System Safety Monitor 2.2.0.593 out of beta

Okay, maybe now I'm figuring these options out Anything that is grey: checkmark, circle/strikethrough, question mark...is a default option. Now, depending on the group the application falls under: System, Normal, Blocked, Unregistered or custom made (in my case I have a group called "Secured" with my own custom rules, special permissions and advanced properties) these "default" options can be custom set to whatever is available for the applications under the particular group. The applications that fall under the "System" group have the most limitations placed on them, especially the well known "Three Musketeers". The Child/Parent selections available under "Advanced Properties" for the system apps have only "Allow" or "block" for the "Child" selection but "Ask" "Allow" or "Block" for the "Parent" selection. There is, however, no access to Child/Parent settings on the "Three Musketeers".

Under the "Normal" apps, the options are more liberal, for it is possible to choose "Ask" "Allow" or "Block" for both the "Child" and "Parent" selections under "Advanced Properties". These are just some examples, because there is alot more involved, but in a nutshell it seems that a grey "Ask" "Allow" or "Block" is "default", and changing it to whatever is available changes the color: red circle/strikethrough, green Allow or blue Ask (?). This seems to apply to all Rules, Special Permissions and Advanced Properties.

 

The 3 "system"(~system) mentioned, do need to be able to start without user input. As for the other "system" (~Applications) these can be set to "Ask", "Allow" or "Block" for both parent and child.

I know there have been some problems with these settings, I also found on one clean installation that some parent/child settings could only be set as allow/block,... attempting to import old setting made things worse,.. and in the end, I had to install over an older version of SSM,(where I left the directory with my old config file), this then gave me back all the options.

 

Interesting! So the options for the "Child" settings have recently changed under the "System" group. I thought something looked different between two of the recent beta (I think it was) releases.

BTW Stem, was it ver 599 that you installed overtop one of your older versions in order to regain the "Ask (?)" option on the "System" "Child" settings?

 

Hello cprtech,
Normally I have alway kept my config file when uninstalling SSM, then used this config file when installing the latest build. Last weekend, I re-installed windows (from CD) all windows updates etc, I do this every so often to give a new clean base for my images,.. anyway, I made a clean install of version 598 and noticed the parent/child settings had changed, this was on all applications on all groups. I attempted to import settings I had saved, but this did not work, no rules where imported at all,... so I removed SSM,. installed an older version (592) made my basic settings (all ask), un-installed, (left the config file) and then re-installed 598 (and used the old config file when prompted),.. and all o.k.

When the latest build was released (599) I uninstall 598, and left the config file to re-use, on installing 599, and using my old config file the settings (parent/child) can be changed correctly. (so somewhere during the beta builds, there is a problem with the default rules config file, and a problem with importing configs)

 

Hi Stem,

one thing I like is that it is possible to re-locate any of the "System" group Application object types to another group, such as "Normal", lending more flexibility to Child/Parent settings. Only the System object types (our Three Musketeers ) are restricted to the "System" group. I can certainly live with this.

One other "little" discovery I made is that it is important to verify the path and name of the configuration file is the same on all user accounts. I had the "Global" config file on my Administrator account, while my user account had one of my "User defined" config files. So whater apps I re-located on one account were not re-locating on the other Luckily I figured this out reasonably quick, otherwise it was going to drive me nuts!

I guess it could be desirable to have different configurations on different accounts, especially for the purpose of restricting capabilities on user accounts. This is something I will have to play with a bit

 

Hi cprtech,

Yes, the "Groups" is a good addition and as a good number of possibilities. (I have created a number of groups with various allow/denies, to see how some programs react to very restictive policies)
As for "accounts", I have not looked into this, as these PC`s I use are out of the way of other users, and only have my own account

 

System Safety Monitor 2.2.0.600 was released.

What's new:
* added treeview to the NetStat module;
* added hidden processes logging;
* several languages updates;

What's changed:
* Process Monitor: instead of the single "Command Line" column there are two columns now - "Command Line Parameters" and "Command Line";
* stopped alerting on string type registry value modifications when only text case has changed;

Bugs fixed:
* SSM was doing a lot of IOs;
* short living processes sometimes were alerted as hidden;
* checkboxes on the Protection page for system rules didn't switch to default state;
* some performance optimizations;
* minor GUI bugs.

 

Another new build!! Two new builds in two days!!!

System Safety Monitor 2.2.0.601 was released.

What's new:
* several languages updates.

Bugs fixed:
* error message "Bitmap image is not valid" when preferences window opened;
* some performance optimizations;
* invalid time value displayed in the "Creation Time" column;
* option "Alert on changed and temporary files in Learning Mode" didn't work properly.

 

This build seams to have problems when NOD32 is installed. Results up to 90% CPU usage.

 

Just noticed that on mine with Avast is running at 50 to 60%.
Have not checked it before. Will go back a version and see what happens.

 

Version 2.2.0.602 has been released. see here:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=894542&postcount=10

 

I see that in 602 the 3 options are back for those 3 Musketeers.

 

That's very good news Seams SSM reforces its development into a good direction.

 

Ok guys, for the three musketeers to be protected properly ,what needs to be checked?

 

One method for configuring "Special Permissions" below:

 

Thank you for the information.

 

Yes, it was a bug (now fixed)