anyone heard of Online Armour?

[angarahad]

here's the link
http://www.tallemu.com/features.html

it sounds promising-(keylogger and spyware detection, web filter, DNS checker) -but upon searching the forums i haven't found any mention of it as yet.

[Notok]

It looks pretty promising, but sorry to say that with all the scams out there I would wait until someone like Eric Howes has a look at it before saying anything either way. Honestly, for the money, I would rather use ProcessGuard and MS AntiSpyware. The two together would offer much greater protection, no yearly updates, and a mature database of signatures for the same price. Prevx 3 is due out within the next month, and promises to offer much more than the current version, including some of what this program offers.. it may be one to keep an eye on.

Being the beta junkie that I am, I'm quite tempted. I'm inclined to pass at the moment, but we'll see what happens at 2am when my senses are dulled ;D

[bellgamin]

I asked the Tall Emu for a key to try Online Armor. They sent it within a matter of a few hours.

@Notok- I doubt it's a scam. Tall Emu does computer consulting in Sydney, Australia, and they openly publish their local address & phone numbers (http://www.tallemu.com.au/).

I'll be trialing their program starting tomorrow.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "
Being the beta junkie that I am, I'm quite tempted. I'm inclined to pass at the moment, but we'll see what happens at 2am when my senses are dulled ;D" }-

Hi Notok,

I'm actually from Tall Emu and if you're a beta junkie, I'd love for you to participate in our test program. If not, also happy to answer any questions that you may have about Online Armor, what it does and so on.

You can either reply on this thread, mail me directly [mike] at tallemu.com - (with Online Armor in the subject) or use the forums on TallEmu.com.

I'd be interested in how the original poster found us - we've not done any promotion really while we've been beta testing.

Cheers,

Mike

[chaos16]

is online armour compatible with firewalls like zonealarm and is it compatible with kaspersky antivirus etc....

[MikeNash]

Hi Chaos16,

Various beta testers have had *all sorts* of stuff running - I've personally tested it with ZoneAlarm, PrevX, MS Antispyware and found no problems. (In fact, quite amusing to use the program blocker to stop MS Antispyware executing :P )

Other ones I know work have been Norton, Trend, Kaspersky and AVG. It's been tested so far against many, many applications and we haven't found anything that clashes yet.


Mike

[Notok]

Bellgamin: Mahalo nui loa, once again ;D

Mike: Thanks for the invite, I just might take you up on it. May wait until the weekend, however :)

[dog]

Hi Mike, ;)

Do we need to request a key for the beta or does one only need to DL it from the DownLoad Page (http://www.tallemu.com/download.html)?

Steve

[Notok]

Check out the Buy Online (http://www.tallemu.com/buyonline.html) page for a contact form to get the beta key. :)

[chaos16]

Hi MikeNash
wats the adavantage of having online armour if u have

zonealarm pro
Kaspersky antivirus pro 5.5.0.20 with realtime protection
microsoft antispyware with - realtime protection
spywareblaster
spybot-search & destroy with immunize system enabled????

is there any extra protection that online protection gives???
and is it compatible and protects through firefox??

[dog]

-{ Quote: "Check out the Buy Online (http://www.tallemu.com/buyonline.html) page for a contact form to get the beta key. :)" }-AY, Thanks Notok ;)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi MikeNash
wats the adavantage of having online armour if u have

zonealarm pro
Kaspersky antivirus pro 5.5.0.20 with realtime protection
microsoft antispyware with - realtime protection
spywareblaster
spybot-search & destroy with immunize system enabled????

is there any extra protection that online protection gives???
and is it compatible and protects through firefox??" }-

Hi Chaos

The advantage in Online Armor - it can block any program from running on your PC - even unknown ones; It filters any website you visit - through all browsers - including embedded like in ICQ, custom written, whatever.

It will detect keylogger behaviour - not signature based - so if someone wrote one now, your install of OA would detect it - unless it used a completely new *method* of keylogging, in which case we'd need to do an auto update to protect against that attack method.

It will detect DNS subversion/poisoning, browser helper objects, IE toolbars... and it takes hardly any memory - just one program, not 5! Instead of cleaning off spyware, it stops it getting on in the first place...

Of course, still beta - we have lots of ideas for improvement and welcome suggestions as well :-) We just want to get a solid v1 release out there.

I'm sure, more features will occur to me, we have a fairly good list on the site - but its getting late here now, so I will be offline for next 10h - so licence key requests will get processed first thing in the morning, when I wake up :-)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I'm sure, more features will occur to me" }-

Ahh yes, the cookie cutter - transparently converts persistent cookies to session cookies - it doesn't break sites that need cookies, but stops them persisting between sessions. There's also a lot of security related features in there - have a look (and try) some of the exploits at secunia on, for example, IE and firefox.... I can think of X-site scripting, Browser window injection that we protect against.

[beetlejuice69]

Gonna give this program a try Mike. Looks good so far.

[JRCATES]

Looks very promising, Mike. One question I have and that is not mentioned anywhere is rootkit detection/prevention. I like what I'm reading about keylogging, but how is it on rootkit trojans?

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Looks very promising, Mike. One question I have and that is not mentioned anywhere is rootkit detection/prevention. I like what I'm reading about keylogging, but how is it on rootkit trojans?" }-

Prevent - yes - detect - not really. Our focus is on prevention. The only reason we have a database of apps is so people can identify programs.

OA can stop any program running, so provided OA is active, it can't get a hold. If you do run a rootkit trojan, OA *may* be able to get rid of it, depending on how ingrained it gets. At a minimum, you'll know what files and reg entries it dropped - and it can be probably be prevented from running on next reboot.

We will probably have some mechanism of detecting already present rootkits in a later version.

[chaos16]

i will give it a try then

but it works alot like a firewall like allow programs???

and u say it wont conflict with firewall u say it works with firewalls???

and how many ppl are working on online armour??

[angarahad]

original poster here--i'm a newbie so i must admit to being moderately clueless about the whole PC security deal--so i've been scanning the net looking to update my current solutions.

(XP SP2 (i know-- M$oft is evil!! but i got this PC from my parents--the next one will be Linux all the way!)
Mozilla Firefox 1.0.4 (love it love it love it!)
spoofstick tbar
Noscript extension
ADblock extension
Popups Must Die! extension
NOD32 v2.5 (tried Kaspersky--my PC did not like it--sad!)
Look 'n' Stop 2.05 with Phant0m's rules v6 http://www.doubledaze.com/lnsrsphant0m/
(got this after reading all the recommendations here--can't imagine life without it now)
Trojan Hunter 4.2 free version
a-squared Free
Lavasoft's Ad-Aware 1.06
Spybot Search & Destroy 1.4
Javacool's SpywareBlaster 3.4 and SpywareGuard 2.2
Microsoft Anti-Spyware
MJ Registry Watcher Version 1.2.4.2
System Safety Monitor version 1.9.6 beta 2
Processguard v3.150 free version
Proxomitron 4.2
Phishguard
Secure-It (i'm still too scared to use Harden-it yet)


i'd been reading about these drive-by installs and keylogger problems--so i wanted to find some programs to help fortify my current defenses. right now i've been circling ProcessGuard Paid as an option--but also want to try out some anti-keyloggers to see what's a good fit.

in my travels searching for anti-keyloggers that use algorithms, i found this link via google
http://www.spywareinfoforum.com/index.php?showtopic=45701&hl=/

there was a mention of the Online Armor beta--so i wanted to investigate further.
i couldn't find any other mention on Wilder's so that's why i posted my initial inquiry--i hope that was a good thing!! the one thing that i really dig about Online Armor is the pricing--$29.95 for initial investment--then $14.95 for "yearly subscriptions" after that!

[Just wondering]

You may want to try Snoopfree, I run it with PG full with no problems.

To check it out using Diamonds Keyhook.exe....or PcAudits leaktests 1 and 2.

Of course PG pops up first asking to allow or not...but if you allow..Snoopfree

will pop up then asking same.

http://www.snoopfree.com/default.htm

[chaos16]

who here has tried online armour and are happy with it???

[bellgamin]

I am in the VERY early stages of trying OA. Comments...
1- OA adds itself to start-up without asking permission. Very un-cool.
2- On first use, OA *called home* without prior warning. Obviously this is done so as to download updates to trusted/untrusted (or whatever), but there should be a notice given during installation that this will happen, & why, plus reassurance of privacy. Otherwise, we who are ultra-paranoid might be turned off from the get-go.
3- Is the trusted list protected by a strong CRC checksum such as SHA-1, MD5 etc? If not, it's pretty vulnerable to spoofing I would think.
4- Some of us use a large HOSTS files. OA asks about each individual entry. Perhaps there should be a way to tell OA to ignore HOSTS, or at least pre-certify it.

[chaos16]

so it not a really good security program

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "so it not a really good security program" }-NOTHING posted thus far should lead to such a negative conclusion.

OA is still in beta. Mike has told us that further improvements are in the works. In its present stage, OA appears to offer LOTS & LOTS of promise.

However... if someone lacks the *beta-testing spirit* then this program probably isn't for you as yet. No offense :-X

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I am in the VERY early stages of trying OA. Comments...
1- OA adds itself to start-up without asking permission. Very un-cool.
2- On first use, OA *called home* without prior warning. Obviously this is done so as to download updates to trusted/untrusted (or whatever), but there should be a notice given during installation that this will happen, & why, plus reassurance of privacy. Otherwise, we who are ultra-paranoid might be turned off from the get-go.
3- Is the trusted list protected by a strong CRC checksum such as SHA-1, MD5 etc? If not, it's pretty vulnerable to spoofing I would think.
4- Some of us use a large HOSTS files. OA asks about each individual entry. Perhaps there should be a way to tell OA to ignore HOSTS, or at least pre-certify it." }-

Hi there...

1- In order for OA to run, it *must* start automatically with the PC. This is done not so we can install the protection as soon as possible. For example, if you have a bit of spyware in your startups and Online Armor hasn't started *first* it will be unable to stop the spyware running. I'm not sure of a good way around this one.

2. There's an option on the main screen - but you're right, I should put a notice/option either in setup, or in the saftey check wizard. I'll sort that out over the weekend.

3. Yes, we're using a secure one-way hash :-) - Updates are encyrpted and signed. A lot of thought has gone into protecting OA from spoofing and attacks.

4. Hosts - Yeah, you got me there too... I personally dont use hosts as a killfile, that one slipped thru the cracks. In the case of a large hosts file, I could probably make it so we can "allow all".

Hope that helps..


Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "i will give it a try then

but it works alot like a firewall like allow programs???

and u say it wont conflict with firewall u say it works with firewalls???

and how many ppl are working on online armour??" }-

That's just one of the features Chaos - program blocker. A firewall blocks programs accessing the internet. Online Armor blocks programs from even starting... and filters web pages, mail, etc, etc....

[Notok]

I have to say, although there's some room for polish this is one of the best quality betas I've run. It's got some tremendous potential, and haven't seen anything like it to date. I think this might even cover the 'mom-friendly' version of ProcessGuard that I requested in the PG wishlist thread once the software database gets established :)

[Notok]

Interesting thing to note is that it alerts to hooks earlier than PG does, at least for me.

[HD rider UK]

I am currently trialling the Beta and I must say that I like it. I agree with Notok's comment on it being a friendly app to use. Hopefully the Beta testing will result in a valuable addition to the armoury.

HDRiderUK

[MikeNash]

Hi All,

Just a big thank you to those of you who have participated in the beta testing of Online Armor - we've discovered (and fixed!) a number of bugs and also had some new feature ideas :-)

In the next day or so I'll be releasing another beta version which will be closer to the final release. In particular, it addresses a number of cosmetic issues and a few usability concerns.

In no specific order:

* Warns user that an internet connection is required to install the product.

* Gives the user the ability to opt-out of sharing program data with us during the execution of the safety-check wizard (instead of after)

* Warns the user that the program will auto-start, and must do so in order to be effective

* A few hints in places to better explain what is happening.

There will also *hopefully* be a new feature which will lower the security privileges of programs such as Internet Explorer, Outlook, ICQ etc when they are executed by a user logged in with admin privs.

Once again, thanks for the help and feedback guys - it really has been invaluable.

Best,

Mike
www.tallemu.com

[Blackcat]

New version out tomorrow.

The new version is release candidate 2. If there are no major issues it will be the first "gold" release.

Version 1.2 will have the functions of reg defender ... a subsequent version (maybe v1.4) will have a personal firewall as well.

Looks promising 8)

[JT3]

-{ Quote: "Interesting thing to note is that it alerts to hooks earlier than PG does, at least for me." }-

Well based on the whole talk about hooks on LIFO, this merely means it starts latter than PG.

SSM hooks earlier for me too.

[MikeNash]

Hi All... we didn't quite get dynamic process priv. lowering into the v1.1 release - but this will go out on Auto updates a few weeks after version 1.1

We've spent the last few weeks chasing down some obscure bugs impacting small numbers of users (which could, of course potentially impact larger numbers in future) and we figured stability was more worthwhile than a new feature we can put out at a later date.

If anyone is having any problems with the beta test version, please mail me directly. We take any bugs in Online Armor extremely seriously.

Of course, I'm hoping that everyone who got a licence key and hasn't mailed us for any reason is happily enjoying OA with no problems :-)


Regards

Mike

[Notok]

-{ Quote: "
Well based on the whole talk about hooks on LIFO, this merely means it starts latter than PG. " }-If that were the case, PG being installed after OA would cause PG to alert first, which is not the case here. They seem to prevent execution differently, and OA seems to stop it earlier in the process. I doubt the implication of this is really all that great, but it's interesting to note none the less :)

[JT3]

-{ Quote: "If that were the case, PG being installed after OA would cause PG to alert first, which is not the case here. They seem to prevent execution differently, and OA seems to stop it earlier in the process. I doubt the implication of this is really all that great, but it's interesting to note none the less :)" }-

It's not a matter of being *installed*. It's a matter of starting.

