DefenseWall version 2.46 released.

[Blackcat]

DefenseWall HIPS 2.46 released.

1. Advanced COM protocol control.
2. Improved localization abilities (dwall_res.dll). Now on, you can make any localizations by your own hands.
3. Performance improvements.
5. OpenOffice3, Google Chrome, SWR Iron, Windows Media Recorder 12, Reply Media Catcher and other software support with default ruleset.
6. Removable HDD's are supported as removable devices.
7. Process separation for MS Word, MS Excel, MS Access, MS Word Viewer.
8. Removable sources are untrusted by default.
9. Buggy ActiveSkin is dropped off. Software is temporary unskinned.
Also, version contains a number of compatibility fixes.

http://www.softsphere.com/downloads/

[Creer]

-{ Quote: "DefenseWall HIPS 2.46 released.
(...)
http://www.softsphere.com/downloads/" }-
Amazing app worth any penny and new skinless is great.
Good job Ilya :thumb:

[ruinebabine]

Yes, this new skinless version is damn good and light.

Congrats, Ilya :thumb:

[djohn]

Yep just get updated today when I logged on,all seems well with its shedded skin.

[aigle]

Hmm.. any screenshots of this skinless GUI?

Thanks

[Creer]

-{ Quote: "Hmm.. any screenshots of this skinless GUI?

Thanks" }-
Sure, i.e. main window of the DefenseWall
205478

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "Sure, i.e. main window of the DefenseWall
205478" }-very simple and still strong;D ;)

[C.S.J]

ive curious to know why people say the skinless version is alot faster and lighter,

a GUI shouldn't be doing this to any product, is this poor coding in the GUI department, bad implementation or just a general bug?

there should be no reason, surely... why the GUI version cant run and work exactly the same.

[Fuzzfas]

-{ Quote: "ive curious to know why people say the skinless version is alot faster and lighter,

a GUI shouldn't be doing this to any product, is this poor coding in the GUI department, bad implementation or just a general bug?

there should be no reason, surely... why the GUI version cant run and work exactly the same." }-

It's notorious that the 2.45 skin is buggy. It caused various crashes. CPU wise, i didn't see any difference with the skinless (although i didn't try the "latest" 2.46 - there have been 2.46 updated releases). I didn't check the RAM. But stability-wise, there is no comparison. With the 2.45 after playing a while with the options in the skin, it would crash. Now it's perfectly stable. Ilya had engaged a freelance programmer to make a new skin, but he delayed it too much, so on popular demand, Ilya made the 2.46 skinless. And that's much better.

[Creer]

-{ Quote: "It's notorious that the 2.45 skin is buggy. It caused various crashes. CPU wise, i didn't see any difference with the skinless (although i didn't try the "latest" 2.46 - there have been 2.46 updated releases). I didn't check the RAM. But stability-wise, there is no comparison. With the 2.45 after playing a while with the options in the skin, it would crash. Now it's perfectly stable. Ilya had engaged a freelance programmer to make a new skin, but he delayed it too much, so on popular demand, Ilya made the 2.46 skinless. And that's much better." }-
Ram usage in newest version DW is improved
205479

[Fuzzfas]

-{ Quote: "Ram usage in newest version DW is improved
" }-

Ah, impressive! I think that with 2.45 it was about 25-30? Wow, that skin was really a menace! This is much better!

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "Sure, i.e. main window of the DefenseWall
205478" }-
Thanks, It,s neat and clean. But a pretty skin will be sure more attractive.

[chachazz]

Looks like this here; :)

205480

[Fuzzfas]

-{ Quote: "Looks like this here; :)

" }-

Yours doesn't count, you use non MS-approved visual styles, which makes it prettier. ;D

[chachazz]

-{ Quote: "Yours doesn't count, you use non MS-approved visual styles, which makes it prettier. ;D" }- Doesn't almost everybody? ;D ;D ;D

[apathy]

I love 2.46.. it is light, stable and protection is second to none.
I was testing out a web-to-phone app for a radio network I work with and it wasn't working for some reason.. as flash wanted to enable my microphone and headphones.. It was DW protecting me all the time.
I've been to a ton of dodgy sites using DW in Virtualbox and nothing gets through. If Ilya keeps this up my AV will end up on demand ;).

