anyone heard of Online Armour?

Hi Mike

In relation to that program list, I have two suggestions...

- why not just sort blocked programs to the bottom of the list. That way they are easy to ignore if you don't want to see them.

- And secondly, sort each category (blocked/trusted) into alphabetical order (for when the lists do get really long), so it's easy to find programs on the list.

...maybe put it on the wish list anyway, for when you find the time

 

Hi Vikorr - Maybe a better approach "Show Blocked", "Show Allowed" "show all" with alpha-order sorting..

Do you think there should also be a way to permanently trust programs (thereby removing them from the list altogether)... or, if we mark a program as trusted centrally, then it should be removed from the local list (if trusted by the user, of course)


Mike

 

Mike,

Thanks for the reply. I think I was just thrown by an Active-X warning using Firefox. Doesn't take much get me thrown.

Edit: Nevermind what was previously here, I lost the plot but now I get it.

Thanks again.

 

Thanks again, Mike, for the clarification.

Regarding OA: I don't want you or anyone else to think that it's doing all this "crazy stuff" on my computer! For the most part, it's quite the contrary. It seems to be working fine.....except for the areas that I am pointing out. On the one hand, I'd like to think that I'm a good "beta tester", because I'm honest and provide as much detail as possible. On the other, I haven't "praised" what has worked well (you know, the old "squeaky wheel gets the grease" theory). I figured it's best to address the areas where there are problems....but TRUST ME, as soon as I download Online Armor, run every form of software on my PC while OA is comfortably running in the background, and there is NOTHING bad to report....I'll come in here with GLOWING reviews! It seems like a very good product that is on the right track, so I don't want anyone reading my experiences as "criticism". It's simply meant to be helpful and constructive. (besides, this is the FIRST product I have EVER "beta tested"!)

As for your comments concerning this, Mike:

"On deleting - its not there now, but we debated that feature to death If you block, it will prevent the process running - and remember it. If you delete, it will remove files created by that process - but it remains on the block list to stop it running again.

I suppose there really needs to be a remove from list, but then what happens to the blocked program? This was the discussion we had - and we'll no doubt have again, once we get more user feedback."

I'll admit that I may be reading this wrong, and I didn't have any occasion to "block or remove" any items or check into that function/aspect myself....so I really can't comment from any experience here. But I can definitely see where this would be a sticky issue.

First off, it doesn't "permanently" remove or block items, does it? After all, what if the user doesn't want it NOW....but changes their mind and decides to ADD it again later? I have removed and then re-installed software programs at various times....and I'd hate to think that something would be permanently blocked or removed and unable to re-visit and add at a later date. I'm guessing that this is placed in a section for the user to check or uncheck....so that the process could be reversed at a later date....but anyone that knows for sure, please feel free to straighten me out here (LOL). I'm assuming that the user can choose to reverse any option if they so choose. Also, does this process have the user answer a safety type question, like "ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO BLOCK....blah, blah, blah"....so that they have to read the option a time or two before making a decision to remove or block a program?

Of course, like I said....I may be and probably am reading this wrong, and this process would not do anything that the user could not reverse later.....and if that's the case, then please accept my apologies for being ignorant in advance.

 

Hi Mike

Certainly if it's trusted by the central list I don't think it needs to show up in the Programs tab. However, if someone had a program marked as trusted and it suddenly dissappeared this would cause some confusion I should think.

I was thinking that maybe this function (the hiding of centrally trusted programs) could be done during the OA update procedure with a little popup saying something like "The following programs have been verified as trusted by OA central, and will now be hidden from view")

I like that approach, but there are a few possible problems I can see with it :
1. A person may be unsure of a programs trustworthiness/untrustworthiness and may later wish to change the programs status
2. What if a person marks a program trustworthy/untrustworthy, and your central database shows it to be the opposite ?
3. People may not want you 'prying' into what programs they run (I personally don't care, but I know some people who do - privacy etc)

Personally, I would still sort programs/websites etc this way, but put in a tickbox for people to say whether or not they want programs verified by OA Central (or whatever you would call it). That way people with privacy concerns get a choice. It would also go someway to helping with item 1.

Still, I'm not sure exactly how you would handle item 1 & 2.

 

Exactly. This is the problem - for a program that I install on my PC now, lets call it "Funstuff" - I'm going to allow it, and it will want to allow it for ever. Even if I uninstall and reinstall it, next time OA will deviously recall my preference and never receive a popup again. Of course, if I chance my mind I can always block it, and if I change my mind again - I can unblock it again. Even if you change your mind as often as the weather, you're accommodated.

Now, here's the rub. Lets say that I open a zip file marked "Danger" and execute the rather unimaginativley named "NastyProg", and allow it with OA of course - Then, horror!!! NastyProg proceeds to delete my pictures of prize garden gnomes.

Obviously, once I see the "Gnomes\Fishing" directory emptied, I'm going to block it in OA - terminating the process and preventing it from ever running again. Yay!

IF I then look at OA, I'll see the files created by NastyProg - so I hit delete and get rid of them.

Now, will I ever want to allow NastyProg to run again? Unlikely.. although, if I do, I can allow it easily in OA. And that is the problem - some things you never ever, ever want to allow again. These could be removed from the list, but remembered... giving a nice clean display... but in some cases, I'm going to block something - by accident, and want it back.

So, what action should OA take if I remove something from the list? Treat it as new? If I block lots of nasty programs, I really would feel more comfortable knowing that nastyprog.exe is blocked, and I can see "Hey, it's blocked" whenever I want.

This is the sort of things we think about (minus the gnomes, of course) when we're looking at this stuff. For the first version, we figured its best to leave it where people can see/change everything as they want, which is currently the case.