[Notok]

I don't believe hooks are generally removed when the application exits, this could potentially cause problems. For the sake of argument, however, I disabled PG, killed all 3 processes, then restart them all (with OA already running), and OA still alerted first. Like I say, they seem to stop execution differently. When I ran the trojan dropper Small.aio, it managed to spawn IE before PG stopped the rest of it from executing, whereas it did not with OA.

Another difference with OA is that if you mistakenly allow execution, you can go into the 'programs' tab and hit the 'delete' button to remove the file and any changes it has made, removing the infection. After the database is filled up, this guesswork will be brought to a minimum, however.

[Blackcat]

Notok

How do you view OA compared to ProcessGuard/SafeNSec? Any preference so far?

I am impressed so far with the beta, but I am looking forward to the version with the Registry Guard. Support has been very good so far.

[Notok]

I like the execution protection better in a lot of ways, and the registry protection is very nice. I preffer the keylogger protection for what it does, although it's not as comprehensive as PG's hooking protection (perhaps in the future?), and covers drivers by prompting you to allow them as any other executable. Safe n Sec covers files, where OA doesn't (again, perhaps in future versions? would be nice..), so overall there would be some overlap, but it's not a 100% replacment for them, at least not yet. As it is, though, they run quite nicely together, so the overlap isn't that big of a deal for me. I'm sure that in coming versions I will make a decision one way or another.. I definitely look forward to the full registry guard as well :) I wouldn't say that you NEED PG or SnS to complete OA, but if you've already got them and are happy with them, there's no particular need to get rid of them quite yet if you don't want to. If you're looking to consolidate, I think OA is a good solution, especially for the less technically inclined.

And I agree about the support. I don't think I've encountered a beta that fixes problems so promptly.

[Blackcat]

Thanks for your comments, Notok
-{ Quote: "I like the execution protection better in a lot of ways, and the registry protection is very nice. " }-
In the present version does it offer any registry protection? I have tried it with Ghostecurity's RegTest 1 and each modification was successful!

[Tassie_Devils]

A couple of screenies of it would be nice 8)
Anyone?

Cheers, TAS

[Blackcat]

Easy to setup with the install wizard.

[Blackcat]

Safety check OK.

[Blackcat]

Start Menu programs to trust?

[Blackcat]

Startup items.

[Blackcat]

No dangerous files 8)

[Blackcat]

IE extensions.

[Blackcat]

Set up your preferences.

[Blackcat]

Wizard completed! Did not take long.

[Blackcat]

A typical pop-up Window.

[Blackcat]

Notice it can check for keyloggers. Updated current version is 1.1.0.46.

[Blackcat]

Program updated and Allowed programs listed.

[Blackcat]

I have only played about with this beta for a short time but it already seems a polished product.

1. I had an initial error with the serial key sent but support quickly corrected this and overall they seem very keen and on the ball.

2. Installation was easy with the Wizard and only 1 process is loaded, OnlineArmor.exe which takes up 10MB VM. The program takes up 11MB disk space and gives a very clean uninstall as well.

3. OA did not have any effect on the speed of my computer startup and the only slight slowdown was seen on some web pages with numerous image files, which meant the Web Screen was doing its job. It appears to be very stable and I have not yet seen any conflicts with my hardware/software.

4. GUI and Help-File were clearly layed out.


Overall I am impressed so far with this program and it should show a number of further improvements in the future such as Registry protection.

I am looking forward to Kareldjag putting OA through his tests.

However, my only criticism so far is that the initial purchase price of $39 with annual renewal fees after this. This seems expensive compared to the opposition and for a new HIPS program to the market.

But OA is definitely a security program to keep an eye on ;)

[Notok]

Well the autoruns and IE watchers are both registry protection, although they are pollers atm.. should be noted that OA works with Windows 9x, it wouldn't w/ regdefend style registry protection. My favorite feature is actually the web screen, which prompts you on java applets, activex, file downloads, etc, and will also filter out some exploits like Kye-U's Proxomitron filters. It will also alert you if you recieve a phishing email. Enter your bank as a trusted site and you won't have to worry about it anymore :)

I think the database will make a big difference. Once that's full (of both trusted and malware files) the price will be a lot more worth it, especially with the features that are planned.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Thanks for your comments, Notok
In the present version does it offer any registry protection? I have tried it with Ghostecurity's RegTest 1 and each modification was successful!" }-

Hi Blackcat - The current version has a non-polling registry protection proxy, which if I understand correctly is similar to that offered by Reg Defender. However, OA only currently uses the proxy to check for a few things like programs requesting to Auto start, changes to IE Homepage.

What we're trying to achieve with OA is ease of use... everyone who asks me, I tell them we're making it for their mum - so when we put in the registry protection stuff, it has to be done in a way that's easy to use.

So, its basically this - OA technically can protect the registry - but doesn't at the moment, because we need to think about the UI. I think we have it sussed how we're going to implement it, but we need to get 1.1 squared away and released before we put any more features in there.

The good news is that the version I am just about to put on the website looks like it could be the 1.1 final release - so, work may start on the new version on Monday.



Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I am looking forward to Kareldjag putting OA through his tests.

However, my only criticism so far is that the initial purchase price of $39 with annual renewal fees after this. This seems expensive compared to the opposition and for a new HIPS program to the market.

But OA is definitely a security program to keep an eye on ;)" }-

Hi again Blackcat... definitely agree with your last statement :-)

You know what, I hate pricing. Its so difficult picking the right price for a product, and you can never increase it without upsetting people. Too low and the marketing weasels get on my back and say "why should you sell a superior product for less. Nobody's gonna buy that." I'm sure they'd want me to sell it for $99.95 if I'd let them. Greedy little chaps that they are.

Here's why I think Online Armor is worth $39.95 (and $14.95 per year thereafter).

The subscription includes all of the new releases of Online Armor - not just pattern updates - so, when for example OA v2.0 comes out - if you subscribe, you get it. Simple. If you have a valid susbscription (or within the first year of purchase, you will *always* have the latest and greatest OA. No sneaky weasel upgrade tactics... just good old fashioned auto update.

If you don't renew at the end of the 12 months, your OA will keep working with all of the features, you just won't get the new stuff. Since we don't rely on signatures (although, we use them, to help users identify the processes) - you're not really that much worse off.

We've noticed our beta testers are using all sorts of security programs (paid, or not). One popular one seems to be RegDefender - $29.95 if I remember right. Now, these features will be in v1.2 of OA. We're also looking at adding in a personal firewall (a good one) but that will probably be v1.4 because writing firewalls is, umm. hard.

I guess my point is that all the fruit that's going into OA over the next 12 months alone will definitely be worth $39.95, so even if you don't think its worth that price now it soon will be.

12 months from now, you could decide if it's worth shelling out another $14.95 based on your experience with the product and if you're happy with what you've got at that time :-)


Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I preffer the keylogger protection for what it does, although it's not as comprehensive as PG's hooking protection (perhaps in the future?), and covers drivers by prompting you to allow them as any other executable. Safe n Sec covers files, where OA doesn't (again, perhaps in future versions? would be nice..)" }-

Hi Notok

Not for long :-) v1.2 will have hooking protection to prevent various types of nastiness. I'm not sure what you mean by "SafeNSec covers files" - but if you drop me a note, if the feature is any good I will add it to the to do list.


Mike

[richrf]

Hi Mike,

For many years I worked for many different software firms and I was also on the board of directors of many startup software companies. I think your pricing schedule is very well thought out, competitive, and will hopefully support all future development/sales efforts. I think that having a strong sales model is important to users, since users are in a sense investing in a company/product and it is good to know that there are sufficient resources to support continued development as the security landscape changes.

Good luck with your efforts!

Rich

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Well the autoruns and IE watchers are both registry protection, although they are pollers atm.. should be noted that OA works with Windows 9x, it wouldn't w/ regdefend style registry protection. " }-

No, they're not :-)

It was "fun" making sure OA worked on Win98, but we didn't resort to polling to do it!


Mike

[Notok]

-{ Quote: "No, they're not :-)

It was "fun" making sure OA worked on Win98, but we didn't resort to polling to do it!" }-Ah, very cool, good to know :)

[Blackcat]

Mike, thanks for your comments and I hope you can stick around here in the future.

I am looking forward to the progression of OA ;)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Mike, thanks for your comments and I hope you can stick around here in the future.

I am looking forward to the progression of OA ;)" }-

Hi Blackcat,

As soon as we get OA launched, try and keep me away :-)

Actually, I have a question for the group - when we launch, we're going to have a 15d eval period for the product, which should be enough to demonstrate its value. I've had conflicting thoughts over a free version. On the one hand, this is a great way to get users. On the other hand, it's a great way to get enormous bills for bandwith and support - because even the free version needs to be adequately supported.

If you could pick one element of OA which would remain free (including some of the upcoming features like registry protection) - which would it be, and why?

My personal preference would be to have a 15d eval of OA, which after 15d converted to the free version which only gave registry protection like RegDefend. (arguablly, $29.95 of value ;-)

Anyone have any comments on that?

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: " I've had conflicting thoughts over a free version. On the one hand, this is a great way to get users. On the other hand, it's a great way to get enormous bills for bandwith and support - because even the free version needs to be adequately supported." }-
A free version would be a great idea for users and a good way to attract potential customers 8) But, as you say it may cause some initial headaches for your company.
-{ Quote: "If you could pick one element of OA which would remain free (including some of the upcoming features like registry protection) - which would it be, and why?" }-
The preferred feature may depend upon what security setup is already in use and what level of expertise is being targeted.

Newbies may plump for a firewall or the application control. More experienced users who already have one or more HIPS programs installed may choose another non-overlapping feature.

[Tassie_Devils]

Hi Blackcat. :)

You are a little bloody champion matey posting all those screenies. ;D Thanks a lot.

Time taken is sure appreciated from this little black cat duck, lol.

Also thanks to Mike for his answers and taking notice of feedback. Good to see, hope continued development goes well for you mate. ;)

Mike kindly emailed me the key and I shall have a play on the weekend. :o

Cheers, TAS

[Jame Taylor]

-{ Quote: "Hi Blackcat,


My personal preference would be to have a 15d eval of OA, which after 15d converted to the free version which only gave registry protection like RegDefend. (arguablly, $29.95 of value ;-)

Anyone have any comments on that?" }-

That's pretty evil. But if I used only freebies, I think registry protection would be highly appreciated.

[James Taylor]

I'm starting to regret buying Regdefend.

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "What we're trying to achieve with OA is ease of use... everyone who asks me, I tell them we're making it for their mum" }-I have a similar strategy, if my Aunt and Uncle can use a piece of software, anyone can ;) ;D They do take the odd note though ;)

A very good strategy indeed Mike.

Cheers ;D

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "when we launch, we're going to have a 15d eval period for the product, which should be enough to demonstrate its value." }-I really don't think so, I would make it 30 days, that is a very good length, it gives you a very good feel for the software, you will find quite a number choose 30 days as a eval period.

As to what feature to default to after this trial period, you could give the user a choice, click on x, y or z, if you don't make a choice now it will default to x.

My 2 cents.

Cheers ;D

[HD rider UK]

Evening all

well I have had this on trial for a while now and I have to admit that I am impressed, not just with the app, but also the support to the beta testers from Mike etc. I have just done an uninstall test of my copy as my "final " validation so to speak, and i can report that its uninstall is as neat as every other aspect of its performance. I am going to d/l the latest version later and see how it has improved. I do have a concern regarding future development though. This only my opinion, but for what it is worth I dont see the need to incorporate a firewall into OA, It plays very happily with ZA on my machine as it is. I would hate to see a great application like this lose its focus and as a result, rum the risk of a sprawl into mediocrity.

Regarding cost and trial periods, I do not think the pricing is too high if the support from the company to purchasers proves to be as good as it has been to the beta testers. If the developers can provide the resource to offer a 30 day, fully functional trial then great, but if the resource implications in doing so meant a deterioration in their support capacity I would prefer a shorter trial. I do not personally see the need to offer any functionality after the trial period, this is a commercial venture. However, if I had a choice, i would keep either the web shield or the registry modules thanks very much!

HD Rider UK

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "...I dont see the need to incorporate a firewall into OA, It plays very happily with ZA on my machine as it is. I would hate to see a great application like this lose its focus and as a result, rum the risk of a sprawl into mediocrity." }-I don't mind a all in one application, so long as it remains a leader in all pieces of software incorporated in to the application, and you have the choice to install each piece of software or not. As well as the ability to uninstall each piece of software, so if you wanted the firewall you would click on it when asked during installation, and later on you decided you no longer wanted it, you then could easily remove it and run another firewall.

Cheers ;D

[Notok]

-{ Quote: "I don't mind a all in one application, so long as it remains a leader in all pieces of software incorporated in to the application, and you have the choice to install each piece of software or not. As well as the ability to uninstall each piece of software, so if you wanted the firewall you would click on it when asked during installation, and later on you decided you no longer wanted it, you then could easily remove it and run another firewall." }-I had concerns about this as well, Mike had assured me that you could disable the feature and use another without problem, if you so choose.

