Little Snitch

[bayswater]

Does this still do anything we need? Wouldn't we expect Apple to have addressed what it does in the last several years of OS updates? What does it still do that is still unique, not covered by general OS features?

[monkey man]

As far as I've seen not one thing has been altered or added in or to LS in response to an Apple-OS tweak in the past few years at least, Stoivo.

As a readily-accessible "sentry" to all things pointless and malicious, as well as social-media tracking by the likes of FakeBook, TwitStar and InstantGlam, I find it invaluable.

I'm proud to say that I've never even seen a FakeBook page, nor any of the other "popular" SM sites' offerings, including TwitStar.

I must be just about the only person in the world who hasn't. I decided when that "mob" started out (all of them) that if they hadn't already, their methods would soon decend into the dark depths of big-brother land. Glad I've managed to avoid all the fuss... and tracking. Thank you, LS!

[bayswater]

Just what does LS prevent when it comes to tracking by social media? If you don't use any of them, and stick to mostly the apps that come with OS X, and use things like DuckDuckGo, what does LS add to the cause of privacy?

I suppose they have some sort of strategy because they have frequent updates. Originally, it was created to stop apps from "phoning home", but what app a non SM enthusiast would have does that any more, other than those you'd expect to do it?

You might be right about being the only person never seeing a FB page. I had an account when people here started posting things there, and used it exactly once. Despite what FB says, the account has a completely fake profile, and was accessed only via VPN.

[monkey man]

Exactly what it prevents is above my pay grade, Stoiv. As you know, I'm an internet-and-network luddite.

I've simply blocked anything with fb, tw and any other clues as to social-media "tracking" (or whatever it is they're doing - collecting data?) on my 'puter.

Examples:
Deny outgoing connections via com.apple.WebKit.Networking to platform.twitter.com
Deny outgoing connections to domain ads-twitter.com
Deny outgoing connections to domain twimg.com
Deny outgoing connections to domain twitter.com

Deny outgoing connections to domain fbridgecdn.net
Deny outgoing connections via com.apple.WebKit.Networking to domain fbcdn.net
Deny outgoing connections via com.apple.WebKit.Networking to port 80 (http) of graph.facebook.com
Deny outgoing connections via com.apple.WebKit.Networking to port 80 (http) of connect.facebook.net
Deny outgoing connections via com.apple.WebKit.Networking to port 443 (https) of staticxx.facebook.com
Deny outgoing connections via com.apple.WebKit.Networking to an.facebook.com
Deny outgoing connections via com.apple.WebKit.Networking to http://www.facebook.com

Deny outgoing connections to domain instagram.com

Deny outgoing connections to domain myspacecdn.com

Deny outgoing connections to domain socialstream.io

All of these popped up without my having ever navigated to any of the social-media sites. That in and of itself is "suspicious" to me, so I just block to be "safe".

[bayswater]

Yes, I understand it prevents unwanted attempts at outgoing communications. But I'm wondering how much of what it catches would have been filtered by OS X anyway. Seems likely to me that security threats would have been covered by the OS, although maybe privacy issues might not. But I don't use any social media or dodgy apps. Anyway, it's not much of an effort keeping the current version, but it bears some thought at the next paid update.

[mikehalloran]

It’s a port blocker with an easy to use GUI.

As software licensing becomes more sophisticated, I suppose that the normal use of preventing cracked licenses from phoning home is becoming less widespread.

I don’t buy into it being any more useful in online security. Keeping current with the MacOS is above and away the best defense.

I can see it being helpful in preventing some targeted advertising. If that bothered me, perhaps I’d use it. I surf the web and do research as part of my day gig and the thought of constantly dealing with incoming and outgoing connection permissions.., life’s too short. I’ve been doing this version of my job for 10 years now and it’s just not an issue for me.

So, while I’m aware of Little Snitch, it holds no interest for me.

[bayswater]

I don’t buy into it being any more useful in online security. Keeping current with the MacOS is above and away the best defense.

This is what I was thinking. But it has come in handy when I've tried out some new apps that, while useful, appear to be contacting every advertising site on the planet on first launch. Anytunes for example. When I first tried it, it must have taken a good 20 minutes for Little Snitch to go through all the attempts it made to contact various IP addresses. (Just issuing a blanket denial to an app often stops it altogether.)

[mikehalloran]

I understand. Sometimes, I wonder if I take my life into my hands when accessing some web sites.

Recently, I had one launch the dreaded Flash Updater trojan and it screwed up my settings–launched immediately without my clicking which I'd never seen before. Stopped the process but it disabled Flash plugin in the Chrome browser. SalesForce still requires Flash and is optimized for Chrome (certain functions would add over an hour to my day if done in Firefox or Safari) so I don't have the option of leaving it disabled. After 15 minutes of trying to get it right, I threw in the towel. Chrome Tech Support would probably taken an hour or longer.

APFS Snapshots let me reset my iMac to a half hour before that click and all was right with the world. I timed it—56 seconds on this machine.

I don't know if Lil Snitch would have helped. Perhaps. Been so long since I'd seen that crap, it took me by surprise.