AppGuard Beta-testing over.

Just a reminder to AG users who are still using a beta version; the new official version is now released.


Current AppGuard File Details

Version: 3.0.13.1
File Size: 12.2 MB {Install File}
Release Date: February 10, 2011

Let Eirik know if you need a new key-file, the old ones will not work.

This includes the old beta-testers, who were originally given free licenses.

 

That's odd. I installed the application a few days ago and my version number is 3.0.13.0. AppGuard hasn't notified me that there's a newer build out.

 

Because you are using the current build

 

According to BlackCat it's 3.0.13.1.

 

I have build 3.0.13.0 and if I d/l from Blueridge, and use "modify" or "repair", I still have 3.0.13.0 after reboot.
I am at a loss to find version 3.0.13.1
Cheers

 

I posted the info in the first post from the BlueRidge Web Site; http://www.blueridgenetworks.com/support/appguard.php

I cannot confirm my version number of AG as I am on another computer.

 

Hi All,

There is an inconsistency from Blue Ridge. If your agent is telling you that you have version 3.0.13.0 (i.e., tray icon, 'About AppGuard'), then you have the latest version. Also, if you have a version greater than 1.5.x, it would tell you if there were a newer version than what you have. I apologize for the confusion. I ought to be able to correct it tomorrow.

Cheers,

Eirik

 

@Blackcat Sorry if there is any misunderstanding..... I was NOT blaming you for my confusion. I also saw that information on the web page.

I see that Erik has cleared it up.
Cheers

 

Just tested Appguard out for the first time today against 15 pieces of 0-day malware. It seems to work great. It would be awfully tough for a piece of malware to defeat it. Though Im sure that the high setting in appguard can cause some incompatibilities in some software. I will do some more testing to see if I find any. Also the fact you have to disable protection every time you want to install something makes it not as user friendly. But I understand that allowing certain programs to install would only decrease the security. This program is definitely not for the average computer user though.

 

Its been too long since I'd asked this question, however, MarkedManner raises one of my favoriate subjects that I'd love for this thread to discuss.

What changes ought to be made to AppGuard to make it more friendly to the average and/or novice computer user?

Cheers,

Eirik

 

maybe a trusted Vendor list that blueridge could update from time to time. not saying like all the time but every few months would help. so when AppGuard see a exe run it could verify that is ok as its compaired to the list/signed file.

who knows could be good or not. just a thought.

 

I agree. I seem to remember suggesting something similar during beta testing as a way of automatically adding exceptions for MemoryGuard to make MemoryGuard easier to work with. It would also be a good idea if the trusted vendor list supplied by Blue Ridge Networks could be customised by the user to add their own trusted vendors taken from signed executables to the list. This would make it more flexible, eliminating the need for frequent updates to be sent out.

 

A few things: -

The protection level slider is a great idea but the implementation is too complex and lacks flexibility. I would suggest reducing it to three settings: On, Install, and Off; with On representing the current Medium protection level. This would fit very nicely with the 3-state traffic light colouring scheme displayed in the tray icon.

The High protection level is too restrictive to be convenient for normal use (at least it is for me). I have a number of folders that I want to prevent my browser from having access to, which have been added to the list of Private Folders. These contain files that are accessed by other guarded applications though. This means either constantly switching between Medium and High protection levels to access the files (too much hassle), or removing some guarded applications from the list (not a good idea).

The High protection level is also unnecessary. Nearly all of the High protection level can be achieved by configuration from the Medium protection level. An exception is the lack of an option to globally allow/deny guarded launches from User-Space. It would be more straightforward if this were handled via the addition of a settings checkbox. At present, I either have to live with the restrictions imposed by the High protection level, or run in Medium protection level and accept that I have lost the ability to globally deny the guarded launch of applications from User-Space, which used to be the default in the previous release.

The Low protection level is unnecessary as MemoryGuard can be turned off as required. All that is needed is the addition of a settings checkbox to give the option to globally allow/deny the running of scripts from User-Space.

Having multiple protection levels may be confusing for the average user. I suspect that most people will just temporarily turn off AppGuard protection when they find it preventing something they want to do rather than fiddle around with different pre-defined protection levels. The exception is the Install mode because everyone, whatever their level of experience, can easily understand this is something they should use when they want to install something, without having to understand how AppGuard works.

On a different subject, there still isn't sufficient user control over what constitutes System-Space and User-Space. As the drive-by download protection relies on denying guarded applications write access to System-Space and denying unguarded application launches from User-Space, this means that every file and folder must conceptually reside in one space or the other, with these restrictions imposed unless the user chooses to make specific exceptions for operational reasons.

The handling of write exceptions for System-Space is unchanged from the previous release, and this feature is well implemented by the Exception Folders list under the Guarded Apps settings tab.

The good thing about User-Space is that it is now explicitly defined within the GUI. The bad thing is that there is still no way of removing additional system partitions from extended User-Space, thereby moving them to System-Space in order to add write protection for guarded applications. The use of the Include setting to allow guarded launches is confusing because setting Include to No suggests that the folder is excluded from User-Space in which case it ought logically to be treated as System-Space, which is not the case. Perhaps Include should be renamed to something more indicative of its real purpose which is to allow guarded launches.

Apologies for the length of the post but I hope that it will be taken in the spirit of constructive criticism intended in order to help improve the product.

 

I recently got a gift from my friend the lifetime license of appguard. I have a question. I am using Outpost firewall pro now (set to training mode). Will appguard conflict with it? Also I have MBRGuard installed. Do I have to uninstall it?

 

MBRGuard is now added into AppGuard. as for you other question sorry i cant help on that.

 

This will help show what all in AppGuard

http://www.blueridgenetworks.com/products/appguard.php

 

There are users of both AppGuard and OutPost. These tools have bumped into one another in use. I am uncertain if the Outpost HIPS features remained enabled. I believe they had to include Outpost as a trusted process in the AppGuard feature called MemoryGuard. Chances for conflict higher in XP than Win7.

Cheers

Eirik

 

Eirik prefers questions in this thread he said.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=294876