Known problems/issues: Client ------ A couple possible incompatibilities between SafeTP and other software have been reported by a few users, and we're still investigating these. Here's are the programs in question: - WSP Winsock Client (the client side of MS Proxy 2.0) MS Proxy Client uses a Winsock SPI layer that conflicts with SafeTP. Furthermore, it tunnels FTP connections over an HTTP-based protocol, masking the traffic from our transparent FTP security layer. - RPCSS.EXE service in Windows NT 4.0 (very rare & not yet isolated - seems to happen most often on multi-processor systems) Usually manifests itself as an intermittent failure of the RPCSS service initiation at startup, and can result in explorer.exe (the desktop) becoming unresponsive. The Task Scheduler service may also fail to start as a result. The most efficient way to "unstick" a system when this failure occurs is: hit ctrl-alt-delete and open the task manager, use the File/Run menu option to run the SafeTP Manager (STPMGR.EXE) program, set the SafeTP Protection to Disabled, and reboot. - WebDrive for 9x/ME - uses a device driver that bypasses the Winsock layer, thereby also bypassing the SafeTP security layer. WebDrive NT works fine. - Mvalue "get paid to surf" client - WebHancer "spyware" (webhdll.dll) - which may be installed "secretly" by other systems (see http://cexx.org/webhancer.htm for details) Other problems reported by users (unconfirmed): - CheckPoint SecuRemote VPN client may interfere with SafeTP operation. Disabling the VPN client doesn't help but uninstalling it lets SafeTP work. - new.net browser plug-in which allows you to contact non-standard "phantom" DNS addresses, seems to conflict with SafeTP We hope to isolate and resolve these issues in the next version. Keep checking for further updates... (Minor) Refused FTP connections look to the FTP client like a successful connection followed by a connection closed - This is due to a misfeature/optimization in Win9x and NT 4 that is in violation of the Winsock spec. Microsoft has acknowledged this bug (incorrectly implemented deferred acceptance) but thus far has made no progress to correct this noncompliance. Server ------