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "I love 2.46.. it is light, stable and protection is second to none.
I was testing out a web-to-phone app for a radio network I work with and it wasn't working for some reason.. as flash wanted to enable my microphone and headphones.. It was DW protecting me all the time.
I've been to a ton of dodgy sites using DW in Virtualbox and nothing gets through. If Ilya keeps this up my AV will end up on demand ;)." }-i dont use any antivirus here,Defensewall is even better than any antivirus free or paid:thumb: ;) ;D

[LoneWolf]

-{ Quote: "i dont use any antivirus here,Defensewall is even better than any antivirus free or paid:thumb: ;) ;D" }-

Gotta agree with you jmonge. ;D
Very strong protection indeed. :thumb:

[djohn]

I Second or third that very strong protection and With my sandboxie and Defensewall working full Time,I dropped the AV thingy.

[ambient_88]

Is this version compatible with Windows 7?

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "Is this version compatible with Windows 7?" }-

only way to know is try it urself, i doubt Ilya specifically made it to work with Windows 7.

[Trespasser]

DefenseWall installs and runs fine under Windows 7 (as does Shadow Defender). No problems at all.

Later...

One point...when I tried to install DefenseWall it wanted to install at C:/ instead of in the Program Files folder. Look out for that.

[Ilya Rabinovich]

-{ Quote: "as flash wanted to enable my microphone and headphones.. " }-
This could be a problem for a normal user. Please, contact me with DefenseWal log file exported, I'll fix it up.

[Ilya Rabinovich]

-{ Quote: "only way to know is try it urself, i doubt Ilya specifically made it to work with Windows 7." }-
I didn't made spacial testing for Win7 compatibility as it is beta version, MS may change everything ten times until release. I don't like an idea to rewrite and rewrite my code.

[bryanjoe]

I have the u/m pop up..... is it normal? allow or terminate?

Process "C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" attemps to get access to isolated resource "C:\Program Files\Opera\program\plugins\".

In another instance, VLC player and Ccleaner ...........

Process "C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe" attemps to get access to isolated resource "C:\Program Files\CCleaner\".

[Ilya Rabinovich]

Yes, sometimes happens. With that notification popups my advise is simple- if everything is fine, just ignore.

[bryanjoe]

-{ Quote: "Yes, sometimes happens. With that notification popups my advise is simple- if everything is fine, just ignore." }-

but what are these pop up for?
Cos i see it as Program A accessing another Program B files or something...

i maybe wrong cos i don't really know how it work...


Process "C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" attemps to get access to isolated resource "C:\Program Files\Opera\program\plugins\".

Process "C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe" attemps to get access to isolated resource "C:\Program Files\CCleaner\".

[Ilya Rabinovich]

That are about accessing other application's resources.

[jmonge]

-{ Quote: "but what are these pop up for?
Cos i see it as Program A accessing another Program B files or something...

i maybe wrong cos i don't really know how it work...


Process "C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" attemps to get access to isolated resource "C:\Program Files\Opera\program\plugins\".

Process "C:\Program Files\VideoLAN\VLC\vlc.exe" attemps to get access to isolated resource "C:\Program Files\CCleaner\"." }-you could apply ok if you trust the event or hit terminate if you dont trust action:thumb:

[stap0510]

Why the hell would a browser approach another application like VideoLan?
The only reason I can think of is when you start a video from your browser, which needs VideoLan to actually play it.

Otherwise it wouldn't make sense.

[Ilya Rabinovich]

I think, you did install a VLC browser plugin. As far as I remember, I didn't add VLC's resources as "resource protected". Could you clarify what is exactly going on there?