Defensewall 2.46

[firzen771]

maybe this was posted already but can somebody post a link to where i could download defensewall 2.46

[Minimax2000]

http://gladiator-antivirus.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=81884

[firzen771]

ok, ty for the link.

[apathy]

I'm liking the skinless DW. My subscription runs out in August so I still have a bit of time before updating my license. WOW! The memory usage has dramastically dropped from the previous version. I've got 5 untrusted apps open and firefox and it is only using 4500k mem. Well done!

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "I'm liking the skinless DW. My subscription runs out in August so I still have a bit of time before updating my license. WOW! The memory usage has dramastically dropped from the previous version. I've got 5 untrusted apps open and firefox and it is only using 4500k mem. Well done!" }-maybe the skin isues,now is peal off;D

[Creer]

Yeah i also like skinless DW, its better/faster than skin ver in my opinion ^^

[Ilya Rabinovich]

With the next versions, I can make skin option dynamical (switchable on and off). What's your opinion about it?

[C.S.J]

-{ Quote: "With the next versions, I can make skin option dynamical (switchable on and off). What's your opinion about it?" }-
it should be the users choice, personally i think the skinless option doesnt look good, but everyone thinks differently, to have both skins optional would be great Ilya.

[Minimax2000]

My opinion is different. Offering a buggy skinned UI leads to more support cases of users who don't know about this issue and therefore spoils the defensewall experience.

It's better to offer a functional skinless version only.

But why don't we make a poll, so the majority of the users will decide.;)

[demoneye]

i don't understand what the issue .
dw can be released in 2 version , skin and skinless or an option to switch between this 2 status

skinless is faster and stable , so i think that count at the end :)

[Fuzzfas]

-{ Quote: "With the next versions, I can make skin option dynamical (switchable on and off). What's your opinion about it?" }-

I think being able to choose is good. Certainly, it is much better to have the skinless compared to the current buggy skin. Skinless may be uglier but you are sure it won't crash. I suspect currently most DW users prefer the 2.46 skinless over the 2.45 with skin.

[Ilya Rabinovich]

Skin engine is about to be changed, so, it won't crash. Even in case of its crash, it's fully supported by its developer and I will be able to send crash dump and provide improved skin engine to the customers.

[djohn]

-{ Quote: "With the next versions, I can make skin option dynamical (switchable on and off). What's your opinion about it?" }-
I think thats a great Idea.

[Tony]

-{ Quote: "With the next versions, I can make skin option dynamical (switchable on and off). What's your opinion about it?" }-

Yes, a very good idea Ilya :thumb:

[LoneWolf]

-{ Quote: "With the next versions, I can make skin option dynamical (switchable on and off). What's your opinion about it?" }-

Good idea. :thumb:

[Creer]

-{ Quote: "Good idea. :thumb:" }-
I agree.

[Hugger]

-{ Quote: "With the next versions, I can make skin option dynamical (switchable on and off). What's your opinion about it?" }-

Good idea.
Hugger

[silver0066]

Skinless is better for me. Don't need the pretty pictures, just the protection.

[vijayind]

I agree with Team Skinless. Its so much lighter and crash free on my Vista.
But for the general audience at large, the switch option would be best.

By the way, is the switch proposed to be in the installer or in the program itself ??

[Tu5]

What is the skin issue everyone is talking about? Im using v2.45 right now and havent experienced any crashes at all. Anyway, i tried 2.46 and it does run slightly faster but i prefer the skin so im back with 2.45 :)

[Ilya Rabinovich]

-{ Quote: "By the way, is the switch proposed to be in the installer or in the program itself ??" }-
With its main menu.

[Threedog]

-{ Quote: "With the next versions, I can make skin option dynamical (switchable on and off). What's your opinion about it?" }-

My vote is for switchable too, Ilya. I will probably run it skinless though. I haven't had any problems with this skinless version so I am apt not to change a good thing. ;D

[simmikie]

-{ Quote: "My vote is for switchable too, Ilya. I will probably run it skinless though. I haven't had any problems with this skinless version so I am apt not to change a good thing. ;D" }-

for some reason i am still crashing with 2.46. Ilya has been contacted and as he always does he is right on it.


Mike

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "for some reason i am still crashing with 2.46. Ilya has been contacted and as he always does he is right on it.


Mike" }-i found that defensewall crash with processguard and also conflicts with online armor so deleted processguard all it is ok;) now e defensewall is back up and running normal also online armor it is ok,so the problem here was processguard:(

[danny9]

I like the skinless.
The program is all that matters.
However, I think users should have the choice.
Some people do judge the program on the GUI.

Best version yet Ilya! :thumb:

[MaB69]

Hi,

My vote will be switchable if needed (buggy), i will run DW skinless but may be i'm a bit puritan to let DW running naked :argh:

Regards,

MaB

[apathy]

Ilya I noticed something very cool.

Well besides less mem usage on the skinless beta,
when DW was using 42,000k after firefox finished doing whatever it dropped back down to 6,000k. I love this. I'd like to be able to add my folders under defense excludes via cut and paste rather than scrolling through all the folders again and again. Kudos to you, DW protects me well and at the same time it works perfectly with Firefox 3 and all the attachments.

[Ilya Rabinovich]

Defense excludes? Why do you need to have them there?

[bryanjoe]

skinless is good.......
more promotions is even better.....;D ;D

[apathy]

Hi Ilya,

Here is the error I got: 1:Attemps to make a screenshot,10014
Flash asked me if it could use my microphone and headphones
to use a web-to-phone app that a radio network I work for uses. http://www.tringme.com/ is the website of the product.

