Little Snitch "must have" ?

I don't consider Little Snitch a "must have" by any means. But I'm the only user on my system, and I generally restrict my software acquisitions to applications from developers I know and trust. If you tend to run applications from lesser-known developers, get them from unknown or "iffy" web sites, and/or share your system with other people (particularly with other people who also may be downloading and installing things), then Little Snitch may be helpful to you in making sure nothing sneaks onto your system that might be communicating to the Internet without your knowledge.

And any application that runs constantly will have some effect on performance, but my experience with Little Snitch is that its performance impact is minimal.

BTW, you posted in the forum for Mac OS X 10.6. Generally you'll get the most accurate responses if you post in the forum for your version of Mac OS X, or your model of Mac if it's a hardware-related question. What people experience often may vary between different versions of Mac OS X.

Message was edited by: Dave Sawyer

So while it may not be particularly "needful", it will not cause any harm to my system ?

To the system, no, not unless something goes wrong. It could prevent some software from working if Little Snitch blocks a connection to the network that the software needs.

I'm posting here because I'm awaiting delivery of my new Intel Mac Mini, hopefully with SL pre-installed, Sheriff !

OK. It will help if you tell people that you're asking for a Mac you're expecting. People will be more likely to give you the correct advice if they know the system you're asking about.

BTW, I have no interest in playing "Sheriff" and don't really care where you post. I do try to get people to the forums where they'll get the quickest and most accurate responses. If making such a suggestion makes me "Sheriff" in your eyes, so be it.

never mind

Message was edited by: Jolly Giant

Klara in Hamburg wrote:
Would YOU recommend to have LS on your machine ?

Yes!

Does it not, like e.g. Norton AV, rather bog down your system ?

Not at all. It is very helpful in a number of ways.

First of all, the basic functionality is nice. SPAM messages like to include links back to their servers to harvest known good e-mail addresses. Little Snitch knows that Mail shouldn't be opening strange network connections and will ask you. If you have some e-mail messages that you want to make web connections, just whitelist those.

Another thing that is nice is the network monitor. It will alert you that something strange is going on when it is all lit up when you aren't doing anything. I have a nasty bug with my Lotus Notes e-mail server that I'm still working on. Little Snitch lets me know that Mail is checking "to do" notes on the server and will continue to do so for all eternity until I stop it.

You might like ClickToFlash and GlimmerBlocker as well.

Klara in Hamburg wrote:
Thanks. So while it may not be particularly "needful", it will not cause any harm to my system ?

One thing to remember is like any third-party addition, it may not function with and may cause problems with future Mac OS X versions.

Little Snitch does not use "public" interfaces to do what it does, so as Mac OS X changes, Little Snitch may cease to function properly and its kernel extension has been responsible for panics in the past.

As long as you make sure to keep Little Snitch updated, it shouldn't cause issues, but it certainly could.

William Kucharski wrote:
Little Snitch does not use "public" interfaces to do what it does, so as Mac OS X changes, Little Snitch may cease to function properly and its kernel extension has been responsible for panics in the past.

Are you sure about that? Little Snitch is a kernel extension, that is certain. But the kernel interface is clearly documented. Little Snitch is one of the most stable and popular kernel extensions on the market. It worked with 10.6 right out of the gate, whereas many larger companies failed. I consider Little Snitch to be among the least risky MacOS X programs around.

A sampling from http://www.obdev.at/products/littlesnitch/releasenotes.html :

What’s new in Little Snitch 2.2

* This version is compatible with Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard.

What’s new in Little Snitch 2.0.4

* Fixed a kernel panic triggered by various Java development suites.

What’s new in Little Snitch 2.0.3

* Fixed a bug which could cause a kernel panic.

What’s new in Little Snitch 2.0.1

* Fixed a bug which could cause a kernel panic.

I'm not saying it's unstable, simply that as a kernel extension it can cause issues, especially upon a Mac OS X upgrade.

William Kucharski wrote:
I'm not saying it's unstable, simply that as a kernel extension it can cause issues, especially upon a Mac OS X upgrade.

Any kernel extension can cause issues. Little Snitch is rock solid.

Every time there is a MacOS X update, there is a list ten times as long of fixes for potential kernel panics. There are lots of software products that can cause instability. Little Snitch is at the very bottom of that list.

etresoft wrote:
Every time there is a MacOS X update, there is a list ten times as long of fixes for potential kernel panics. There are lots of software products that can cause instability. Little Snitch is at the very bottom of that list.

Not necessarily true; the fact that it is a kernel extension makes it that much more prone to cause panics.

99% of software does not involve the installation of a kernel extension.

Actually Little Snitch can bog down the system. I've had applications which require network access that operate slower when Little Snitch is installed.

See my FAQ* on security:

http://www.macmaps.com/upgradefaq.html#SECURITY

While Little Snitch is a nice added feature in some cases, tracking down problems to it can sometimes be difficult, if one doesn't keep a good backup in place.

- * Links to my pages may give me compensation.