Comparison between GeSWall free and pro

I've recently become very interested in GeSWAll, but i couldnt make up the difference btw the free and pro version.
I downloaded in a pc the Free version, then i chose the Pro trial after a couple of days, but what kind of functionality is lost if you dont purchase? (apart from the fact you cannot add rules)

I've seen GeSWall has no contraindications of any sort, it worked fine with ten different security programs during last week, when i experimented a few firewalls like Netveda,PCTools,ComodoV3,Webroot -and also DefenseWall and SafeSpace (last two not with GeSWall,of course).
I had begun the search looking for an easy security combination for a friend computer and ended up finding GeSWall,which i am thinking to add to my
Comodo3(just firewall)+Boclean+ProSecurity 130+Returnil shield.
Can any experienced user tell me exactly what i'd miss by going Free?

 

I'm sure you've read this?
http://www.gentlesecurity.com/professional.html
GeSWall free offers great protection. The paid version offers more options.

 

The free version only has application-specific rules for very few programs (namely browsers). When you isolate other app than a browser, GW applies the basic isolation policy

Isolating an application without application specific rules may cause some things to break (i.e. not working properly if they need a resource which is being denied access)
Also, with the Pro version, you get the Wizard which is more user-friendly than the console if you need/want to make rules for applications which don't have them and an option to terminate isolated apps showing clear malicious behaviour (not a big deal)
GW is simply brilliant, but for a novice (your friend) Sandboxie may be a better solution.

 

I experimented with GeSWall 2.6. Initially I liked it a lot, but I started noticing problems. For instance I use a number of browsers that store Favorites online and the generic rules did not allow the browers to access these resources. I also had a weird problem where Avant browser was classified as having come from an untrusted source (?) and GeSWall would not allow it to run unshielded. I eventually moved to SafeSpace which hasn't presented these problems and is fully functional. SafeSpace seems a little slower than GeSWall, but has a much nicer and more intuitive GUI. My .02

 

Thanks LoneWolf for the comparison table you provided.It must have been the only page i missed on the site!
Obviously ,after reading that,the situation is much clearer.
I probably can go with the Free one in a pc already running ProSecurity 1.30,which can easily take care of the missing features.

lucas1985,very usefull what you mentioned,i understood GeSWAll more reading your few lines than with their Help!

At the moment i'm running the Trial version without any added rule in a pc with only Antivir Classic,Boclean and Returnil (+Router) and everything runs smooth and fine...

Dont you think that my friend could run the free program just as it is,isolating just the browser (mainly) and not needing this way any particular knowledge? This is the way i'd like to use it as well-at least for now.

Victek123, i see. I hope GeSWall will be more hassle-free with me than it was for you, as so many times happens: glory in one computer and wreck in another for unfathomable reasons....
A situation which repeats itself here, as i had to get rid of SafeSpace -regrettably, coz i really loved the program's GUI and way of working-due to some problems,some dealing with the very very rarefied help files and not very clear (to me) terminology used over there (just to compare,let me tell you that i hardly had to consult DefenseWall help or GeSWall help,both very clear) and mainly because i deem it slows down the system a lot. I also dont like to have to download the Net Framework pack. But i admit it's brilliant in theory.

 

Thanks I've spent some time reading the website and documentation, so GW's concept is crystal clear to me.

You will appreciate the lightness of GeSWall. My system performance is the same as without it.

My main concern about GW in novice's hands is that GW doesn't have a virtual container, so malware.exe is written to the System32 folder (although it can't do any harm). If he uninstalls GW, those files loose the untrusted label and are ready to be double-clicked accidentally. Also, he may be scared to see that his AV finds malware files in system folders
GW FAQ

 

I've already appreciated its lightness Lucas1985!
I try -like most people here i guess- to install only good,valid programs which dont bog down the system. My 'test' pc only runs 256MB RAM and it is a valid comparison for programs 'heaviness':
DefenseWall was ok in its resource consumption,almost as GesWall (but it is a bit more variegated,so it is 'excused' and possibly on a par with GW).Its only drawback is that's not free like GW free.
Comparing sandboxing-virtualising programs what really weighs a ton is SafeSpace, and it is a pity, being it a very well conceived program which imho lacks also easy to understand Help instructions.

