Private Firewall Updated (again)

Thanks for the update. Just saw this on file forum. Was about to post it.

 

Can I update my current version 7.0.24.10 over the top?

Edit in: I found the answer... I'll post it here in case anyone is interested.

 

I'm running administrator account on my system. When I set certain programs like web browsers, email clients to "limited", I can not turn off my computer from the start menu. I can only log off my account first and then turn off. Also I cannot install certain softwares. I tried to install free download manager, but it failed saying don't have access to directory - program files. But when I restart my computer, the problem won't exist. Logging off my account and then logging in may also solve the problem.

Anyone having the same problem?

 

I'm also working as an administartor and I didn't have the same problem...everything works OK - no conflicts, no freezes thru applications in "limited rights" (MS Office, IE, Firefox, Firefox plugin-container, Foxit Reader, Adobe Reader, MSM...). Some new fatures on screenshots
"Added log level control: Off, Low, Med, High.
Added ability to right mouse click event in FW log to add IP to the Blocked or Trusted List."

"Added Restricted Rights feature"

 

Have you tried to select the "limited" option for some processes through the process monitor alert? I've contacted with Greg, trying to reproduce the issue. No luck for now.

 

No...I have not tried this feature. BTW...I think that in "limited" option could be - maybe even should be - some sign (text, border, etc.) that would indicate that the program runs in "limited mode". Now I didn't find such marks.

 

Yeah, that feature is not included yet, coz it's still in its very early stage. The most important thing right now is to make it as stable as possible. Anyway I think Greg is able to make anything(of course not bad ones ) happen.

 

just got an update

RELEASE NOTES - 7.0.25.4, posted 9/30/2011
- Fixed defect in Restricted Rights feature (assigning limited rights to certain applications using alerts might inadvertently reduce rights for iexplorer.exe).

 

Thanks 2good

 

FYI, it's explorer.exe. Greg made a mistake.

 

Thanks for the info. Received the internal update also.

Actually this is what is on the support website.

RELEASE NOTES - 7.0.25.4, posted 9/30/2011
- Fixed defect in Restricted Rights feature (assigning limited rights to certain applications using alerts might inadvertently reduce rights for explorer.exe)
(notice it states)
explorer.exe not iexplorer.exe

-http://www.privacyware.com/PF_support.html

 

Yes, I know. I made contact with Greg. It was a typo, and he corrected it.

 

Look here:
http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php#interpretation-of-results
Privatefirewall obtained an excellent result!

 

That's really excellent with the new version. Thanks for the link.

 

Thanks for the Matousec link, osci.
The vendor responses are a good inclusion.
Greg Salvato's submission from yesterday was very complimentary of the Matousec team...

I really like that Privatefirewall, per Greg, is not satisfied with 98%, and "will investigate and remedy the three outstanding identified flaws".
That's an impressive attitude.

 

Very impressive."I'm glad I use Private firewall, don't you wish everyone did ? "

 

On one hand I'm kind of glad they (Privacyware) are increasing Privatefirewall's effectiveness, even if it's a lot more theoretical than practical. On the other hand however, I'm a bit worried that Privacyware might succumb to this "1st in Matousec's tests" craze and even start paying for retests, which I suspect happened this time.
I'm not worried about the protection level, as Privatefirewall isn't a placebo like PC Tools Firewall Plus, and has always offered good protection, but it is a bit shallow behaviour.

 

Hi Night_Raven
You may already have read this in the Proactive Security Challenge FAQs, but since it does directly address the very concern that you have raised, I'd like to post it here.

 

Not good enough. For one thing, on another page they still say there are no limits of paid tests. And even if there really is a limit, it's not clear what it is. I refuse to believe that Matousec would limit them too much. After all that's how they make money. If I am to take them seriously as a really independent testing organization and consider them the least bit credible, they need to drop this absurdly biased level-based system. Unitil they do that they remain just another money hungry self-serving bunch of scam artists.

 

You're a long way away from Greg Salvato's opinion of the Matousec team...

 

You're misunderstanding. I never said the people at Matousec are incompetent and don't know what they're doing. Quite the opposite, I'm sure they are quite good at what they do, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still scam artists. One can be both. In fact being smart and knowing one's stuff makes one a better scam artist. Also, no vendor would bad-mouth Matousec if its product scores well. Actually, no vendor would respond with sharp criticism anyway, as there is the company name to think of. The only response that comes close to criticism is EMSISOFT's. Everything else is something like "thanks, you're so great" or "thanks for testing, we'll look into it" - either happy with the end results or just generic responses to acknowledge the results and for some publicity as well.
I could delve deeper but it would get even more offtopic.

 

bump.

Any news on this front?

 

You're quite right about going off topic, and so I will post my last 2¢ on the Matousec tests as they pertain to Privatefirewall.

I will say is that what we have here is much more a case of disagreeing than misunderstanding. Your 'scam artist' premise is faulty in that to be true (and let's face it, you can only make accusations, you can't prove anything) it would require that all participating companies must be complicit, and I just don't see where a guy like the CEO of Privacyware would wish to associate himself and his software with scam artists. And what makes you think that companies like Comodo, BitDefender, Kaspersky, MalwareDefender, Outpost and others are willing or even likely to participate in biased testing? Or that you know more about the true nature of Matousec testing then they do? It must be one way or the other, for your premise to be true.

When Greg Salvato of Privatefirewall says that Matousec, more than anyone else, is able to "effectively assess" vulnerabilities, I take that as meaning he does not believe there is any scamming taking place.

As always, I respect and appreciate an opposing viewpoint.

 

Does PrivateFirewall have any defense mechanisms against these secirity threats?

-http://www.spyshelter.com/download/AntiTest.exe-

 

Concur.

I feel that those benighted folks who disagree with me have an inalienable right to be wrong.