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "I had concerns about this as well, Mike had assured me that you could disable the feature and use another without problem, if you so choose." }-That will be good then, just seen too many applications where they bundle and you can't dissect ::) Choice is good ;D

Cheers ;D

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I'm starting to regret buying Regdefend." }-

James - why? When I looked at it, it seemed to be a good piece of software.

I'm glad you're supporting small vendors, because without people prepared to buy from the small guys like us products like OA don't happen.

[MikeNash]

Hi All,

Thanks for the kind words, comments and criticisms. I have a bit of a confession to make - in my last upload, there's a bug in the programs screen so it doesn't show the "parent" program correctly - unfortunately, this has automatically updated out to everyone. It doesn't affect the function of the program, it's just *really* annoying.

Sorry about that - OA is always cleanly installed on my PC at the office (emptying the programs list) and auto updated on another PC (where I didn't notice it on account of dancing like a maniac due to a successful fix of a wierd compatability issue).

Just to deal with some of the comments in posts overnight -

Free version - I think this is going to go on the back burner for now, and we'll see how it goes with the product once its released. I want to focus on supporting a single version of the product (although, the idea of choose your free component is cool.)

The firewall. OA is not going to expand into a massive "Internet Security Monstrosity", it's going to stay focused on what it's designed to do - which is not so much generic antispyware as protecting your mum's computer from all manner of nastiness. Think of it as a free-time recovery for techs with parents (or non-tech friends).

I don't want to say too much about what its going to do - but you *will* be able to turn it off it you don't want it, and OA will always play nice with other security products such as ZA.

As with everything we've tried to do with OA, we want to make it powerful *and* easy to use. I'm not sure that firewalls currently fit this description, but the one in OA most certainly will. Rest assured, it won't ever see the light of day if we cannot get it working to a very high standard.


Mike

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: " I have just done an uninstall test of my copy as my "final " validation so to speak, and i can report that its uninstall is as neat as every other aspect of its performance. HD Rider UK" }-
I can confirm the very clean procedure.

However, my firewall was triggered during the uninstall as OA tried to call Home. Is this to stop another install?

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "However, my firewall was triggered during the uninstall as OA tried to call Home. Is this to stop another install?" }-

Hi Blackcat - yes, the licencing system needs to talk with the server to prevent multiple installs.

Mike

[Blackcat]

Will there therefore be any leeway in the full version for more than one install on the same machine?

Over time, I can envisage a number of events which may mean more than one installation may be necessary. Or do we have to "roll-back" in some way?

[ILikeThat]

-{ Quote: "

My personal preference would be to have a 15d eval of OA, which after 15d converted to the free version which only gave registry protection like RegDefend. (arguablly, $29.95 of value ;-)

Anyone have any comments on that?" }-


Yes, I like your choice. Registry protection would be nice for the free version. But I'm not so fond of the firewall idea, but as long as it can be disabled, I suppose it would be ok.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Will there therefore be any leeway in the full version for more than one install on the same machine?

Over time, I can envisage a number of events which may mean more than one installation may be necessary. Or do we have to "roll-back" in some way?" }-

Licence keys are keyed to a specific machine, so all things being equal you should be able to install unlimited times on the same PC. There's no need to "roll-back" at all.

You can try that with the beta version actually - repeated install/uninstall should work within the time limitation of the key.

[Blackcat]

Thanks, Mike ;)

[Tassie_Devils]

I've installed and done some testing of this and am very impressed personally, after some initial install probs [Safety Check Wizard was bypassing on the version I got and kept wanting me to 'Allow/Block' over 5000 Hosts file entries, *ouch*, and Mike soon realised what had happened after several emails over weekend ~ that's good support ~ so immediately put up a newer version, and worked first up :)]

Talk about simple, as they say "Ya Mom could work it". Once installed it was just too simple.

I also rang Mike this morning and had a chat with him [oh the cost of long distance :'( lol ] for around 40 mins and was also impressed with his commitment and freely answered any/all questions I asked.

He suggested a couple of sites to go to for testing, eg: java applets/etc. and loved the pop-up to allow/block.
Once blocked, I see blanks or 'blocked by OA' on page, but still able to browse that site successfully. ;)

Great start to good support I should think on this product.

I also like the 'Allow/Block on each unknown proggy [and I have heaps, but it lets you know] and even when I first went to open Firefox the first time, it asked whether to allow TDS's 'execprot.exe' to run which in itself checks .exe's on each opening.... lol, checked the checker. :)

pic of one proggy trying to open.

Cheers, TAS

[Tassie_Devils]

Thought I'd show pic of site browsing with pop-up.

Site is Sydney Morning Herald and it's asking whether to allow an Applet to run or not.

TAS

[greg32]

I disagree with this revert to free crap that some programs do. 30 days should be trial. When you give people the choice of reverting to a lesser level of protection, you rely on them to understand what they are sacrificing. If this is for mum, dont do it, cause she will not know what the hell is going on. If someone likes your product, and it is reasonably priced, then I think people will pay for it in it's entirety. Don't offer a lesser program for free, that takes your efforts away from the main software at hand.

With regard to firewall, dont do it yet either. Zonealarm is free, and will be indefinately. Why try to aim to big? Mike, I wrote you today, saying I would like to see more advanced options. I think this would be good - keep a interface for mums, but allow an option for more advanced stuff too. Maybe concentrate on registry attacks, and keyloggers as well.

I like this program so far. Very neat, light, quick, and clean . I look forward to seeing its development, and will be keeping a close eye on it. It must be close to worth the money already, and most definately will be in the future, from what you say. Keep up the good work.

I do reckon Aussies should get it cheaper though! lol.
Cheers Greg

[MikeNash]

Hi Greg,

Almost worth the money ? ;-)

We're still finalising things and as always, they are subject to change. One of the ways that we want to differentiate OA is by a focus on quality and service - and keep it easy to use. That probably rules out a free version, and I think that the eval will remain at 15 days once we launch. As I suspect the beta testers have seen (pricing issues excluded) only a few days is really necessary to "get" OA - and understand if it is needed.

V1.2 will feature advanced registry protection, comparable to RegDefend. We'll also be tidying up a few things with hook protection and generally consolidating and improving on what is already there - likely some advanced options will be added.

Firewall is pencilled in right now for a 1.4 release. 1.2 is adding new features already clearly defined (at least, in our specs) - 1.3 will likely be driven by user feedback. As I think I have mentioned on here before - if I can't make the OA firewall to the same standard as OA, then an OA firewall will not be added - BUT I do think that the OA approach to a firewall - simplicity and power will work well.

Each release of OA will have a beta and public comment - which we listen to closely - so I suppose we'll know pretty quickly if an OA firewall is barking up the wrong tree.

As for Aussie discount - Beta testers get OA free (apologies if you missed the mail) regardless of where they live.

I'm outa here for the night, but will reply to mails/posts tomorrow.

cheers


Mike

[WSFuser]

for me, i would greatly like a reduced functionality version. i havent yet tried this program but if i liked it, im not sure if my budget would allow me to keep it.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "for me, i would greatly like a reduced functionality version. i havent yet tried this program but if i liked it, im not sure if my budget would allow me to keep it." }-

You could join the beta program - that way to get it free when we release it :-)

[WSFuser]

-{ Quote: "I've installed and done some testing of this and am very impressed personally, after some initial install probs [Safety Check Wizard was bypassing on the version I got and kept wanting me to 'Allow/Block' over 5000 Hosts file entries, *ouch*, and Mike soon realised what had happened after several emails over weekend ~ that's good support ~ so immediately put up a newer version, and worked first up :)]" }-
so what does that do for people with large hosts file? what the proper way so OA doesnt prompt u for every entry?

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "so what does that do for people with large hosts file? what the proper way so OA doesnt prompt u for every entry?" }-

Hi - Blackcat posted some screenshots of the Safety check wizard - I think they are on page 2 of the thread.

Basically, SCW is designed as a quick setup for your PC. For example, it will display the hosts file and allow you to multiselect/deselect entries as needed, check which programs you already trust, display existing IE objects, etc.

Once the SCW is completed, you then get popups when something new happens. In Tazzie's case, what happened is that a bug stopped the SCW from running... he restarted OA, which then went "Hang on a sec, something's gone and put 40k entries in the HOSTS file... POPUP! Popup! Popup!

That's now been fixed, and we're close with the proxy - so I am about to load a new version on the site, and onto the automatic updates page.

Aside from that, a couple of users have mailed me with a few bugs - we'll continue to investigate them today/tomorrow and hopefully get the last few things nailed.

Any probs/questions - happy to answer by mail or in here :-)



Mike

[WSFuser]

can u rereun the wizard like if u were to change ur hosts file afterwards?

[lovecraft2]

-{ Quote: "
However, my only criticism so far is that the initial purchase price of $39 with annual renewal fees after this. This seems expensive compared to the opposition and for a new HIPS program to the market.
" }-


I agree with that statement. OA is over priced in my opinion too. There are other programs available that are better, have a good solid track record, and don't charge such high prices. It really looks like Nash is just in it for the money. Luckily there are other more honest companies out there that are putting out good products, but aren't out to overcharge their customers.

LC2

[Notok]

Overcharge by what, $10? For the addition of signatures and the forthcoming firewall and full registry protection, it doesn't seem that much. Especially if you add together the costs of all the "more reasonably priced" products. The closest I can figure for all the options would be either Spyware Doctor ($30) and RegDefend ($30), or ProcessGuard ($30) and maybe one of the other popular anti-spyware apps ($20-30), any way you go you're still at least $10 better w/ OA, with the same renewal fee, and still wouldn't have all the advantages of OA.

As far as honest, you can't run a full company without money. You wouldn't get anywhere near the same turn-around with bugs being fixed or support with one guy doing it all for free, nor the innovation or willingness to add in even more.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I agree with that statement. OA is over priced in my opinion too. There are other programs available that are better, have a good solid track record, and don't charge such high prices. It really looks like Nash is just in it for the money. Luckily there are other more honest companies out there that are putting out good products, but aren't out to overcharge their customers.
LC2" }-

I'm struggling to come to grips with the statment "more honest companies". I have posted in this thread completely honestly and openly about our pricing, our product and our plans. If you think that Online Armor is too expensive, you have two options:

Option 1 - join the beta program, in which case even though you don't seem a very nice guy, you'd still get the product for free when released.

Option 2 - don't buy it.

What's your OA licence key? I bet you haven't even tried it and you're posting from a guest account to get a reaction. The feedback we have had (aside from pricing, which a couple of people have disagreed over) has been positive about the product, except for minor issues (like warnings about autostarts, or bugs ) - all have been attended to by my team quickly as possible.


Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "can u rereun the wizard like if u were to change ur hosts file afterwards?" }-

Today, no you can't. But, you're right - if you were to go and update a large hosts file, it would get messy.

However, you would only be prompted for new entries... for example, if you re-wrote out

nastysite1
nastysite2
nastysite3

and added nastysite4

you would only get a prompt for nastysite4.

But I'll find a better way of doing this over the next day or so.


Mike

[JRCATES]

Notok,

What "addition of signatures"? From everything I have read, it seems that OA is doing what PrevX isn't, and that is concentrating mainly on behavioural based technology that isn't dependent upon "signatures". Maybe you mean "acceptable" software signatures....which would allow programs to be listed as "trusted" or "allowed" applications without requiring user intervention (to approve), but if you mean "malware" definitions, then I would think that OA would operate differently from your basic AV,AS, AT, etc., software.

Malware signatures are good are catching what has already been discovered and vendors have written code and that has been updated and passed on to the end user. But what about something like a brand new keylogger, that hasn't had code written to counter it through the detection of a "signature"?

With my current anti-virus software, anti-spyware software, and anti-trojan software (all requiring the use of signatures)....the one thing I'm lacking (and looking to cover) is basic zero day attacks where signatures do NOT exist (but the behaviour does).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you are saying or suggesting....and that wouldn't surprise me one bit. But to me one of OA's appealing features is that it does NOT seem to rely on "signatures" and definition updates. At least, that's the impression that I currently have.

But as for the added registry and file protection, ability to effectively neutralize keyloggers, phishing scams, and added cookie "session removal" features....this one sounds promising (and heading in the right direction).

As for the pricing, though, I agree with what you're saying. It may seem a little high.....but I was looking around last night at some products that use the latest behavioural based technology, and many apps were in the $99 range. Now that might have been a one-time fee, but still! My guess is that if it was priced at $29, we probably wouldn't be hearing many complaints (because this is the typical cost for several security related products). The renewal rates are excellent, though, we all need to keep in mind that companies aren't in existence to lose money....

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Notok,

What "addition of signatures"? From everything I have read, it seems that OA is doing what PrevX isn't, and that is concentrating mainly on behavioural based technology that isn't dependent upon "signatures". " }-

Hi

The signatures relate to the whitelist of apps. For example, Yahoo IM should trigger a behavior based keylogger detector as it registers a few global hooks for KB to see if keys are pressed (and then deduce idle status).

OA has Yahoo IM's fingerprints on a whitelist - so we dont alert. But, if a new version came out - we would :-) So we have day-0 protection, but not too many false positives.


Mike

[JRCATES]

OK, that is what I was thinking was meant by the addition of signatures comment (i.e. - a "whitelist"). That's a good example you used , Mike, and makes a lot of sense. Thanks

[Notok]

Relying on signatures and having them are two different things. By putting in a whitelist & blacklist (if you prefer), it helps to take some of the guesswork out of deciding to allow or deny an execution ("..but uncle bob sent this picture.."). The new Prevx does the same thing (with more emphasis on signatures), but does not have the same features as OA (which is why I prefer OA), such as the ability to remove the changes the file has made, among other things. Go into the "Programs" tab and right-click on a file, then click "Show created objects" to see what it would remove if you clicked 'delete' on it.

