Windows 7 SRP vs Applocker in Win 7 Ultimate

I notice here on Wilders there are some people (who have the appropriate versions of Windows 7) that use the built in SRP as opposed to Applocker. What are the benefits of SRP over Applocker? SRP looks interesting enough but has a warning which indicates a person may lock themself out of their computer.

If this built in SRP is utilized what computer functions are not allowed to run? I mean this in regard to computer maintenance like defragging, etc

 

There are no benefits of SRP over AppLocker.

These are basically the very same feature, except that AppLocker is implemented at the kernel level, and the it has a better granularity.

You can lock your computer with both of them if you set up improper rules. Using the by default rules will avoid such an unpleasant experience.

NB: If you implement the rules as shown on your pictures, you will end up with problems (applying to all users is dangerous for example)

 

If you have a version of Windows capable of utilizing AppLocker you should definitely use it instead of SRP. I can only assume those who still use SRP use it because they're stubborn and don't like change (which is common with Windows users).

 

AFAIK, AppLocker is the next gen of SRP.

 

Sorry if this is slightly off topic, but I've been wondering about this for a while: I'm using Windows 7 Professional, x64. I know that I do not have access to Applocker. Is SRP still available in this version of Win 7, or is it pretty much both or nothing for each version?

 

Windows 7 Professional comes with SRP

 

How does Applocker differ from SRP?


Create Applocker Default Rules

 

AFAIK, SRP offer flexibility to install software via admin rights (http://www.mechbgon.com/srp/). You do not need to do anything else, while Applocker is much stricter and with each update, you need to create/update rules.

 

That's incorrect. AppLocker provides publisher rules which are rules based on a digital signature from the software author. This was put in place specifically because of the annoyance of SRP requiring new rules to be put in place whenever a piece of software was updated. Of course, in order to use publisher rules, the software author/vendor has to use digital signatures in the first place.

 

Lets not be so strong with words like stubborn...
I remember my days when I used SRP over AppLocker due to compatibility issues with AppLocker (which has already been fixed now)

Actually, no.
If put on default setting both of them have almost identical level of strictness regarding to updates.
For example, if all of your programs are installed on default folders (Windows and Program files) according to default rules (both by SRP and Applocker) all users will be able to execute them regardless of updates.

Now, if you have program installed on different location, lets say D:\Random_software.
Then, you will have to create custom rule to allow this software to be executed by limited users (default rules of both SRP and Applocker allow admin to execute anything, if I am not mistaken)
So with SRP you will allow whole folder or hashes to be executed. If you allow folder, as you mentioned it will be easier to update your software. But the flaw is that you are allowing execution on folder where limited user has write access.
With Applocker you will create either publisher, hash or simple folder rule. So in terms of being easier to update programs applocker has the same (folder and hash) or for some cases even better custom rules (publisher).

 

heh tell me bout it....came across some questions about some dell laptops from users who enquire if they could remove the preloaded genuine win 7 for xp..

 

You can remove write access for LUA for that folder....