5 ms·

Little Snitch wants to inform you about everything. Radio Silence obeys silently. I guess "better" is a matter of preference. I wanted to create the simplest po

Little Snitch wants to inform you about everything. Radio Silence obeys silently. I guess "better" is a matter of preference. I wanted to create the simplest possible solution I could imagine. They both solve similar problems, but from different points of view. I'm personally not a big fan of programs that constantly pop up alert windows.

uris 15y ago
Is there a kernel extension involved ? What about blocking process e.g. from the terminal etc.
- aparadja 15y ago
  Yes, there is a kext. Currently, it doesn't block non-app-bundle processes. The main reason for the app's existence is to block nosy apps that discreetly contact their home servers. I can't think of many (or any) terminal apps that do the same thing.
  - klausa 15y ago
    Why does it require/involves kext? I'm genuinely curious, since I thought OS X comes with powerful ipfw. Is it some stripped down version?
    - aparadja 15y ago
      The main reason is to reduce the amount of dependencies to zero. I didn't want to enter the nightmare vortex of several applications managing a single firewall implementation. Also, as I've lately been an embedded software guy, I saw no harm or fear in a little kernel code.
    - paxswill 15y ago
      In addition to ipfw, Lion includes pf (off by default though, you need to modify a launchd plist to enable it).
    - sahirh 15y ago
      Is it possible to use ipfw / pf to control outbound traffic based on the process that is initiating the connection? I skimmed the man pages but didn't see anything that looked promising.
  - r00fus 15y ago
    Aren't kexts the main reason for upgrade issues between OSX versions?
    - aparadja 15y ago
      Perhaps, but I'd say that it varies a lot. The kext here is more compatible with old versions than the UI.
pieter 15y ago
Perhaps you can add a list of default applications that many people want to silence, and offer to silence them automatically once the user runs them.
- aparadja 15y ago
  That is something worth considering, but it would go against one of the design goals: a firewall without a single alert dialog.
  - drivingmenuts 15y ago
    I wouldn't consider a one-time dialog box (growl, of course) to be that much of an issue. It might violate your design principle, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it would annoy the user.
    - lovskogen 15y ago
      Is Growl a part of OS X?
  - lovskogen 15y ago
    A default list of applications to silence on the first run wouldn't ruin your strapline. Which apps should be silenced on default, that's harder to figure out.
    - shabble 15y ago
      Somewhere upthread someone mentioned an adblock-style collaborative/hosted block list. Having it follow one (or more) RSS feeds would allow anyone to offer a list, and any user could choose whether to use it or not, without any additional effort for the dev.
kenok 15y ago
Any lean app is always good in my book, but if it doesn't detect which app is 'phoning-home' and letting me know... it ain't much better than Little Snitch that I'm currently using. I'm just attracted to the smaller memory footprint I guess and the simple UI. :D

uris 15y ago

Is there a kernel extension involved ? What about blocking process e.g. from the terminal etc.

aparadja 15y ago
Yes, there is a kext. Currently, it doesn't block non-app-bundle processes. The main reason for the app's existence is to block nosy apps that discreetly contact their home servers. I can't think of many (or any) terminal apps that do the same thing.
- klausa 15y ago
  Why does it require/involves kext? I'm genuinely curious, since I thought OS X comes with powerful ipfw. Is it some stripped down version?
  - aparadja 15y ago
    The main reason is to reduce the amount of dependencies to zero. I didn't want to enter the nightmare vortex of several applications managing a single firewall implementation. Also, as I've lately been an embedded software guy, I saw no harm or fear in a little kernel code.
  - paxswill 15y ago
    In addition to ipfw, Lion includes pf (off by default though, you need to modify a launchd plist to enable it).
  - sahirh 15y ago
    Is it possible to use ipfw / pf to control outbound traffic based on the process that is initiating the connection? I skimmed the man pages but didn't see anything that looked promising.
- r00fus 15y ago
  Aren't kexts the main reason for upgrade issues between OSX versions?
  - aparadja 15y ago
    Perhaps, but I'd say that it varies a lot. The kext here is more compatible with old versions than the UI.

pieter 15y ago

Perhaps you can add a list of default applications that many people want to silence, and offer to silence them automatically once the user runs them.

aparadja 15y ago
That is something worth considering, but it would go against one of the design goals: a firewall without a single alert dialog.
- drivingmenuts 15y ago
  I wouldn't consider a one-time dialog box (growl, of course) to be that much of an issue. It might violate your design principle, but in the grand scheme of things, I don't think it would annoy the user.
  - lovskogen 15y ago
    Is Growl a part of OS X?
- lovskogen 15y ago
  A default list of applications to silence on the first run wouldn't ruin your strapline. Which apps should be silenced on default, that's harder to figure out.
  - shabble 15y ago
    Somewhere upthread someone mentioned an adblock-style collaborative/hosted block list. Having it follow one (or more) RSS feeds would allow anyone to offer a list, and any user could choose whether to use it or not, without any additional effort for the dev.

kenok 15y ago

Any lean app is always good in my book, but if it doesn't detect which app is 'phoning-home' and letting me know... it ain't much better than Little Snitch that I'm currently using. I'm just attracted to the smaller memory footprint I guess and the simple UI. :D