[JRCATES]

Thanks Notok, that's what I thought you meant (but I figured better to be safe than sorry). Mike expalined that nicely, with a very good example of the type of "signatures" that are used.

One question that I have, is how does the "Phishing protection" work with a POP email client that already has "Spam filtering" with virus scanning enabled? Does it co-exist nicely, or serve to replace? Also, does this work ONLY for POP type servers, or can it work for web based email as well?

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "One question that I have, is how does the "Phishing protection" work with a POP email client that already has "Spam filtering" with virus scanning enabled? Does it co-exist nicely, or serve to replace? Also, does this work ONLY for POP type servers, or can it work for web based email as well?" }-

Hi JRCATES - should work fine with spam filters - *and* antivirus, *and* firewalls... if it doesn't, I'd like to know about it. It works with POP3 and IMAP only - webproxy does not implement the same set of behaviour checking - but we could look at something similar in a future version.

Although, as we're currently trying to get out a good release 1.1 - it won't make this cut though.


Mike

[Blackspear]

My install didn't go so well, at the point where you see these 3 ticks (screenshot), I tried removing the ticks to see what each was about, medium freeze later it decided to remove the tick. Still no wiser as to what these are for or what they send?

Rebooted the machine and it went through the entire install again, thought it must have had a bit of a hiccup so went through the whole install again, rebooted for a second time, and it wanted to install for a third time. Cancelled the install.

Went to use Moox (Firefox) and it threw up "Firefox has encountered an error and must close". And every time I tried to open Moox it threw up the same error.

Uninstalled OA and things are back to normal.

I'll try another install shortly.

Cheers ;D

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "My install didn't go so well, at the point where you see these 3 ticks (screenshot), I tried removing the ticks to see what each was about, medium freeze later it decided to remove the tick. Still no wiser as to what these are for or what they send?

Rebooted the machine and it went through the entire install again, thought it must have had a bit of a hiccup so went through the whole install again, rebooted for a second time, and it wanted to install for a third time. Cancelled the install." }-

Hi Blackspear..

Sorry about that :-( I'd appreciate it if you could help me fix this - so have a couple of questions:

Was this an automatic update-based install, or a standard install?

I'd love to know if you are installing as restricted user, what OS version, logging version of OA or not? If you have other security products installed at the same time?

I sent out a version by auto update which seemed to work like a charm - I'm going to uninstall at home now, and see if I can reproduce. I installed today on my win2000 server test box and it worked - did a couple of installs in the office next door as well on XP Pro.

If you could send me an email mike at tallemu.com I would very much appreciate it.

Incidentally - the three checkboxes - Program blocker turns on/off execution protection. WebShield - turns on/off the HTTP filtering. Mailshield does the same for pop3 and IMAP. That doesnt send anything but it could be a bug in the UI/Installer.

Mike

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "If you could send me an email mike at tallemu.com I would very much appreciate it." }-eMail sent.

Cheers ;D

[beetlejuice69]

I personally think OA is going to make a great addition to the security force. Been testing the beta version with no real problems. Keep up the good work Mike.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I personally think OA is going to make a great addition to the security force. Been testing the beta version with no real problems. Keep up the good work Mike." }-

Hi BeetleJuice - Thanks for that :-) Unfortunately, if Blackspear is having problems with OA then there is potential for others to have problems as well so we've a way to go.

He has kindly sent me log files and further information, so hopefully we can solve this problem soon.

I suspect that it's some kind of compatability problem - I'll post an update as soon as we have it fixed.


Mike

[beetlejuice69]

-{ Quote: "Hi BeetleJuice - Thanks for that :-) Unfortunately, if Blackspear is having problems with OA then there is potential for others to have problems as well so we've a way to go.

He has kindly sent me log files and further information, so hopefully we can solve this problem soon.

I suspect that it's some kind of compatability problem - I'll post an update as soon as we have it fixed.


Mike" }-

Well the good part is you`ll have it all ironed out in the long run. I`m sure Blackspear`s problem can be fixed. :)

[MikeNash]

Hi All,

A new version of OA has been placed on Autoupdate (and the website) which should fix the following problems:


Sometimes Safety Check wizard does not run
Proxy detection problem causes slow start
Keylogger detector sometimes causes hang
Couple of cosmetic changes suggested by users
Ability to re-run safety check wiz from the main tab


Safety check wiz is still having multiple-running issues on some systems :-(

If the update is installed as part of Automatic updates, then the Safety check wizard will run again. It's ok to just cancel it, if desired.

There are a couple of issues still with a few guys (you know who you are :-) )
but we're working to resolve them as quickly as we can and I will pass details on to those people individually about the progress on the problems they reported.

Thanks once again for all your help.


Mike

[netsurfer]

I have a question if anyone knows. Does OA provide any buffer overflow protection? Thanks.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I have a question if anyone knows. Does OA provide any buffer overflow protection? Thanks." }-

Hi Netsurfer - no, not at the moment. There's lots of scope to introduce more features in later versions.


Mike

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: " Rebooted the machine and it went through the entire install again, thought it must have had a bit of a hiccup so went through the whole install again, rebooted for a second time, and it wanted to install for a third time." }-
I did not see this problem on previous installs.

But it must be catching. Installed the new version and had the same result :-X

Any luck at your end, Blackspear?

But at least Mike and their support have a very quick response to bug reports/suggestions so they should be able to iron out this one soon.

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "Any luck at your end, Blackspear?" }-I had a rest from the PC last night, well from installing and uninstalling ;) ;D so I'm going to give a newer version a shot tonight/over the weekend for Mike, and send through a few more logs... If it can be broken, I will break it ::) ;) ;D

Cheers ;D

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "If it can be broken, I will break it ::) ;) ;D

Cheers ;D" }-

Would you like to break my new version? ;D Just uploaded it now :-)

Just putting it up for download and auto update now. It contains the following fixes:


Really fixes SCW running multiple times!
Allows selection of drive (if more than one local drive) when doing files scan
Allows Start menu item status to be set to "Ask" in SCW
When launching "More" info, IE was launched as system process. We are now reducing the privs. that IE has when launched in this way.
Canceling Auto update will now cancel it until the next scheduled time, instead of momentarily pausing it
Automatically remove whitespace from licence key in case users copy/paste spaces, etc


Still looking at couple of problems reported by a few people - more feedback coming soon!

To those guys getting me logs from the logging version - thank you very much for helping and taking the time to fix these obscure bugs. It's very much appreciated.

Regards

Mike

PS - I'm off for the next 12 hours or so due to family commitments. Rest assured, I will respond to any comments as soon as I get back

[MikeNash]

Hi All - just a quick note that the OA Beta program is not taking any more testers... the guys we have so far are fantastic, and have helped get OA to the stage its at.

We've reproduced the few final bugs and should be releasing in the next 7 days after final testing

Thanks for all of the help from the people in the Wilders community.


Regards


Mike

[JRCATES]

Hi Mike,

Just a couple of quick bugs to report with the beta.

First, installation when smooth. The only thing that seemed to take a while was when it was searching Files for "installed dangerous files". While scanning C:\...\RP (I'm guessing Restore Point?) it took a very long time as it as it scanned each entry (from around #55-#160). Other than the length of time to scan the Files section, everything went smoothly.

Reboot after installation went OK, except that when the McAfee Security Center starts up (with the non-popup, video screen looking window that shows the load up one by one of the firewall, AV, Spam filter and Privacy Service) there seemed to be a problem towards the end of startup. There was a screaching noise.....like the needle of a record player scratching across a record....followed by a kind of plucking "bong" noise (like windows makes when some attempt to access something is denied). This happened both times I rebooted.

VirusScan ran smoothly after installation, once it got past the slow start of the scan. Everything else seemed to be working OK.

EXCEPT TrojanHunter, by Mischel Internet Security. I'm running version 4.2, and the scanner absolutely would NOT open upon command. I repeatedly got the Microsoft error reporting message that it could not open, asking if I'd like to report it. I tried rebooting, but the same error happened repeatedly.

I have uninstalled the beta for now, and will try reinstalling in a few days to see if these problems persist. But I just wanted to make you aware of them, in case you'd like to test Online Armor with either McAfee's Security Center 2005 or TrojanHunter 4.2.

Thanks,

JR

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike,
I have uninstalled the beta for now, and will try reinstalling in a few days to see if these problems persist. But I just wanted to make you aware of them, in case you'd like to test Online Armor with either McAfee's Security Center 2005 or TrojanHunter 4.2.

Thanks,

JR" }-

Hey JR - we have a couple of bits of wierdness going on with OA at the moment - we have tracked em down, and are working on it.

I'd appreciate it if you could retest with the new version, which I hope will be ready on tuesday.


Cheers


Mike

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "

Rebooted the machine and it went through the entire install again, thought it must have had a bit of a hiccup so went through the whole install again, rebooted for a second time, and it wanted to install for a third time. Cancelled the install.

Uninstalled OA and things are back to normal.

I'll try another install shortly.

Cheers ;D" }-

Oh yeah, almost forgot....just to add to Blackspear's comment here - I installed using Total Uninstall 2.0, which is a fantastic product for making sure of very clean installations and uninstallations. Total Uninstall went through the "reinstallation" process a couple of times, after I selected "Exit" (meaning, exit the installation - I'm done). It would immediately then begin "reinstalling"....so the third time, I selected "Next" for the next installation rather than exit, and it stopped installing.

Just wanted to add that I had this problem also, although I was using Total Uninstall 2.0 rather than a simple install without the use of any third party software.

Edit: Will do, Mike. I'll pop in here over the next few days to see how it's going and give it a try early next week, maybe by Tuesday.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Oh yeah, almost forgot....just to add to Blackspear's comment here - I installed using Total Uninstall 2.0, which is a fantastic product for making sure of very clean installations and uninstallations. Total Uninstall went through the "reinstallation" process a couple of times, after I selected "Exit" (meaning, exit the installation - I'm done).
" }-

Hey JR - When you say it installed multiple times - do you mean, it asked for a restart and then re-ran the SCW? Or the Total Reinstall did something strange with it, like make the whole setup run ok?

Mike

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "Hey JR - When you say it installed multiple times - do you mean, it asked for a restart and then re-ran the SCW? Or the Total Reinstall did something strange with it, like make the whole setup run ok?

Mike" }-

No Mike, the Security Check Wizard only ran once (during the set-up phase)....and other than the length of time scanning the Files section, that went VERY smooth.

Total Uninstall kept wanting to "reinstall" the beta....and that's why I was thinking that perhaps there was a problem with Total Uninstall, and that's why I forgot to mention it. Could be something with the Zip function there, though, not for sure. But then I remembered Blackspear and Blackcat's earlier posts about having a problem with installation, and that it was "reinstalling" for them. Since I was using third party software to monitor the installation, I didn't think of it offhand....but since it is still in beta, and I'm sure you want to know everything that happens like this, I thought that I would go ahead and mention it to you.....to leave no stone unturned.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "No Mike, the Security Check Wizard only ran once (during the set-up phase)....and other than the length of time scanning the Files section, that went VERY smooth.

Total Uninstall kept wanting to "reinstall" the beta....[Snip] but since it is still in beta, and I'm sure you want to know everything that happens like this, I thought that I would go ahead and mention it to you.....to leave no stone unturned." }-

OK, I am going to *tentatively* say that this is not *really* OA's problem, because BlackSpear and co had a problem with SCW looping, rather than the installer running around in circles on them.... but it COULD be that OA had somehow clashed with it. Just so I am 100% clear -

1. You started Toatl Uninstall
2. You installed OA
3. You went thru SCW once.
4. Life was good, birds were singing and butterflies (ie OA Started and appeard in the tray)
5. Total then went and spoiled it by restarting the beta install.

I have to ask (and apologies if its a rude question) - did OA throw any popups saying TOtal wanted to access the registry - if so, what did you do).

Last question - I'd really appreciate it if you could repeat this - using the logging version from www.tallemu.com.au/downloads/OASetupLogging.zip

This will create evilly-detailed logs in the "Logs" and "Watchers" subdirs of the Online Armor folder. Every byte thru the proxy, every file accessed - itr would really help.

[If you do, take care to turn off autoupdate on the final SCW screen, otherwise OA will check versions and get "latest" files from the site]

You could just press the "Stop" button on the "Files Scan" page to save time.

Cheers


Mike

[Clowny]

Hi everyone,

I haven't tried OA yet, but just got my beta key. Just wanted to say that I liked how MikeNash sent my key with a personal response about the beta, and let me know about possible problems I might encounter with the current version.

I thought that was pretty cool.

I'll try OA out this afternoon, and give my opinion

[richrf]

Hi Clowny and all other beta users,

If you are a user of ProcessGuard, WormGuard, and/or RegDefend, I would be interested in knowing whether there is any incremental gain/loss of security protection when these products are compared with Online Armour. This would include RegDefend with Kent's and Tony's "additions". Thanks for any info.

Rich

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi Clowny and all other beta users,
If you are a user of ProcessGuard, WormGuard, and/or RegDefend, I would be interested in knowing whether there is any incremental gain/loss of security protection when these products are compared with Online Armour. This would include RegDefend with Kent's and Tony's "additions". Thanks for any info.
Rich" }-

Hi Rich,

Regdefend currently provides protection that OA does not - for example, you can customise the keys that RD monitors. In its current incarnation, while it protects the registry in the same "proxy" way as RegDefend - it just OA only looks after a limited set of keys.

