BufferZone Security

[pilotart]

Sandboxie had worked fine for me with Firefox but had serious problems with IE. This BufferZone Security looks really great to me.

I have an ExciteMail account that requires IE with security set low, after two pages worth of Sandboxie ExciteMail, it would begin to freeze the whole system.

Last use of Sandboxie with ExciteMail resulted in AntiVir's Guard Umbrella closing, used GoBack and then uninstalled Sandboxie 2.60.

Found this Trustware BufferZone from the report linked from the thread below titled Eight Sandboxes Reviewed. (<Link back is Thread, link ahead is the Report>) Eight Security Sandboxes Reviewed and Rated

They have a "Single Application Edition" (like Internet Explorer) version for free and I just installed it. A click on the BufferZone.exe downloaded to desktop started an 8016KB download and installation.

Used it once now to do all I wanted with ExciteMail on IE with absolutely no problems. Looks like an excellent protection for my needs.

Search of Wilders for BufferZone showed nothing, website for BufferZone is: http://www.trustware.com/ would be interested in any comments on this Sandbox.

[zopzop]

i've tried both sandboxie and bufferzone and both are really good products. i've had sandboxie installed on my sister and my cousin's PC's with no problems whatsoever. tzuk is also very fast with the updates/enhancements to sandboxie too.

bufferzone is a very nice sandboxing program. the free version is VERY robust. it really isnt' a "single application" sandbox, you can add more applications whenever you want. the big difference between the free and paid version is that the paid version protects against threats from removeable storage (usb, cds, etc..), has a nice built in firewall, and other useful perks not found in the free version. i love bufferzone (free) and have it installed on my desktop.

[Lucy]

Hi zopzop,

Actually, the paid version of BZ mainly differs from the free one by the application control policy. When a new or an anknown program is executed, you can decide to run it inside or outside the "sandbox". The free one has not this feature.

I find the firewall totally useless BTW.

And yes pilotart, if you wish to protect a single application or few ones, BZ does a great job.

Another totally alertless and great "sandbox/virtualization" program is defensewall (paid). Easy setup. Goes well with a more classical antivirus.

[Wai_Wai]

Originally Posted by BZJet

I find the firewall totally useless BTW.

Would you mind explaining why?

[Lucy]

Hi,

Please don't misunderstand, I was talking about the BZ built-in firewall. As I have already a firewall, 2 are useless, simply.

Of course there could be a way to make this 2nd firewall interesting as it can be used as a part of the application control policy: e.g. trusted progs. (running outside virtualised environnment) are free to connect. The ones virtualised can't, except the usual ones (IE, FF, ...). On previous version, I tried... and couldn't. I didn't try it yet on this new release btw.

Hope I answered correctly.

[Wai_Wai]

Originally Posted by BZJet

Hi,

Please don't misunderstand, I was talking about the BZ built-in firewall. As I have already a firewall, 2 are useless, simply.

Of course there could be a way to make this 2nd firewall interesting as it can be used as a part of the application control policy: e.g. trusted progs. (running outside virtualised environnment) are free to connect. The ones virtualised can't, except the usual ones (IE, FF, ...). On previous version, I tried... and couldn't. I didn't try it yet on this new release btw.

Hope I answered correctly.

Oh! So sorry about that.
I would like to apologise.

Since the statement starts in a new paragraph, I misinterpreted that you are talking about firewall in general.

[aigle]

Originally Posted by BZJet

Another totally alertless and great "sandbox/virtualization" program is defensewall (paid). Easy setup. Goes well with a more classical antivirus.

I will add GesWall to the list.

[pilotart]

I thank you all for reading my inquiry and responding with positive comment on BZ, I hope that there might be a simple answer for my concerns.

Originally Posted by BZJet

Actually, the paid version of BZ mainly differs from the free one by the application control policy. When a new or an anknown program is executed, you can decide to run it inside or outside the "sandbox". The free one has not this feature.
<<<...snip...>>>
And yes pilotart, if you wish to protect a single application or few ones, BZ does a great job.

BufferZone has been a disappointment so far; 18 hours after install, suffered a BSOD and the 'HAL' refusal to boot ,
had to use GoBack to before BZ's install to load Windows.

Today I went back and downloaded a fresh copy.

Security through Virtualization™ Website says:

Remember: BufferZone prevents all malicious code – viruses, worms, Trojan horses and spyware – <<<...snip...>>>BufferZone lets users surf the internet without a trace of unwanted cookies, history and cyber junk, ..."

I use Firefox except for Excite.com where their Web based Email requires IE with the lowest security settings, went there twice under BufferZone Protection and than ran Ad-Aware.

Q: How does BufferZone differ from spyware scanners like Ad-Aware?
A: Spyware scanners detect very specific threats by identifying specific files, Registry keys, cookies, etc.

and each time found this malware on Ad-Aware Scan:

MRU List Object Recognized!
Location: : S-1-5-21-114175430-3990757128-3110351039-1005\software\microsoft\windows\currentversion\explorer\recentdocs
Description : list of recent documents opened

Tracking Cookie Object Recognized!
Type : IECache Entry
Data : a@excite[1].txt
TAC Rating : 3
Category : Data Miner
Comment :
Value : C:\Virtual\Untrusted\C_\Documents and Settings\a\Local Settings\Temp\Cookies\a@excite[1].txt

Since they were listed in "...\Virtual\Untrusted\C_\Document..." I did try the "Empty BufferZone"
but another scan showed that they were still present.

Could find no information in BZ Help or Website except the info quoted to promise protection.

Also (not that I need it) there had been a "Confidential files" Folder loaded on my desktop with the first install,
but with today's version just a message that it "...is not available in this limited version"..

Other than it not protecting me, it seems to work fine and I will report if I see any other problems.

[aigle]

Originally Posted by BZJet

Hi,

Please don't misunderstand, I was talking about the BZ built-in firewall. As I have already a firewall, 2 are useless, simply.

Of course there could be a way to make this 2nd firewall interesting as it can be used as a part of the application control policy: e.g. trusted progs. (running outside virtualised environnment) are free to connect. The ones virtualised can't, except the usual ones (IE, FF, ...). On previous version, I tried... and couldn't. I didn't try it yet on this new release btw.

Hope I answered correctly.

Hi, I wonder why they offer an installer instead of a complete download package. I really disliek this esp being on dial up.

[pilotart]

The first download for me, couple days ago, was around 04 GMT hour and was a surprise, but smooth. Yesterday's was 1620-1700 GMT and ran in fits at half normal DialUp speed, first 7MB was below 3KBs and last MB, the speed jumped way up past 'normal' to 8-12KBs (total 8032KB). Perhaps popularity has strained their Server at times.

With the above mentioned 'seeming lack of protection' I should perhaps Uninstall (has a line in All Programs, as well as Add/Remove with 18.35MB w/repair option) and try another download after 03GMT.

I have just the 'IE Protection' and it loads at Start-Up on SysTray and TaskManager lists 12,840K MEM and 0:00:16 CPU time w/ IE closed.

I show version 1.90.11 and Program has a nice looking icon with a simple, three-line right-click choice of Open GUI, Disable or Unload.

Nice GUI including an 'Event Log' (25 pages in 20 hours) of every process listed; trusted and un-trusted (just IE for me).