Everytime I tried to allow flash to use my mic I got that error:
1:Attemps to make a screenshot,10014

[Ilya Rabinovich]

There is very strange, because this makes a screenshot with BitBtl function.Please, mal me to the support e-mail with full log exported.

[muf]

I just checked DW for update and it downloaded and installed v2.47, and it's skinless by default! I would have thought the skinless would be an optional download or that there would be a way within DW to enable and disable the skin. The previous version I had was v2.45 skinned and v2.47 looks second rate by comparison. Ok, looks aren't everything and 'under the hood' it's probably better, but I just can't help wondering what was the thinking behind providing an update within the application that makes it look like the application has regressed.

muf

[MaB69]

-{ Quote: "I just checked DW for update and it downloaded and installed v2.47, and it's skinless by default! I would have thought the skinless would be an optional download or that there would be a way within DW to enable and disable the skin. The previous version I had was v2.45 skinned and v2.47 looks second rate by comparison. Ok, looks aren't everything and 'under the hood' it's probably better, but I just can't help wondering what was the thinking behind providing an update within the application that makes it look like the application has regressed.

muf" }-

Hi,

Ilya released 2.47 only to bug fix 2.46

Regards,

MaB

[chris2busy]

-{ Quote: "I just checked DW for update and it downloaded and installed v2.47, and it's skinless by default! I would have thought the skinless would be an optional download or that there would be a way within DW to enable and disable the skin. The previous version I had was v2.45 skinned and v2.47 looks second rate by comparison. Ok, looks aren't everything and 'under the hood' it's probably better, but I just can't help wondering what was the thinking behind providing an update within the application that makes it look like the application has regressed.

muf" }-
It fixed the activeskin issue that most dw users had for so long.thats progress to me :P

[muf]

Ok fine. If it's a bug fix then by all means go for it. Just a shock tbh. Having said that, nearly 24 hours have passed now and I've already gotten used to it. Will be nice to see a bit of color in the future, but if it creates bugs then keep it plain skinless.

muf

[jmonge]

one advise?should i leave registry,files and application protection off and only use or leave on network protection(malware defender)with Defensewall?thanks;)

[chris2busy]

i suggest that you exclude just the applications that dw handles(firefox,messenger e.g) and let it monitor the rest of the system..or just enable its script execution control for these.
cheers!

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "i suggest that you exclude just the applications that dw handles(firefox,messenger e.g) and let it monitor the rest of the system..or just enable its script execution control for these.
cheers!" }-how do i enable its script execution control ?in malware defender?

[chris2busy]

argh :P u got me running vmware again :D
right click the firefox.exe in the application list and select new rule>file rule
and add the filetypes you see in the screenshot(i hope i didn't forget anything)
then you can uncheck pretty much any else monitoring is being done to firefox from md since dw takes silent,good care of that ;)

[jmonge]

ahhh i know what you mean i already did that for scripts(vbs) and dlls;) thanks,that's cool chris:thumb:

[mvdu]

How do you get NoScript to be trusted in DefenseWall? Firefox is goofy when NoScript isn't trusted.

[chris2busy]

i think ilya has said you cannot do that..just run FF as trusted,set the scripts you want to be allowed and then it will remember them

[mvdu]

-{ Quote: "i think ilya has said you cannot do that..just run FF as trusted,set the scripts you want to be allowed and then it will remember them" }-

But doesn't running FF trusted bring the security level down? With FF untrusted, DW won't allow NoScript to do the job and allow scripts when I click temporarily allow from the NS menu.

[chris2busy]

-{ Quote: "But doesn't running FF trusted bring the security level down? With FF untrusted, DW won't allow NoScript to do the job and allow scripts when I click temporarily allow from the NS menu." }-
not trusted at all times,just once so you can make the sites you want to run their scripts with NS then close and run FF untrusted as always and NS will remember those settings

[MaB69]

Hi,

Noscript is doing his job with an untrusted FF on my comp.
I think you are talking about addons update that needs a trusted browser

Regards,

MaB

[mvdu]

-{ Quote: "Hi,

Noscript is doing his job with an untrusted FF on my comp.
I think you are talking about addons update that needs a trusted browser

Regards,

MaB" }-

I get different results on my system. I had to take DW off for now.

[mvdu]

-{ Quote: "not trusted at all times,just once so you can make the sites you want to run their scripts with NS then close and run FF untrusted as always and NS will remember those settings" }-

Too many pages to remember - I hope I can just get DW not to interfere.

[mvdu]

Appears I fixed it - just put a folder in the Firefox Profiles folder into the defense excludes.

[BrendanK.]

Mcafee Siteadvisor seems to conflict with DW :( Anyone know how to fix it?

[Ilya Rabinovich]

1. NoScript works perfectly with the latest builds of DefenseWall. If you have any problems- contact me.
2. If you have any problems with SiteAdvisor- contact me with DW's logs exported into a file.

[virtumonde]

-{ Quote: "Mcafee Siteadvisor seems to conflict with DW :( Anyone know how to fix it?" }-
On a pc that i have tried the latest siteadvisor ,without defensewall installed,the addon takes everytime when you change webpages 25-30 %CPU for 1-2 second.I understand that it needs contacting it's database while doing so but the usage was too much for me.

[BrendanAdams]

Did anyone test it alongside Outpost Firewall Pro ? Any compatibility issues ?

[Creer]

-{ Quote: "Did anyone test it alongside Outpost Firewall Pro ? Any compatibility issues ?" }-
Maybe it will helps you: http://gladiator-antivirus.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=77919&view=findpost&p=214935
The best way to check this is give it a shot and try this combo on your computer.