So, if you have regdefend, don't throw it away just yet (wait until OA 1.2 ;) )

The main "Extras" that OA provides (and it's 1am here, so bear with me) are:

Web Shield - effectively proxies all HTTP traffic looking for security exploits - for example, IDN spoofing, cross site scripting (against protected bank sites), local drive access attempts, activeX objects used in drive-by downloads.

Mail Shield - similar thing, but for POP and IMAP mail clients. Incoming messages are checked for attempts to use security exploits or other deceptive tricks against sites in the protected list.

Hosts and DNS - OA protects against cache poison attacks (protected sites) and looks after the hosts file.

Keyloggers - we detect these fellas based on behaviour - so no sigs needed.

I'm sure there are things that PG/Wormguard do that OA doesn't - but I'll leave it to others that are familiar with them to answer that.

Hope that helps some.

Mike

[iwod]

I have sent a email nearly a day and i still haven't recieved a beta key.... was i suppose to sent a PM rather than a email? ( Edit: may be my mail servers problem..... >< )

@Mike...... Stop teasing me!! :D

Finally a company make security software that is easy to use and effective. I also notice it is from the australians again. ( Like DiamondCS ).... :D

[puff-m-d]

Hi Mike,

With the latest beta, I am having a problem between it and The Bat!. I started a thread over in your forum under Bug Reports (http://www.tallemu.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18).

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I have sent a email nearly a day and i still haven't recieved a beta key.... was i suppose to sent a PM rather than a email? ( Edit: may be my mail servers problem..... >< )

@Mike...... Stop teasing me!! :D

Finally a company make security software that is easy to use and effective. I also notice it is from the australians again. ( Like DiamondCS ).... :D" }-

Hi iWod - I respond immediately to all key requests - so either I didn't get your message, or your spam filter got my reply :-)


Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike,

With the latest beta, I am having a problem between it and The Bat!. I started a thread over in your forum under Bug Reports (http://www.tallemu.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18)." }-

I'm pretty sure this relates to an issue that has cropped up in the last few versions. There will be a new version on the site tomorrow - as usual, I will post here when it's up.


Mike

[richrf]

Thanks Mike for the detailed response. It's lots of help.

If anyone has any additional comments, I would appreciate it.

Regards,
Rich

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "OK, I am going to *tentatively* say that this is not *really* OA's problem, because BlackSpear and co had a problem with SCW looping, rather than the installer running around in circles on them.... but it COULD be that OA had somehow clashed with it. Just so I am 100% clear -

1. You started Toatl Uninstall
2. You installed OA
3. You went thru SCW once.
4. Life was good, birds were singing and butterflies (ie OA Started and appeard in the tray)
5. Total then went and spoiled it by restarting the beta install.

I have to ask - did OA throw any popups saying TOtal wanted to access the registry - if so, what did you do).
" }-

Yep, that is absolutely correct....there was no problem with SCW "looping", the actual "install" process seemed to occur only once on OA's part. The Security Check Wizard only went through the initial process that one time. The problem seemed to be with Total Uninstall repeating the finality of the installation process, and that was eventually ended by selecting "next" (for next installation) rather than "exit" (which is typical for finishing most installations). There were no notices or pop-up alerts that were given by OA during the "TU reinstallations" indicating that any app wanted access to the registry or anything else of the sort.

Very nice sys tray icon, BTW.... ;D

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Thanks Mike for the detailed response. It's lots of help.

If anyone has any additional comments, I would appreciate it.

Regards,
Rich" }-

Actually, so would I :-) I'd love to know what's missing from OA. We have about 40-odd pages of ideas for subsequent versions - but another 10 pages or so wouldn't hurt ;-)


Mike

[Vikorr]

Hi Mike.

Not a beta tester, but I have to hand it to your responsiveness to this forum.

Great to see active support.

And always happy to see more Australian companies coming up with good ideas :)

Best of luck with OA.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike.

Not a beta tester, but I have to hand it to your responsiveness to this forum.

Refreshing to see active support.

And good to see another Australian company coming up with good ideas (Brisbane here) :)" }-

Hi Vikorr - why aren't you beta testing it... hundreds of testers and no blue screens yet :-)

Mike

[Vikorr]

Damned that was fast (you beat me to my edit...about a min after posting)

Had been meaning ot check this thread for while. Was reading and seemed like it would be good to beta test, but read that you weren't taking any more beta testers.

[MikeNash]

We're not a not a corporate monster yet... I've PM'd you a key, although we can expect a new version in the next hour or so.

Any testers out there still having problems - please let me know if your issue has been fixed by latest releases.


Thanks


Mike

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "Damned that was fast (you beat me to my edit...about a min after posting)

Had been meaning ot check this thread for while. Was reading and seemed like it would be good to beta test, but read that you weren't taking any more beta testers." }-

Give it a shot, Vikorr...it'll give us some more good "comparison" note time (and you can compare it to your baby, PrevX - LOL)

[Vikorr]

I'm hoping they run happily side by side. I wouldn't say that PrevX was my 'baby' lol. I just understood what it was doing, and it works very well with my security setup.

OA looks like it has very interesting idea's, so I'll definitely give it a shot and let you know what I think :)

edit : mildly amusing to see that the company spelt its product name Online Armor, instead of Online Amour...do you know how many Americans have thought I spell badly :D

Of course, I understand the reasoning for this...I would too if I owned it :)

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "
OA looks like it has very interesting idea's, so I'll definitely give it a shot and let you know what I think :)" }-

Cool, and I will definitely do the same ;)

(BTW - I had to manually enter the ; and the ) to form my smiley face. Were you able to do yours' with Wilders "Smilies"? I lost my avatar a little earlier as well....had to reload it. Something kinda silly happenin' with my screen here.....)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "
edit : mildly amusing to see that the company spelt its product name Online Armor, instead of Online Amour...do you know how many Americans have thought I spell badly :D" }-

You have no idea how hard it is to consistently spell Armor incorrectly ;-)

[maddawgz]

y is it better then Msoft Antispyware??? duz it look for pollymorphic stuff 2? :o :o

[JRCATES]

LOL....well, this American wasn't too sure ???

So I just did a little research - it appears that A-R-M-O-R is actually the correct spelling.....A-R-M-O-U-R is the "English" (i.e. - British) version.

Boy, I guess you do learn something new every day... :P

edit: Sorry maddawgz, I was replying to Mike and Vikorr...

[Vikorr]

Doh...damned touch typing...just goes to show, if you make fun of people re spelling, make sure you spell right ...<sighs> ...armour...not amour

And I often wonder how the americans managed to change the spelling or it, and numerous other words :)

[richrf]

Hi Mike,

I just wanted to say that I think you are doing a fantastic job here for your product and company. Building a comprehensive beta testing environment. Getting the word out. Creating interest and buzz. Providing excellent support and in turning building lots of good will. I hope your launch is very successful. Good luck!

Regards,
Rich

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "although we can expect a new version in the next hour or so." }-

Looking forward to it ;D

-{ Quote: "Any testers out there still having problems - please let me know if your issue has been fixed by latest releases.


Thanks


Mike" }-

Will do (fingers crossed hoping nothing to report) ;)

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike,

I just wanted to say that I think you are doing a fantastic job here for your product and company. Building a comprehensive beta testing environment. Getting the word out. Creating interest and buzz. Providing excellent support and in turning building lots of good will. I hope your launch is very successful. Good luck!

Regards,
Rich" }-

Hey Rich, You seem like the beta testing kind of guy....why don't you jump in on this?

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "y is it better then Msoft Antispyware??? duz it look for pollymorphic stuff 2? :o :o" }-

Someone not biased may want to take this one :-)

The range of features provided by OA far exceeds that by MS Antispyware. We also made a deliberate effort to support older versions of Windows - unlike MS who want to force upgrade sales.

A couple of reasons why OA is better than MSAS:

- Program Blocker - stops unknown programs running
- Web Shield - filters any website you visit
- Mail Shield - Phishing protection for POP3 and IMAP mail accounts
- DNS Cache Poisoning check - makes sure that DNS records for protected sites aren't tampered with.
- Support :-)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike,

I just wanted to say that I think you are doing a fantastic job here for your product and company. Building a comprehensive beta testing environment. Getting the word out. Creating interest and buzz. Providing excellent support and in turning building lots of good will. I hope your launch is very successful. Good luck!

Regards,
Rich" }-

Hi Rich

Appreciate that a lot. Are you going to give it a go, or are you waiting to "test" my credit card payment gateway when it comes online ;-)

Mike

[richrf]

-{ Quote: "Hey Rich, You seem like the beta testing kind of guy....why don't you jump in on this?" }-

Hi John,

Actually I am not. More like that turtle we read about. :) But I can certainly appreciate Mike's excitment (I was an entrepeneur many times over in my lifetime), and I want to wish him the best. It's young companies such as Tall Emu, that bring the most value to customers. If I have any reservations at this time, it is that historically it is not viable to run a company that is doing both consulting and building software. Usually, the two do not mix (this is an adage). It will be interesting to see how Tall Emu manages this challenge. In any case, the product seems exciting and I am looking forward to hearing from the beta testers.

I think it is also a good time to open up a distinct forum category so that forum users can easily track IPS software. Right now it is too scattered between different forums.

Cya around John, and let me know what you think.

Regards,
Rich

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "
A couple of reasons why OA is better than MSAS:

- Program Blocker - stops unknown programs running
- Web Shield - filters any website you visit
- Mail Shield - Phishing protection for POP3 and IMAP mail accounts
- DNS Cache Poisoning check - makes sure that DNS records for protected sites aren't tampered with.
- Support :-)" }-

Regarding what I highlighted in bold above, Mike.....all I saw during set-up using the SCW regarding this was the option to checkmark the box listed next to it. There was nothing asking whether it was a POP3 server, or what the ISP email address was , or anything of the sort. Does it do this automatically, without any user intervention?

[richrf]

-{ Quote: "Hi Rich

Appreciate that a lot. Are you going to give it a go, or are you waiting to "test" my credit card payment gateway when it comes online ;-) Mike" }-

lol! I'll let you know how it works. Hopefully, that is the only thing that doesn't, and I get a free pass. :D Best of luck!

Rich

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "

I think it is also a good time to open up a distinct forum category so that forum users can easily track IPS software. Right now it is too scattered between different forums.
" }-
Good idea, Rich...where do we get the ball a' rollin?

-{ Quote: "
Cya around John, and let me know what you think.

Regards,
Rich" }-

Will do, Rich, see ya :)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Regarding what I highlighted in bold above, Mike.....all I saw during set-up using the SCW regarding this was the option to checkmark the box listed next to it. There was nothing asking whether it was a POP3 server, or what the ISP email address was , or anything of the sort. Does it do this automatically, without any user intervention?" }-

Hi JR,

Yes, the POP and IMAP "stuff" is implemented as a transparent proxy - any mail client using the POP3 or IMAP ports will use it auto-magically


Mike

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "Hi JR,

Yes, the POP and IMAP "stuff" is implemented as a transparent proxy - any mail client using the POP3 or IMAP ports will use it auto-magically


Mike" }-

VERY cool! :D "Auto-MAGICALLY".....I like that!

Gotta love as little "user intervention" as possible ;D

[maddawgz]

thanks Mike , So like giant which i use ? duz it do the same blocks things from installing like Msoft spyware approve or block?? another aussie here so if its better id rather support Aussie made lol and pass the word MD ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Rather give my money at home then Mr ermmmmmm Ga???? he has enuff

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "
And I often wonder how the americans managed to change the spelling or it, and numerous other words :)" }-

Hey now, blame that on the Brits! That's even according to "Dictionary.com" 8)

[JRCATES]

Hey Mike,

For "marketing" purposes....have you thought about calling the "Program Blocker" something more along the lines of "Malicious Program Blocker", or "Program Guard"? Just thinking that the connotation some might have would be that it might block good or necessary programs (even if by mistake). Just a thought.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "If I have any reservations at this time, it is that historically it is not viable to run a company that is doing both consulting and building software. Usually, the two do not mix (this is an adage). It will be interesting to see how Tall Emu manages this challenge. In any case, the product seems exciting and I am looking forward to hearing from the beta testers.
" }-

Hi Rich,

Here was I going to get some work done (BTW, latest OA is up on the site now and Auto update) and I saw this. Have to explain myself now...

Tall Emu has had for the last year or so two main areas of operation - one has been what we'll dub "projects" which is basically custom software development - looked after by myself, and the other is IT Services headed up by a chap called Chris Besier (one of the partners in Tall Emu).

We've found that this provides a great service to our client base - SME businesses - the "support" side of the business gets us in front of lots of customers, and the development side lets us support those customers in innovative ways not possible for a "pure" support company.

On the software dev side, the experience of supporting our customer base - all of whom don't have contracts, so could walk at any time - means we've learned to do it right.

We want to apply this to Online Armor. Already we're planning to use this tool: http://www.tallemu.com.au/wombat.html to do remote support for OA clients as a paid option, in addition to free support that will be bundled with the product. There are also going to be some other bits of innovation we do around support - but I don't want to talk about it until we do it.

OA should set the standard for quality of support - and having the mixed business model gives us not only the experience, but the *funding* in order to pull it off.

It's this breadth of experience and division of responsibiliy that makes Tall Emu work.


Mike

[maddawgz]

well im aussie and i thought its amour? not amor LOL :o :o :o :o

[richrf]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the company background. I am sure you have a great team. Hope you have a great week ahead.

