Answer, Agree or Disagree

Emisoft have made a Statement about Online-Armor 5.1 http://www.emsisoft.com/en/kb/articles/news110914/ People Please answer this with a 1 word answer, either Agree or Disagree.

We don't need anything further about how good or bad, thats been done already, So please stick with whether you Agree or Disagree with their Press Statement.

 

Better as a poll?

Anyway, Disagree

Cheers

 

Hi, i don't use it, but i MUCH prefer to choose which Apps etc have internet access in REAL time on a case by case basis, NEVER automatically !

Why, just because Apps/Process etc might be verified does NOT mean they can be used/abused by Malware etc. If you allow others to make judgements for you, no matter how well meaning, then you are NOT in control of what happens, and/or might.

Having said that, for "regular" Jo's i suppose they will prefer/accept it !

 

So,the bottom line is that you cannot make decision by yourself anymore which program can access the internet?If so,i totally disagree.

 

Agree

 

@JoeBlack40

Yes, you still can.

Just untick that "automatic allow trusted" option.

I think the Simplified operation they refered to is mainly about the HIPS component. Now OA can automatically trust programs with valid digital signature. Once again, if you do not think it's safe enough to trust that much, or if you want make the decisions on your own, you can always untick the option and gain more control over those programs.

IMO, A great program from a small company. I appreciate their work.

So agree.

 

its help for both kinda users for advance users can uncheck and newbie who like default setting can go with it.

so agree

 

Aha,thanks for details.

 

I'll use 2 words.
Absolutely disagree.

 

A couple of things, quoting from the Newsletter...

"Massively improved protection"

Always makes me wonder about the previous version, and how the devs are implying that it wasn't really that good, since this new one is "massively improved". And they never told you when you were using the previous version that it was in need of massive improvement, did they?

"Unfortunately, this means that users must manually approve each individual program that is allowed access. This has now changed."

Ironic that one respected forum member just tried 5.1 and took it off because it hounded him too much... with the HIPS turned off!!

Oops, I guess that ship has sailed.
Agree or disagree with the press statement?
It's a press statement, and it's a press statement.

 

They're not aiming the product at Wilders users hence the "silent" allow/deny approach.

As to the press release, I neither agree nor disagree with it. As someone before me said, it's a press statement, that's all.

 

Right you are.
And it's the other way around at Wilders.
We aim at them!

 

You are welcome .

 

I would regard forced "auto whitelisting" as an unacceptable feature, but I read beyond the verbiage of the press release, and found:

the following screenshot is linked to the "support.emsisoft.com/topic/5524-emsisoft-online-armor-firewall-51-released" page:
http://img813.imageshack.us/img813/5157/oaprogramsoptions.png

It shows a checkbox setting which is labeled
In addition, automatically trust programs signed with valid digital signatures.

...so, what am I missing? What's the "problem"? What's to be "agreed" or "disagreed"?

 

If you had bothered to read what was writen in the link I provided, the statement is "The Firewall that no longer gets on your nerves!"

So whats your answer?, it's quite simple, you either agree with that or you dont

 

Well, DVD+R, in fairness to all who responded, there are more than a few (perhaps dozens!) of declarative sentences interspersed throughout that Newsletter. Each and every one of them conveys information or makes statements, with which it is possible to either agree or disagree. So how were we to know which statement you were referring to? Had you placed the statement you had in mind in your OP, then this thread may have taken an altogether different course.

As far as the statement that you have now singled out, "The Firewall that no longer gets on your nerves!", I still view the whole thing as a press release, and agree/disagree just doesn't seem to pertain.

 

Those who knew how to use it probably never thought it got on their nerves to begin with. Those who know very little about firewall use are probably still not happy. OA seems to be doing what is called in the gaming world "catering to the casuals". Hey, I'm all for that. Look, we have several million people out there that have too little or no security at all. Frankly, I don't mind ticking off a number of "expert" users to get those people to hopefully get a little extra protection.

Argue all you want about auto-allow and possible dangers, but the fact is that without "dumbing down" a lot of these noisy products, lots of people will steer clear. That's lot of customers gone and lots of people who might have otherwise gave it a shot and upped their security by quite a bit. The "experts" have other options, Comodo will always be there to attend to your techie needs. Simple security options means more people protected, and more people protected means all of us are protected just a little bit more. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

 

I really like OA a lot.
I have run it on one of my XP machines for many months, mainly with the HIPS features enabled.
I was never annoyed by the alerts... I always figured that's why I have the program onboard, to tell me what is going on.
But I finally 86'd the HIPS because I decided I didn't need the added protection and performance overhead.
I now run it strictly as a firewall.
And although I was never annoyed, I can easily see how others could be.
If Emsisoft is striving to take away potential annoyances, good for them.
As long as those of us who don't get annoyed can still ratchet up the protection (potential annoyances) whenever we want to.

 

One thing is for sure.I don't wanna trade annoyance with less security.A HIPS must remain a HIPS whatsoever. For who can't handle the alerts,then an AV and a FW should do it.Again,disagree.

 

Unless a firewall or HIPS is going to make all of the decisions for the casual user, I don't think they can be "dumbed down" enough to not bother them. I also seem to remember seeing something about such certificates being spoofed or bypassed. For me, the real questions I'd need answered before I'd consider suggesting this to a casual user is this:

1, What criteria does an app or vendor have to meet to get one of these certificates?
2, What happens when a "certified app" gets updated? Does it need a new one?
3, Who will be responsible for testing the apps, and the issuing and maintaining of these certificates?
4, Who will control and administer the servers that store these certificates and insure the integrity of the data transfer between these servers and the security apps that use them? All of this will become part of the users attack surface. It will be probed hard for weaknesses.

IMO, this has trusted computing and buying your way in written all over it. Depending on whether or not these certificates have to be purchased (and for how much) it could easily be used to discriminate against small vendors and those who create apps that step on the toes of big money.

I'll agree with that, but by the same token, there's no reason that the needs of the many have to be filled at the expense of the needs of the few.

 

It's an odd question, as for me and it's just impossible to answer it in a fair way. If you'd ask "do you trust what Emsisoft says about Online Armor", I'd answer "no". But this question is not too politically correct, unfortunately.

 

JoeBlack40 agree to what you said,also it is desig for advance users

 

disagree


Press statement says perfect FW