Although, as I mentioned above - we will definitely be responding based on user feedback.


Mike

PS. Sorry for the gnomes stuff. I'm just having a really fun day today

 

Thats not bad. Just a couple of comments (no gnomes, this time I promise) -

The list of stuff a user trusts is only stored locally. When Auto update comes down, so does the central list - so this could be compared - on the user machine with no privacy issues.

In fact - we do this already - if you have marked a program as "Trusted" and then we roll out an update that says "Dangerous" then we give you a little dialog, and reset the status to "Ask" so you can make a call on it.

Maybe we can adapt this as you say... remembering that OA's target is mums and dad.


Mike

 

In that case it's fairly easy to handle :

4 tabs within the program field

1. All programs
2. Programs trusted/untrusted by OA Central
3. Personally trusted/untrusted programs
4. Discrepancies (or whatever you would call it)

Item 4 could have a little note on the top of the tab, something to the effect "The following programs are listed as trusted by you. However they are known untrusted sites by OA Central" ...and perhaps a "For further information click <hyperlink>"

The other tabs would speak for themselves I'm sure

PS edited again

 

I like this!!!

 

That's a very good idea, Vikorr....just so long as.....

Exactly. Just so there is a panel to access and a way to "unhide" and view the files and/or make any changes at a later date (if the user so chooses).

Another good point. Perhaps this could be addressed by a pop-up window notifying the user of OA's database (what it has for the program), with a built-in "Google search" type function, if the user wants to research and address it some more

 

NICE! Another good suggestion, Vikorr....geez, I'm gonna quit trying to keep up with you guys (LOL)....

EDIT: Regarding the suggested tabbed/button type feature option:

1. All programs
2. Programs trusted/untrusted by OA Central (how about "OA trusted/untrusted" programs?)
3. Personally trusted/untrusted programs (how about "User trusted/untrusted" programs?)
4. Discrepancies (or whatever you would call it)

Also, would "programs", "applications", or "processes" be the better term?

The only thing that I'll add which might be a worthwhile consideration would be to have two "seperate" entries under tabs 2 and 3. Perhaps have one list of entries clearly identifying the "trusted" apps, with a seperate list of listed enties indicating the "untrusted" ones. Perhaps in two seperate "boxes", if you will. Anyway, just a thought...

 

Hi JR

I personally would represent each tab with an icon, and a simple explantion on the page. The wording of each tab doesn't have to be exactly what I said, it was just to give the general idea

 

Agreed, it is always good to see what is hidden and why, rather than to have to go and hunt for why something will not run…

Noooooooooo, I love the gnomes

Get out, I had a great laugh with a mate over that one, gotta love the Aussie sense of humour

My system is still ticking along very nicely with OA.

Cheers

 

Wicked! I'm happy we've solved the other problems. I have a new version which should solve problems that puff-m-d was having with the Bat, but I'm still testing it


Mike

 

Hey Mike,

Could you please post here in this thread or send me a PM once you think you've discovered what the problem with preventing the TrojanHunter scanner from opening is and have corrected it? I'll be more than happy and willing to try it out again....I'm curious to try it with ALL of my software applications for compatibility purposes.....

 

New Online Armor

Hi All,

A new special build of Online Armor has been uploaded, here:

http://www.tallemu.com.au/downloads/oasetupSpecial.zip

Why is this build special? First of all, it should certainly fix the issue that puff-m-d had with The Bat!

I'm also hoping that a couple of other intermittent issues experienced by some users will be fixed with it as well, for example, the problem that JRCATES had with Trojan hunter - although, I am uncertain as we have not yet reproduced that one.

It also contains a fix for users with massively large HOSTS file - which were causing nasty CPU spikeys.

If you want to install this one, then please ensure in the last step of the Safety check wizard, you deactivate auto updates - otherwise you'll auto update to the "current" version.

I've done this one as a special build so we can do separate tests without disrupting those people not having problems. Once a few people have given this the once over, I'll get this put up on Auto updates for everyone else to have a look at


Cheers


Mike

 

Re: New Online Armor

I pretty sure I could break it, if it can be broken, it will be so, on my system

 

Re: New Online Armor

I was also having a problem with high CPU usage when downloading, whether with firefox, download manager, or whatever, but the special build is a definite improvment. I still get a high spike but only for a short period of time, compared to the full 100% spike that would last for the duration of the download, and maybe a few seconds more.

 

Re: New Online Armor

...but now it looks like email is pegging the cpu...

 

Re: New Online Armor

@puff-m-d --- does the Bat work for you now? Seems we have broken Notok's mail client.

@notok - what mail client are you using?

EDIT: There's now a logging version of the special build available at

http://www.tallemu.com.au/downloads/oasetupSpecialLogging.zip

Mike

 

Re: New Online Armor

Pocomail

 

Re: New Online Armor

Thanks Do you want to play with the special logging build


Mike

 

Re: New Online Armor

But of course

BTW, you should cover Flash cookies!

 

I have come across another issue, I am having images that have been attached to posts by members displayed in other posts throughout a thread, even though other posts in the same thread do not have images in them. eg. Image attached to post 25, no image attached in post 26, 27, 28… though the same image from 25 is displayed in 26, 27, 28…

I have just checked on a 2nd machine that has the exact same setup, except OA, and that system is displaying images correctly.

I am also receiving quite a number of "Time outs".

Cheers

 

Hi all,

After doing an image copy, I installed OA. The installation was very smooth. So far no conflicts with the following programs running in real-time simultaneously:

ZoneAlarm Pro 5
KAV 5
Ewido
ProcessGuard licensed
RegDefend
BOClean
UnHackMe
WormGuard

Rich