Regards,
Rich

[Notok]

Hehe, I think Online Amour (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amour) is a little out of scope of OA ;D

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hehe, I think Online Amour (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=amour) is a little out of scope of OA ;D" }-

Based on some of the feedback I've received, I'm not so sure...

[tiredly]

Huge CPU use makes it slow to surf when my browser doesn't get any CPU

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8002/huge1vt.png (http://imageshack.us)

[Vikorr]

Alright, alright, I touch type rather fast okay...lol

Edit : interesting. Just saw the above post. Ran process explorer over it. The GUI uses between 15-40% cpu, but once the GUI was turned off, it dropped back to the very occasional 1.54%.

For Mikes Post below, I'm personally using XP SP2. Running PrevX1, Process Guard, ZoneAlarm, ShadowUser, Nortons AV, and WormGuard, plus OA :)

Oh, and rebooted a number of times now.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Huge CPU use makes it slow to surf when my browser doesn't get any CPU
" }-

Did you reboot after installing it? Any more info - this is most unusual... I (obviously) run the latest OA constantly... no such problem here... what OS, or any other information you can give me?


Mike

[Notok]

Maybe use SIW (http://www3.sympatico.ca/gtopala/), save the log, and send it in?

[MikeNash]

Hi All,

The latest install of OA contained an old definition file. As a result, if you installed it in the last hour or so you may have had a lot of unrecognised programs on your start menu, or had "calc" recognised as a dangerous program (I used to mark calc as dangerous as an example).

The latest defs are on autoupdate and will come down. No need to reinstall, but can explain if you would have had some "strange" results.

Apologies for the inconvenience.

Regards

Mike

[PeterVO]

Hello,

is it possible to prevent OA from starting? Disabling the corresponding service didn't do the trick.

Kind regards,

PeterVO ???

[puff-m-d]

When I do not want it to start, I just set the service to manual. It has always worked for me...

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "When I do not want it to start, I just set the service to manual. It has always worked for me..." }-

I confirm that we take no special actions with OA such as automatically enforcing service to start at the moment.

Edit: Actually - we do stop third party process from terminating, so stop OA with the menu first. But in any case, puff-m-d is correct in saying that setting to manual start will solve your prob.

[PeterVO]

Hello,

it works indeed but I would expect when double clicking the "OnlineArmor.exe"-file or its shortcut, the corresponding user interface should appear by starting the service. And that doesn't work for me or am I missing something here?

Kind regards,

PeterVO

[puff-m-d]

Try launching OA thru the start menu as there is a parameter used when starting
("C:\Program Files\Tall Emu\Online Armor\OnlineArmor.exe" /startup)....

[PeterVO]

Hello Kent,

thank you it works that way.
During install I chose not to install icons in the start menu but changed the properties of the shortcut in the Quick Launch toolbar by adding the extra 'Start' switch.

Kind regards,

PeterVO

[puff-m-d]

Hi PeterVO,

FYI...

OA uses a parameter to startup or shutdown, and with no parameter, when the service is running, brings up the GUI....

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hello,

is it possible to prevent OA from starting? Disabling the corresponding service didn't do the trick.

Kind regards,

PeterVO ???" }-

Hi PeterVO

Just a question - why prevent OA from starting? Are you having some problems? (And sorry if I am confused here - responding to many people by email, and in Tall Emu forums as well)


Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Huge CPU use makes it slow to surf when my browser doesn't get any CPU

http://img94.imageshack.us/img94/8002/huge1vt.png (http://imageshack.us)" }-

Hi All,

I think we have identified this as problem with large HOSTS files. Hope to have a fix soon - but for now, to work around - only have small HOSTS file, then reinstall OA.

OA's web shield will protect you from nasties in web pages (if that is what you are usings HOSTS file for) - if you're using it as an ad-blocker, then you'd need to wait for the update in a day or two.

I'm outa here for the evening.... goodnight all


Mike

[WSFuser]

-{ Quote: "thanks Mike , So like giant which i use ? duz it do the same blocks things from installing like Msoft spyware approve or block?? another aussie here so if its better id rather support Aussie made lol and pass the word MD ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Rather give my money at home then Mr ermmmmmm Ga???? he has enuff" }-
use both as OA is more like an IPS and MSAS is a dedicated antispyware.

[tyred again]

http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/480/oa2zz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[tyred again]

BTW Prevx killed OA.

[Blackspear]

Well, downloaded and installed a new version a few minutes ago, everything went very well. Still recon that there needs to be more information supplied for the attached screenshot. It took a very long time to initialize, around 1 minute where you are staring at a blank desktop, maybe a timer would go well here.

After the initial install and reboot connecting to the internet was good, no slowdown, opening a second tab to a website had a wait of around 7 to 10 seconds, tried opening another tab in Firefox which presented the same issue. Once these tabs connected to the 2nd website and the 3rd went through to Google (my home page) then everything after that has opened well and at normal speed. Have not seen a slowdown while on the internet.

All in all very smooth. OA then announced that it had found an update and I allowed it to do so, it then asked to restart OA, it then confirmed that OA was successful in its update.

Very nice Mike, and I like OA's silence so far.

Cheers ;D

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "...opening a second tab to a website had a wait of around 7 to 10 seconds, tried opening another tab in Firefox which presented the same issue. Once these tabs connected to the 2nd website and the 3rd went through to Google (my home page) then everything after that has opened well and at normal speed." }-A second reboot has not seen this issue reappear.

Cheers ;D

[richrf]

Hi Mike,

Looking at the screen, I don't think I would call it Mail screen and Web screen. The use of "screen" is not obvious. I would call it something like Mail Protect, Web Protect - or something like that.

Rich

[WSFuser]

hey mike - is there any option to decide what u want OA to protect or not protect? this would be handy if u use many programs that overlap. for example regrun can take care of the startup section, tho thats the only i can particularly think of. sp2 can take care of ie extensions but im not sure how well it works. spysweeper could cover the hosts file but i dont use it.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hey Mike,

For "marketing" purposes....have you thought about calling the "Program Blocker" something more along the lines of "Malicious Program Blocker", or "Program Guard"? Just thinking that the connotation some might have would be that it might block good or necessary programs (even if by mistake). Just a thought." }-

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike,

Looking at the screen, I don't think I would call it Mail screen and Web screen. The use of "screen" is not obvious. I would call it something like Mail Protect, Web Protect - or something like that.

Rich" }-

@JR - I think we'll go with Program Guard
@Rich - and for consistency Web Guard and Mail Guard :-)


Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "hey mike - is there any option to decide what u want OA to protect or not protect? this would be handy if u use many programs that overlap. for example regrun can take care of the startup section, tho thats the only i can particularly think of. sp2 can take care of ie extensions but im not sure how well it works. spysweeper could cover the hosts file but i dont use it." }-

Hi WSFuser

The only options allowed in OA are currently whether or not the Program Guard, Web Guard and Mail Guards are activated.

We did it this way so that the "mom" users out there aren't assaulted with an array of options... HOSTS, DNS Check, Startups, etc...

However, enough people have asked for various things that we will probably have an "Advanced" mode in v1.2 which will allow finer control of settings.


Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "A second reboot has not seen this issue reappear.

Cheers ;D" }-

Awesome! Thanks for the patience in testing this guys. The list of issues is getting shorter.

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "@JR - I think we'll go with Program Guard
@Rich - and for consistency Web Guard and Mail Guard :-)


Mike" }-

Thanks, Mike...glad that I was able to provide SOMETHING useful ;D

I kinda like "Web SHIELD", though, for that protection, in all honesty

How does:

Program Guard
Mail Guard, and
Web Shield

sound? Kind of breaks up the monotony and sound of alliteration in regards to the use of the word Guard. Besides, a product with the name "Armor" in the title should have SOME referrence to a "SHIELD", don't you think?

(Marketing and Sales is my background, Mike, so please don't take offense....it's just in the blood, and an old habit that's hard to break - LOL)

edit: oops, sorry...my bad. I see that is WAS referred to as "Mail SHIELD". Oh well, I still like WEB Shield for that aspect....

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/480/oa2zz.jpg (http://imageshack.us)" }-

Any idea what THIS was all about ???

Not much of a follow-up, just that "Prevx killed OA"......

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Any idea what THIS was all about ???

Not much of a follow-up, just that "Prevx killed OA"......" }-

Someone showing me OA is no good? I'm not sure... I enjoy "battling" the various programs out there on my system :-)

OA is designed to stop stuff getting onto the computer without user consent. If you deliberately install something, you've invited it into your "home" and if you do that, then it can stop security programs if it installs at a low enough level.

The trick is to stop the programs getting on. As OA gets popular, it will become a target in much the same way as Norton, etc. We've got some protections in there, and OA will continue to improve as time goes on.

I get a kick out of using OA to stop MSAS for example, but at the end of the day, PrevX *should* be able to stop OA, and OA *should* be able to stop MSAS if that's what the user wants to do.

[Vikorr]

If I remember right, the setting for 'Buffer Overflow Protection' in PrevX is 'deny', not 'ask user' like most of the other settings (I no longer have that version, so I can't double check it's settings)

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "If I remember right, the setting for 'Buffer Overflow Protection' in PrevX is 'deny', not 'ask user' like most of the other settings (I no longer have that version, so I can't double check it's settings)" }-

Have you received any kind of message like this running OA with your current PrevX1 version, Vikorr? I know that when I trialed PrevX, it would alert me to any and everything (especially during installs, but basically anytime an app tried to run or make a change, even if I was the one making that change)....

[Notok]

Prevx (not PrevX, I even asked one of the developers) does that with several apps, it's an FP. SpySweeper was the main one that did it, which is why it has it's own setting in Prevx.

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "Prevx (not PrevX, I even asked one of the developers) does that with several apps, it's an FP. SpySweeper was the main one that did it, which is why it has it's own setting in Prevx." }-

Thanks for that info, Notok. But as far as "Prevx versus PrevX" goes....I've seen it written that way SO many times that it's simply an old habit that's hard to break (LOL)! I'm sure I'm not alone on this one.....

[Notok]

Hehe, I think everyone just kind of assumed and it caught on :)

[Vikorr]

Prevx1 and OA are happily running side by side on my machine.

Also, I read in the support section that Prevx1 doesn't yet protect from buffer overflow. Just a FYI.

Btw, does OA protect against IM worms and the likes ?

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Btw, does OA protect against IM worms and the likes ?" }-

Hi Vikorr,

The honest answer to that question is "I don't know". It depends on the worm, and what it does.

If it gets onto your system, and drops an exe that it tries to execute, then yes - the Program Blocker will pick it up, ask for permission to run it, and assuming permission is granted - log what it does in case that permission is later revoked.

There are plans to significantly extend the protection OA offers - I've mentioned some, and hinted at others - we have a 40-odd page doc full of things to consider :-)


Hope this helps


Mike

[tyred again]

-{ Quote: "Prevx (not PrevX, I even asked one of the developers) does that with several apps, it's an FP. SpySweeper was the main one that did it, which is why it has it's own setting in Prevx." }-
Thanks. I suppose OA needs to be protected by PG from Px and other apps that may shut down OA?

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Thanks. I suppose OA needs to be protected by PG from Px and other apps that may shut down OA?" }-

In the beta release of OA, there is some protection from illegitimate shutdown of the application. We will be taking this further, but since it's in beta, we dont want to completely lock it out just yet.

What's in there now - protection against service shutdown or process termination. We also need to protect against injection, memory access and ensure that it always auto-starts unless the user disables that feature.

Mike

[JRCATES]

Hi Mike,

Well, hate to be the bearer of bad news....but the TrojanHunter scanner error reappeared after installing OA. Here is a screenshot:

http://img186.imageshack.us/img186/4076/therror4ma.png

And Total Uninstall continues to try to go through the installation process again....every time I reboot the PC. Here is a screenshot I took after once again having to select "Next" (to continue the installation. This time, it didn't seem to matter whether or not I chose Next or Exit, it continues with each PC reboot:

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/2966/tureinstalling6tr.png

I am going to uninstall again, and try an installation this time without Total Uninstall. I'm still not sure if the "ZIP" format may have something to do with this or not. As I mentioned to you in a PM, I personally hate ZIP installs, so hopefully the full version will have an internal installer application built in (that would be very nice).

Anyway, I got the screaching and popping sound when McAfee Security Center started loading one out of the three times I rebooted. All other software program applications (MusicMatch, Ad-Aware SE Personal, Yahoo! Instant Messenger, etc.) opened and performed as usual. I received a few OA alerts, but after I notified once to allow, I could open the application a second time without any warnings. The Web filter did it's part of notifying me of Active X being used by certain sites (Yahoo! Who knew!)...but these were sites I am comfortable with so I allowed them. One was checking box scores of baseball games.

Anyway, I'm going to uninstall, and then try reinstalling again....without the use of TU this time. We know that Total Uninstall has a problem with repeatedly installing Online Armor, but I don't know that it has any affect on the TrojanHunter scanner.....but I'll find out and let you know after the next install.

[Starrob]

I am watching the development of this product. Not using it yet but just observing. Here is another company that does more action and less talking....what a novel concept.



Starrob

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike,

Well, hate to be the bearer of bad news....but the TrojanHunter scanner error reappeared after installing OA.

Anyway, I got the screaching and popping sound when McAfee Security Center started loading one out of the three times I rebooted. All other software program applications (MusicMatch, Ad-Aware SE Personal, Yahoo! Instant Messenger, etc.) opened and performed as usual. I received a few OA alerts, but after I notified once to allow, I could open the application a second time without any warnings. The Web filter did it's part of notifying me of Active X being used by certain sites (Yahoo! Who knew!)...but these were sites I am comfortable with so I allowed them. One was checking box scores of baseball games.