I noticed, the same for me.

This could be overcome if you use a combination of GeSWAll + Returnil (or similar).
Both are very very very light on the system and completely user-friendly.
The coming Returnil beta gives a few chances more to choose a folder where to save things and GW protects its confidential folder, so you can really fear nothing: i suspect the combination could pose a threat for keyloggers as well, given the fact that GeSWall RESTRICTS the malware moves,while Returnil washes away what might count on a reboot to act.
If you run an antivirus like Antivir it will catch the remnants...even before you reboot. (i suggested Antivir on account it is another light application in comparison with most)
If you own a powerful enough pc you can also run a HIPS on the light side like ProSecurity 1.30, which takes care of it all .....and you can rest-reasonably- assured to be well protected.......

 

Since SafeSpace relies on .NET Framework, it might be too much of a challenge for a resource-limited PC. Perhaps in PCs with more resources (512+ MB of RAM, 2+ GHz processor), SafeSpace runs smooth as silk.

Nice combo GW is very strong against keyloggers (even without the confidential feature) and Returnil would remove everything on C: drive at reboot. Remember that the features on this beta of Returnil will only show up in the paid version.

 

Personally, i can do with the free version of Returnil- its Z/virtual disk is more than enough for my needs.
What is of concern to me is instead how can i set things for my friend regarding the Mail client, be it Outlook Express or Thunderbird, in a
GeSWall + Returnil environment.
This is no trouble for me since i have long set my client with IMAP-hence everything is saved on the server- but my friend has a POP3 mail which needs to be saved in OE.
At the moment she's using ShadowUser,which can easily be configured to save predefined files, so it presents no problem, but i am still pondering about what would be best with the just depicted combination.
Moving Outlook in Z/Returnil and giving this program a more ephemeral existence?
Would all messages be tracked by GeSWAll ?
What would be the best place to keep messages ,if there are no partitions?
Any suggestion about this?

 

I haven't tried the full isolation policy (without application-specific rules) in OE, so I'm not sute if it would break something. Moving the storage folder to the virtual partition seems the best option.

 

The only problem I ever had with GesWall 2.6 was if you downloaded an application/zip file/whatever with the free version there was no way (at least that I could find) to change the objects status to trusted. And since I generally do a lot of downloading the program became fairly useless quickly.

If someone has a solution for this problem please chime in.

Later...

 

Not sure about 2.6 but in 2.7 there is a right click option to mark trusted.

 

The option is also there for v2.6.

 

If I recall correctly changing the downloaded items status to trusted is only available in the Pro version not the free (at least that's the message I received). If I'm wrong then please correct me.

 

If that's the case, why not just isolate the application itself? That way, all files created from it will be labelled as Trusted.

 

A simple copy/ paste of the file will remove the tag as well.

 

Thanks for the two suggestions. I might give GesWall another try this week even though I'm quite happy with Sandboxie.

 

this is correct. move any file Geswall has designated as Untrusted to any other folder and Geswall "tracking" falls into a ditch. and unfortunately, unless you pay $55 bucks for a very good software, with underwhelming developer/customer involvement, you cannot manually or context menu choose to label it as Untrusted.

my workaround for that was to (for Emule) use Online Armor to 'Run Safer' and then go into Geswalls Resource page and designate Emules Incoming and met.dat or dat. met folders as Untrusted. the result was, Emule was protected from being exploited by running with reduced rights, and all of the files downloaded by Emule were then Untrusted as were it's met.dat files. once i determined a file was safe by running it isolated, i would move it elsewhere ( instead of cut and paste, i use the less elegant Move command available in Windows) and it would auto lose the Untrusted label and run normally.

for me it's all moot, as i have replaced Geswall with SafeSpace. while not as highly developed as Geswall, i believe the difference maker will be a more hands on, involved with the end-user developer. i read a few days ago in Wilders how a rapid round of cheer went up because the developer responded to an email. the way i see it, if a software developer engages the end-user with a great product, provides email and forum support to service that end user, and then for some unfathomable reason decides not to, or do so sporadically, that in my view is no reason to celebrate. my take.


Mike