GeSWall question- any need on Vista?

[acr1965]

I sometimes run IE7 in protected mode on Vista Home Premium. Is there any need to run something like GeSWall in addition to IE7 in safe mode? I am considering the free version of GesWall, not the paid for now.

FWIW- the other security I am running in real time is Avira Premium, SAS Pro and PC Tools firewall behind a hardware highspeed modem w/firewall.

What additional protection could something like GesWall free provide IE7 that is not there already in protected mode?

thanks

[IceCube1010]

That's a very good question. I found them similiar in nature. I have Vista home and was using IE in protected mode. I then disabled it and went to Geswall Free. I switched because I had small issues with IE in protected mode. Ex. My gmail account would not remember my signin stuff and would have to key my username and password each time. I don't have that problem with Geswall free. Aigle and Kees would probably have more knowledge on this question. Hopefully they will chime in!

Ice

[djohn]

I use geswall pro on vista W UAC Off and IMO Geswall free or pro is far superior then vista UAC w protection On.I would suggest take a gander at the on going testof geswall by Aigle and some other apps as Well.I whole heartly believe The UAC/protection on would not stand a chance to the Rootkits/malware thats being thrown at geswall,Your mileage may very.Ps Did I say Gueswall Passed.

[Makav3l1]

GeSWall free is too crippled a program configuration wise to use imho. If you want to use GeSWall, buy the pro version.

[aigle]

I have tried GW a lot and it,s very strong. However I have no vista nad never tested IE protected mode against real malware. Same is true of UAC. So I can,t say how strong it is.

I just have the feeling that GW should be stronger than IE protected mode and even UAC. However GW( like IE protected mode) will cover only IE and some other internet applications while UAC covers whole of OS like a classical HIPS.

If you are used to with GW and don,t get any slow downs, GW is a strong silent security application. Free version costs nothing and might be enough for many users on its default settings.

[djohn]

I Had a email contact with Brian from Gentle Security (Geswall) Where UAC is recomended to be turned back on after the install.However UAC can cause Geswall to hang and is being worked as we speak and should be fixed In a latter update.I however have not noticed this issue at all.All the same I have UAC disabled.DEP all programs on and memory protection on.I also set Geswall to confidential for browser and email.

[carioca]

-{ Quote: "I have tried GW a lot and it,s very strong. However I have no vista nad never tested IE protected mode against real malware. Same is true of UAC. So I can,t say how strong it is.

I just have the feeling that GW should be stronger than IE protected mode and even UAC. However GW( like IE protected mode) will cover only IE and some other internet applications while UAC covers whole of OS like a classical HIPS.

If you are used to with GW and don,t get any slow downs, GW is a strong silent security application. Free version costs nothing and might be enough for many users on its default settings." }-
*puppy*
hi, aigle and buddies,
???
may I use geswall freeware together with cfp, comodo memory firewall, threatfire and avast home edition? do I find out some conflicts with them? which one do you ditch? i'd appreciate your helpful hints. best regards.

8)

[trjam]

you should rephrase the question. All you need with Vista, XP for that matter, is Geswall Pro.;)

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "*puppy*
hi, aigle and buddies,
???
may I use geswall freeware together with cfp, comodo memory firewall, threatfire and avast home edition? do I find out some conflicts with them? which one do you ditch? i'd appreciate your helpful hints. best regards.

8)" }-
Hmmm.... that might be too much. It basically depends all upon ur needs/ likings etc. GW has no conflict with Avst, TF, and CFP. Can,t say about memory FW though.

If u add GW, u might consider removing TF provided u are using Defenec Plus all the time.

Also not related to GW addition but u might consider removing memory FW to slim down the security. Lesser is better IMO. To me personally CFP n GW will suffice but I ahve added TF just to cover my PC as many times I just switch off Defence Plus.

And if some one is expert enough, he can remove Avast instaed of TF.

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "I whole heartly believe The UAC/protection on would not stand a chance to the Rootkits/malware thats being thrown at geswall," }-

I'm afraid to say that to believe without proof can lead you to inaccurate statements: While testing Vista/XP for rootkits detection from various antimalware applications, they had to turn off U.A.C. in order to let the rootkit install. U.A.C. managed to block them all.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146256/vistas_despised_uac_nails_rootkits_tests_find.html

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/05/25/tests-find-vistas-uac-nails-rootkits

I don't know anything about GeSWall, and by all means it is a great application from what has been reported, but needed on Vista?

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "I'm afraid to say that to believe without proof can lead you to inaccurate statements: While testing Vista/XP for rootkits detection from various antimalware applications, they had to turn off U.A.C. in order to let the rootkit install. U.A.C. managed to block them all.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146256/vistas_despised_uac_nails_rootkits_tests_find.html

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/05/25/tests-find-vistas-uac-nails-rootkits

I don't know anything about GeSWall, and by all means it is a great application from what has been reported, but needed on Vista?" }-
It is not needed on Vista, but I will use it over UAC any time of the day.

[aigle]

Actually GW might be more user friendly than UAC as GW is silent.

[djohn]

-{ Quote: "I'm afraid to say that to believe without proof can lead you to inaccurate statements: While testing Vista/XP for rootkits detection from various antimalware applications, they had to turn off U.A.C. in order to let the rootkit install. U.A.C. managed to block them all.

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/146256/vistas_despised_uac_nails_rootkits_tests_find.html

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/05/25/tests-find-vistas-uac-nails-rootkits

I don't know anything about GeSWall, and by all means it is a great application from what has been reported, but needed on Vista?" }-
That may be true but it sure allowed a trojant agent on my machine with out a word from UAC. I believe geswall would have stopped it cold If I had at the Time.I have now and Geswall has stopped 8 attacks for me and multiple scanner say I am clean.I stand by my original statement.

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "That may be true but it sure allowed a trojant agent on my machine with out a word from UAC. I believe geswall would have stopped it cold If I had at the Time.I have now and Geswall has stopped 8 attacks for me and multiple scanner say I am clean.I stand by my original statement." }-

You are giving me one example from your personal experience, and still use the hypothetical form "I believe Geswall would have stopped it cold..." If Geswall has stopped 8 attacks for you, kudos to Geswall (I believe it is a great application), still this has nothing to do with the effectiveness of Windows U.A.C.(Aigle hasn't tested UAC yet against the same malware tested against Geswall)

Your statement " I whole heartly believe The UAC/protection on would not stand a chance to the Rootkits/malware thats being thrown at geswall," is inaccurate or at least hypothetical.

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "I have now and Geswall has stopped 8 attacks for me " }-
Wonder how u manage to get all these attacks?

[djohn]

By purpose surfing porn sites with video content for a long a period of time.I have No samples so that was my way of testing through the mud.

[djohn]

-{ Quote: "You are giving me one example from your personal experience, and still use the hypothetical form "I believe Geswall would have stopped it cold..." If Geswall has stopped 8 attacks for you, kudos to Geswall (I believe it is a great application), still this has nothing to do with the effectiveness of Windows U.A.C.(Aigle hasn't tested UAC yet against the same malware tested against Geswall)

Your statement " I whole heartly believe The UAC/protection on would not stand a chance to the Rootkits/malware thats being thrown at geswall," is inaccurate or at least hypothetical." }-
Yes hypothetical I may be very well wrong about UAC and will admitt IF I am if UAC passes. until then its just feelings of course no facts. thanks.

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "By purpose surfing porn sites with video content for a long a period of time.I have No samples so that was my way of testing through the mud." }-
Hmm... that makes some sense then.