We know that Total Uninstall has a problem with repeatedly installing Online Armor, but I don't know that it has any affect on the TrojanHunter scanner.....but I'll find out and let you know after the next install." }-

Hey JR - thanks for that - I'm going to get someone to look into the trojan hunter error as soon as poss.

OA does have a clean uninstaller, so you should be fine to use it without Total Uninstall.... so I think for release one, the TU issue will be a "known issue"... ultimately, we'll figure it out though.

On the McAfee issue... I may ask you to run a logging version - but I'm pleased at that program blocker, web filters and so on seems to be working well for you, depsite the strange problems you've had.

Look forward to the retest results.

MIke

[JRCATES]

You're welcome, Mike. I'll give it another try in a day or so, calling it a night now.

I will just add that while observing through Windows Task Manager, the memory usage was very reasonable (ranging from around 9,000-13,000K) and CPU usage was VERY good (occasional spikes every 12 seconds or so to around 6....when McAfee VirusScan was running it was around 10, but other than that, usually ranging from 0-1 jumping to the 3-6 range every 12 seconds or so).

I didn't notice any visible slow down running either the Firefox or IE browsers. AT first....some software programs were just a little slower to open, but after opened that first time, there was no noticeable lag afterwards.

Anyway, sorry that I don't have more to share.....but maybe I will within the next couple of days.

edit: oh yeah, both Outlook Express and Thunderbird behaved normally as well....just wanted to let you know there is no problem with the mail guard on my end

[StevieO]

I didn't have any problems installing OA with TU, sailed right through first time, including the customary needed reboot part way through.

So far i've noticed it is quite resource hungry, up to 50% or so. But it hasn't crashed or let me down otherwise. I think it has great potential and look forward to the usual to be expected in a Beta bugs being solved. I'm sure they will be with Mike on the case.


StevieO

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I didn't have any problems installing OA with TU, sailed right through first time, including the customary needed reboot part way through.

So far i've noticed it is quite resource hungry, up to 50% or so. But it hasn't crashed or let me down otherwise. I think it has great potential and look forward to the usual to be expected in a Beta bugs being solved. I'm sure they will be with Mike on the case.


StevieO" }-

I'll challenge you to an Unreal tournament competition (with me running OA) any time ;-)

Seriously - what are your specs - if you're paging to disk due to insufficient ram, it's gonna gobble CPU. I've also noticed that on 98 in a few cases people have complained of CPU - but only when running in low ram configuration as I recall.


Mike

[solarpowered candle]

Mike I have had a quick look through this thread but didnt notice any posting so shall ask you about the help tab. When will this be included and is it going to be a help manual etc . Also I notice that there is no listing for OA in my start > programs . Is this normal for now. OA loaded up effortlessly on my system and plays nicely with every thing . thanks . Another great down under product.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Mike I have had a quick look through this thread but didnt notice any posting so shall ask you about the help tab. When will this be included and is it going to be a help manual etc . Also I notice that there is no listing for OA in my start > programs . Is this normal for now. OA loaded up effortlessly on my system and plays nicely with every thing . thanks . Another great down under product." }-

Hi Solarpowered -
There is a help file included - start --> programs ---> Online Armor --> Online Armor Help...

We've just done an edit of that - and will be continually improving it over the coming weeks.


regards

Mike

[solarpowered candle]

Thanks Mike . I take it from your answer that the second part of my question is "yes it should be in "start> program > Online Armour . Some reason its not there. I need to go through to Windows explorer / to get to it. Not sure why it isnt listed .

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Thanks Mike . I take it from your answer that the second part of my question is "yes it should be in "start> program > Online Armour . Some reason its not there. I need to go through to Windows explorer / to get to it. Not sure why it isnt listed ." }-

Ah, I know what's happened - we're part way thru converting from .chm to .hlp format to work around an issue... long story.. so it has probably been cut out of the latest installer until we fix it.


Sorry for the inconvenience.

Mike

[solarpowered candle]

Its a nice read . And thanks for the instant assistance

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Its a nice read . And thanks for the instant assistance" }-

No problem. Just happy that it works for you.

[Vikorr]

Hi Mike JRCATES just asked me to do a test re Trojanhunter.

There is no problem starting the guard (rts) from it's starting exe (thguard.exe)

However, it seems that if you can only start the scanner by clicking on it's executable (trojanhunter.exe) which starts the scanner and scans no problem. If you try and launch trojanhunter.exe from within the gui (system tray icon right click) of THGuard.exe then this triggers the drwtsn32.exe response.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike JRCATES just asked me to do a test re Trojanhunter.
" }-

Hi Vikorr - thanks for the help!


Mike

[Vikorr]

Welcome, I should have thought of it earlier, but I had opened trojanhunter scanner from it's exe, not the thguard, and had no probs :)

off to work now :(

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike,

With the latest beta, I am having a problem between it and The Bat!. I started a thread over in your forum under Bug Reports (http://www.tallemu.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=18)." }-


Pleased to say this one has been reproduced and fixed. Currently giving it a test to make sure that the cure is not worse than the disease. Hope to have it up on Auto update during the next 24h


Cheers


Mike

[WSFuser]

out of curiousity, what would happen if u disabled drwatson? just a thought

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike JRCATES just asked me to do a test re Trojanhunter.

There is no problem starting the guard (rts) from it's starting exe (thguard.exe)

However, it seems that if you can only start the scanner by clicking on it's executable (trojanhunter.exe) which starts the scanner and scans no problem. If you try and launch trojanhunter.exe from within the gui (system tray icon right click) of THGuard.exe then this triggers the drwtsn32.exe response." }-

-{ Quote: "Welcome, I should have thought of it earlier, but I had opened trojanhunter scanner from it's exe, not the thguard, and had no probs

off to work now
" }-

Thanks Vikorr. Yep, the Guard loads and works just fine...but the scanner can NOT be opened and ran when right clicking from the TH Guard in the sys tray area and selecting the corresponding option from there (see attached photo):


http://img110.imageshack.us/img110/1268/scanneroption6uw.png

It works before OA installation, and after uninstallation....but not during.


BUT....also, I could NOT open or run run the scanner by going through "Start>All Programs>TrojanHunter" either (see attached):

http://img156.imageshack.us/img156/4480/moreth1qn.png

Didn't try "running it from it's exe".

But McAfee scanned fine when accessed through the sys tray and right clicking the icon and selecting "scan" while running Online Armor.

[Vikorr]

Ahh, TH scanner will launch from the start menu for me. Also, I made a shortcut to the exe's on my desktop.

And Dr watson had no priveleges in PG on my comp, so it couldn't make any changes to TH which is protected by PG. Also disabled PG, and the result was the same.

[JRCATES]

I don't have PG, Vikorr, and personally would rather not disable Dr Watson (in the event that something happens where reporting the error could lead to a resolution). I'm sure that Mike would probably agree, though, that the purpose behind beta testing is to "discover" these exact type errors in order to find out what problems or areas need to be addressed (in this case, WHY the TH scanner is disabled, unable to perform, and/or the error occurs while OA is installed).

[JRCATES]

One other note of interest, Mike....I noticed that WinPatrol DID NOT notify me that OA was being added as a "startup program". It didn't appear in WinPatrol's startup programs, even after several reboots and several minutes of PC use. It DID show up through WinPatrol's "Active Tasks" (it also showed as a running process through Windows Task Manager), but oddly enough somehow was missed as a startup program by WinPatrol (a software utility for managing several different areas - startup programs among them).

[StevieO]

Hi Mike,

I have a number of boxes to play with as they come in and out of here on a weekly basis. A large number of people still use 98SE, both in the home and would you believe in business too. From what they say it seems as if it ain't broke then don't waste time or money changing it, or retraining people if there's no real need ! Makes sense to me. Also many people were put off moving to XP after hearing about all the SP2 problems etc, and didn't want to risk it as they didn't have any problems to start with.

Of course when they leave here they are not the same machines that came in, as i completely secure the max out of them, along with various Apps to help in the crusade against all that Malware that's out there.

So i installed it in a 98SE box that was lying around, as i prefer to be cautious when experimenting with new stuff. It originally had 128M RAM but i found it wasn't enough so i stuck another 128M in which made a big difference.

So far i do like it a lot, so if the overhead issues can be solved then i could advise plenty of others to use it. Both with XP and otherwise.


StevieO

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: " So i installed it in a 98SE box that was lying around, as i prefer to be cautious when experimenting with new stuff. It originally had 128M RAM but i found it wasn't enough so i stuck another 128M in which made a big difference.

So far i do like it a lot, so if the overhead issues can be solved then i could advise plenty of others to use it. Both with XP and otherwise." }-

Hi StevieO,

OA supports 98 but it doesn't work well on the lower end of the memory scale. We'll certainly be looking into it - although, in reality we designed for 2000/XP and added in the '98 support afterwards.

Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "One other note of interest, Mike....I noticed that WinPatrol DID NOT notify me that OA was being added as a "startup program". It didn't appear in WinPatrol's startup programs, even after several reboots and several minutes of PC use. It DID show up through WinPatrol's "Active Tasks" (it also showed as a running process through Windows Task Manager), but oddly enough somehow was missed as a startup program by WinPatrol (a software utility for managing several different areas - startup programs among them)." }-

JR - My guess would be that WinPatrol does not list services. Haven't used it myself, but perhaps someone more familiar with it could comment?

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I'm sure that Mike would probably agree, though, that the purpose behind beta testing is to "discover" these exact type errors in order to find out what problems or areas need to be addressed (in this case, WHY the TH scanner is disabled, unable to perform, and/or the error occurs while OA is installed)." }-

Exactly. Right now a couple of hundred people are playing with OA. Most of them are having no problems whatsoever - but a couple are. In many cases, what seems to be a user-error, or unreproducible "you just have a wierd PC" has turned out to be a subtle bug in the product - so we try and investigate them all so we get the most solid release we can.

[solarpowered candle]

Mike Is there any way round not having a pop up notification , when starting the pc yet choosing to stay off line - I do this when ever the local kids drop in and want to play pinball or other games that are installed - I dont want them to go online or download etc.
I also choose to manually connect to go online . It would be nice to be able to disable it as when I choose to go online OA will connect automatically anyways . thanks.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Mike Is there any way round not having a pop up notification , when starting the pc yet choosing to stay off line - I do this when ever the local kids drop in and want to play pinball or other games that are installed - I dont want them to go online or download etc.
I also choose to manually connect to go online . It would be nice to be able to disable it as when I choose to go online OA will connect automatically anyways . thanks." }-

Which one is popping up - the cannot auto update one?

If that's the case, you could set Auto updates to "Manual Only" on the general tab.

[Notok]

I believe you need to have the PLUS version of WinPatrol for that.

[solarpowered candle]

-{ Quote: "Which one is popping up - the cannot auto update one?

If that's the case, you could set Auto updates to "Manual Only" on the general tab." }-

That sorted it thank you .

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "JR - My guess would be that WinPatrol does not list services. Haven't used it myself, but perhaps someone more familiar with it could comment?" }-

Thanks, Mike. I've posted in their forum as well....hopefully maybe the author of WinPatrol might have an answer for this.

edit: WinPatrol DOES list "services"...but I didn't think to check there. What is the difference between software being listed as or considered a "service" as opposed to a "program"?

-{ Quote: "I believe you need to have the PLUS version of WinPatrol for that." }-

I do have the PLUS version, Notok....WinPatrol PLUS 9.5.0.1

[chia]

Hi Mike,

I was just wondering if there is a way to remove entries in the program list. Selecting "Delete" asks if you want to remove files and registry keys but doing so still leaves it in the list (marked red), even after hitting the refresh button. I haven't figured out how to do it. That list is sure to get big with those of us who like to try new software. :)

Also I noticed when going to yahoo.com using Firefox I get a "Dangerous File - Active X" warning. Not sure if that is normal since I thought FF doesnt use Active X. Choosing Allow or Block has no difference on the page display as far as I could tell.

Still running smoothly here though. Am lovin' this so far and am looking forward to it's progression. Keep up the good work! :)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I was just wondering if there is a way to remove entries in the program list. Selecting "Delete" asks if you want to remove files and registry keys but doing so still leaves it in the list (marked red), even after hitting the refresh button. I haven't figured out how to do it. That list is sure to get big with those of us who like to try new software. :)

Also I noticed when going to yahoo.com using Firefox I get a "Dangerous File - Active X" warning. Not sure if that is normal since I thought FF doesnt use Active X. Choosing Allow or Block has no difference on the page display as far as I could tell.

Still running smoothly here though. Am lovin' this so far and am looking forward to it's progression. Keep up the good work! :)" }-

Hi Chia

Thanks for the kind words :-) To answer your questions:

Yahoo's page may contain a link to an embedded object - OA picks these up before the browser even requests them. I normally just block them, and then only if something is broken on the page would I unblock it. You'd be amazed at how many pages have things in them.

On deleting - its not there now, but we debated that feature to death :-) If you block, it will prevent the process running - and remember it. If you delete, it will remove files created by that process - but it remains on the block list to stop it running again.

I suppose there really needs to be a remove from list, but then what happens to the blocked program? This was the discussion we had - and we'll no doubt have again, once we get more user feedback.


Mike

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "edit: WinPatrol DOES list "services"...but I didn't think to check there. What is the difference between software being listed as or considered a "service" as opposed to a "program"?" }-

Hi JR,

A service is basically the same as a program, except that it starts automatically when the operating system is booted. It runs continously between login/logoffs.


