDP > only via SOCKSv5, only via one proxy, and without NAT in the middle. > Others protocols (such as icmp, igmp etc) unable to traversing by > architecture and RFC restrictions. > > Q: What kind of traversing WideCap does? > A: Using WideCap you can traverse only TCP or UDP connections. But UDP > only via SOCKSv5, only via one proxy, and without NAT in the middle. > Others protocols (such as icmp, igmp etc) unable to traversing by > architecture and RFC restrictions. > > Q: After the proxy checking I've got that all proxies are broken. And > the system event log reports about "EventID 4226: TCP/IP has reached the > security limit imposed on the number of concurrent TCP connect > attempts". What's wrong? I have Windows XP SP2. > A: It's problem related to WinXP SP2 users (and possible Win2003). In > this systems the TCP/IP driver has a limitation for concurrent > connection attempts. Limited to 10 concurrent connection attempts. > Unfortunately there's no registry key to fix this but patch exists. Read > more about Event ID 4226 + patch > > -->That last question is the same issue I think of non-server Windows > issues when acting as a Tor node. In my next email to the list found a > great little app that will change the connect limits in the tcpip.sys > file to whatever you want. I set mine to 100. > > > What does everyone think? > > -- > > [email protected] > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Does exactly what it says on the tin > >