Mike

[Vikorr]

Hi Mike

In relation to that program list, I have two suggestions...

- why not just sort blocked programs to the bottom of the list. That way they are easy to ignore if you don't want to see them.

- And secondly, sort each category (blocked/trusted) into alphabetical order (for when the lists do get really long), so it's easy to find programs on the list.

...maybe put it on the wish list anyway, for when you find the time :)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Hi Mike

In relation to that program list, I have two suggestions...

- why not just sort blocked programs to the bottom of the list. That way they are easy to ignore if you don't want to see them.

- And secondly, sort each category (blocked/trusted) into alphabetical order (for when the lists do get really long), so it's easy to find programs on the list.

...maybe put it on the wish list anyway, for when you find the time :)" }-

Hi Vikorr - Maybe a better approach "Show Blocked", "Show Allowed" "show all" with alpha-order sorting..

Do you think there should also be a way to permanently trust programs (thereby removing them from the list altogether)... or, if we mark a program as trusted centrally, then it should be removed from the local list (if trusted by the user, of course)


Mike

[chia]

Mike,

Thanks for the reply. I think I was just thrown by an Active-X warning using Firefox. Doesn't take much get me thrown. :)

Edit: Nevermind what was previously here, I lost the plot but now I get it.

Thanks again.

[JRCATES]

Thanks again, Mike, for the clarification.

Regarding OA: I don't want you or anyone else to think that it's doing all this "crazy stuff" on my computer! For the most part, it's quite the contrary. It seems to be working fine.....except for the areas that I am pointing out. On the one hand, I'd like to think that I'm a good "beta tester", because I'm honest and provide as much detail as possible. On the other, I haven't "praised" what has worked well (you know, the old "squeaky wheel gets the grease" theory). I figured it's best to address the areas where there are problems....but TRUST ME, as soon as I download Online Armor, run every form of software on my PC while OA is comfortably running in the background, and there is NOTHING bad to report....I'll come in here with GLOWING reviews! It seems like a very good product that is on the right track, so I don't want anyone reading my experiences as "criticism". It's simply meant to be helpful and constructive. (besides, this is the FIRST product I have EVER "beta tested"!)

As for your comments concerning this, Mike:

"On deleting - its not there now, but we debated that feature to death :-) If you block, it will prevent the process running - and remember it. If you delete, it will remove files created by that process - but it remains on the block list to stop it running again.

I suppose there really needs to be a remove from list, but then what happens to the blocked program? This was the discussion we had - and we'll no doubt have again, once we get more user feedback."

I'll admit that I may be reading this wrong, and I didn't have any occasion to "block or remove" any items or check into that function/aspect myself....so I really can't comment from any experience here. But I can definitely see where this would be a sticky issue.

First off, it doesn't "permanently" remove or block items, does it? After all, what if the user doesn't want it NOW....but changes their mind and decides to ADD it again later? I have removed and then re-installed software programs at various times....and I'd hate to think that something would be permanently blocked or removed and unable to re-visit and add at a later date. I'm guessing that this is placed in a section for the user to check or uncheck....so that the process could be reversed at a later date....but anyone that knows for sure, please feel free to straighten me out here (LOL). I'm assuming that the user can choose to reverse any option if they so choose. Also, does this process have the user answer a safety type question, like "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO BLOCK....blah, blah, blah"....so that they have to read the option a time or two before making a decision to remove or block a program?

Of course, like I said....I may be and probably am reading this wrong, and this process would not do anything that the user could not reverse later.....and if that's the case, then please accept my apologies for being ignorant in advance.

[Vikorr]

Hi Mike

Certainly if it's trusted by the central list I don't think it needs to show up in the Programs tab. However, if someone had a program marked as trusted and it suddenly dissappeared this would cause some confusion I should think.

I was thinking that maybe this function (the hiding of centrally trusted programs) could be done during the OA update procedure with a little popup saying something like "The following programs have been verified as trusted by OA central, and will now be hidden from view")

I like that approach, but there are a few possible problems I can see with it :
1. A person may be unsure of a programs trustworthiness/untrustworthiness and may later wish to change the programs status
2. What if a person marks a program trustworthy/untrustworthy, and your central database shows it to be the opposite ?
3. People may not want you 'prying' into what programs they run (I personally don't care, but I know some people who do - privacy etc)

Personally, I would still sort programs/websites etc this way, but put in a tickbox for people to say whether or not they want programs verified by OA Central (or whatever you would call it). That way people with privacy concerns get a choice. It would also go someway to helping with item 1.

Still, I'm not sure exactly how you would handle item 1 & 2.

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "I didn't have any occasion to "block or remove" any items or check into that function/aspect myself....so I really can't comment from any experience here. But I can definitely see where this would be a sticky issue.

First off, it doesn't "permanently" remove or block items, does it? After all, what if the user doesn't want it NOW....but changes their mind and decides to ADD it again later? " }-

Exactly. This is the problem - for a program that I install on my PC now, lets call it "Funstuff" - I'm going to allow it, and it will want to allow it for ever. Even if I uninstall and reinstall it, next time OA will deviously recall my preference and never receive a popup again. Of course, if I chance my mind I can always block it, and if I change my mind again - I can unblock it again. Even if you change your mind as often as the weather, you're accommodated.

Now, here's the rub. Lets say that I open a zip file marked "Danger" and execute the rather unimaginativley named "NastyProg", and allow it with OA of course - Then, horror!!! NastyProg proceeds to delete my pictures of prize garden gnomes.

Obviously, once I see the "Gnomes\Fishing" directory emptied, I'm going to block it in OA - terminating the process and preventing it from ever running again. Yay!

IF I then look at OA, I'll see the files created by NastyProg - so I hit delete and get rid of them.

Now, will I ever want to allow NastyProg to run again? Unlikely.. although, if I do, I can allow it easily in OA. And that is the problem - some things you never ever, ever want to allow again. These could be removed from the list, but remembered... giving a nice clean display... but in some cases, I'm going to block something - by accident, and want it back.

So, what action should OA take if I remove something from the list? Treat it as new? If I block lots of nasty programs, I really would feel more comfortable knowing that nastyprog.exe is blocked, and I can see "Hey, it's blocked" whenever I want.

This is the sort of things we think about (minus the gnomes, of course) when we're looking at this stuff. For the first version, we figured its best to leave it where people can see/change everything as they want, which is currently the case.

Although, as I mentioned above - we will definitely be responding based on user feedback.


Mike

PS. Sorry for the gnomes stuff. I'm just having a really fun day today :-)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "
I was thinking that maybe this function (the hiding of centrally trusted programs) could be done during the OA update procedure with a little popup saying something like "The following programs have been verified as trusted by OA central, and will now be hidden from view")

3. People may not want you 'prying' into what programs they run (I personally don't care, but I know some people who do - privacy etc)

" }-

Thats not bad. Just a couple of comments (no gnomes, this time I promise) -

The list of stuff a user trusts is only stored locally. When Auto update comes down, so does the central list - so this could be compared - on the user machine with no privacy issues.

In fact - we do this already - if you have marked a program as "Trusted" and then we roll out an update that says "Dangerous" then we give you a little dialog, and reset the status to "Ask" so you can make a call on it.

Maybe we can adapt this as you say... remembering that OA's target is mums and dad.


Mike

[Vikorr]

In that case it's fairly easy to handle :

4 tabs within the program field

1. All programs
2. Programs trusted/untrusted by OA Central
3. Personally trusted/untrusted programs
4. Discrepancies (or whatever you would call it)

Item 4 could have a little note on the top of the tab, something to the effect "The following programs are listed as trusted by you. However they are known untrusted sites by OA Central" ...and perhaps a "For further information click <hyperlink>"

The other tabs would speak for themselves I'm sure :)

PS edited again :)

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "In that case it's fairly easy to handle :

4 tabs within the program field

1. All programs
2. Programs trusted/untrusted by OA Central
3. Personally trusted/untrusted programs
4. Discrepancies (or whatever you would call it)

Item 4 could have a little note on the top of the tab, something to the effect "The following programs are listed as trusted by you, but known untrusted sites by OA Central"" }-


I like this!!!

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "
I was thinking that maybe this function (the hiding of centrally trusted programs) could be done during the OA update procedure with a little popup saying something like "The following programs have been verified as trusted by OA central, and will now be hidden from view")" }-
That's a very good idea, Vikorr....just so long as.....
-{ Quote: "
there are a few possible problems I can see with it :
1. A person may be unsure of a programs trustworthiness/untrustworthiness and may later wish to change the programs status" }-
Exactly. Just so there is a panel to access and a way to "unhide" and view the files and/or make any changes at a later date (if the user so chooses).
-{ Quote: "
2. What if a person marks a program trustworthy/untrustworthy, and your central database shows it to be the opposite ?" }-
Another good point. Perhaps this could be addressed by a pop-up window notifying the user of OA's database (what it has for the program), with a built-in "Google search" type function, if the user wants to research and address it some more

[JRCATES]

NICE! Another good suggestion, Vikorr....geez, I'm gonna quit trying to keep up with you guys (LOL)....

EDIT: Regarding the suggested tabbed/button type feature option:

1. All programs
2. Programs trusted/untrusted by OA Central (how about "OA trusted/untrusted" programs?)
3. Personally trusted/untrusted programs (how about "User trusted/untrusted" programs?)
4. Discrepancies (or whatever you would call it)

Also, would "programs", "applications", or "processes" be the better term?

The only thing that I'll add which might be a worthwhile consideration would be to have two "seperate" entries under tabs 2 and 3. Perhaps have one list of entries clearly identifying the "trusted" apps, with a seperate list of listed enties indicating the "untrusted" ones. Perhaps in two seperate "boxes", if you will. Anyway, just a thought...

[Vikorr]

Hi JR

I personally would represent each tab with an icon, and a simple explantion on the page. The wording of each tab doesn't have to be exactly what I said, it was just to give the general idea :)

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "I really would feel more comfortable knowing that nastyprog.exe is blocked, and I can see "Hey, it's blocked" whenever I want." }-Agreed, it is always good to see what is hidden and why, rather than to have to go and hunt for why something will not run…


-{ Quote: "…(minus the gnomes, of course)…" }-Noooooooooo, I love the gnomes ;) ;D


-{ Quote: "Sorry for the gnomes stuff. I'm just having a really fun day today :-)" }-Get out, I had a great laugh with a mate over that one, gotta love the Aussie sense of humour ;D ;D ;D

My system is still ticking along very nicely with OA.

Cheers ;D

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "My system is still ticking along very nicely with OA.

Cheers ;D" }-

Wicked! I'm happy we've solved the other problems. I have a new version which should solve problems that puff-m-d was having with the Bat, but I'm still testing it :-)


Mike

[JRCATES]

Hey Mike,

Could you please post here in this thread or send me a PM once you think you've discovered what the problem with preventing the TrojanHunter scanner from opening is and have corrected it? I'll be more than happy and willing to try it out again....I'm curious to try it with ALL of my software applications for compatibility purposes.....

[MikeNash]

Hi All,

A new special build of Online Armor has been uploaded, here:

http://www.tallemu.com.au/downloads/oasetupSpecial.zip

Why is this build special? First of all, it should certainly fix the issue that puff-m-d had with The Bat!

I'm also hoping that a couple of other intermittent issues experienced by some users will be fixed with it as well, for example, the problem that JRCATES had with Trojan hunter - although, I am uncertain as we have not yet reproduced that one.

It also contains a fix for users with massively large HOSTS file - which were causing nasty CPU spikeys.

If you want to install this one, then please ensure in the last step of the Safety check wizard, you deactivate auto updates - otherwise you'll auto update to the "current" version.

I've done this one as a special build so we can do separate tests without disrupting those people not having problems. Once a few people have given this the once over, I'll get this put up on Auto updates for everyone else to have a look at :-)


Cheers


Mike

[Blackspear]

-{ Quote: "I've done this one as a special build so we can do separate tests without disrupting those people not having problems." }-I pretty sure I could break it, if it can be broken, it will be so, on my system ;) ;D :lurking:

[Notok]

I was also having a problem with high CPU usage when downloading, whether with firefox, download manager, or whatever, but the special build is a definite improvment. I still get a high spike but only for a short period of time, compared to the full 100% spike that would last for the duration of the download, and maybe a few seconds more.

[Notok]

...but now it looks like email is pegging the cpu...

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "...but now it looks like email is pegging the cpu..." }-

@puff-m-d --- does the Bat work for you now? Seems we have broken Notok's mail client.

@notok - what mail client are you using?

EDIT: There's now a logging version of the special build available at

http://www.tallemu.com.au/downloads/oasetupSpecialLogging.zip

Mike

[Notok]

Pocomail

[MikeNash]

-{ Quote: "Pocomail" }-

Thanks :-) Do you want to play with the special logging build :-)


Mike

[Notok]

But of course :)

BTW, you should cover Flash cookies!

[Blackspear]

I have come across another issue, I am having images that have been attached to posts by members displayed in other posts throughout a thread, even though other posts in the same thread do not have images in them. eg. Image attached to post 25, no image attached in post 26, 27, 28… though the same image from 25 is displayed in 26, 27, 28…

I have just checked on a 2nd machine that has the exact same setup, except OA, and that system is displaying images correctly.

I am also receiving quite a number of "Time outs".

Cheers ;D

[richrf]

Hi all,

After doing an image copy, I installed OA. The installation was very smooth. So far no conflicts with the following programs running in real-time simultaneously:

ZoneAlarm Pro 5
KAV 5
Ewido
ProcessGuard licensed
RegDefend
BOClean
UnHackMe
WormGuard

Rich