AppGuard 3.x 32/64 Bit

It can be awesome or it can be the other way round depending on how BlueRidge implements it. Slightly OT but you can see this concept behind Comodo's current development and what they're offering to users. As usual, there are those who approve and then there are those against it....just saying..

 

So...DefenseWall?

 

Would remind me a bit of a rudimentary ViGuard I kind of miss that app, although it was pretty buggy. I would like to see it able to block the attack(s) shown in the video (and would rather see it blocked rather than sandboxed, although virtualizing blocked functions can keep the offending process working more smoothly and may prevent malware from engaging counter-measures).

I think that before something like that, though, AppGuard would really benefit from just coming up with a way for the user to visually conceptualize how AppGuard works, and re-organize/refine the GUI based on that. Right now some of the things like the guarding options seem backwards, and it's not clear how they all fit together into a cohesive whole. I like the app, but better organization and conceptualization would go a long way, and would help the user use it more effectively, which would itself increase security

 

DefenseWall is good but has no 64 bit version AppGuard has...

 

Barb, can we expect to see a new beta of AG soon for testing?

 

what happenning to AppGuard's development it is getting slow and slow
come on blueridge you can do it

 

I agree Peter.

 

we need to have the best posible protection as malware writers will not have
mercy on us they want to control our systems and hack our accounts so that's why i expect the best of the best for my systems

 

nothing againts appguard as i am a appguard happy user,actually i tell you appguard is better for me in my opinion it is just only a concern

 

Very happy with the product, very unhappy with point #5 of AppGuard's TOS:

5. DATA COLLECTION: LICENSEE agrees that BLUE RIDGE may collect and use technical data, other data and related information, including but not limited to technical information about LICENSEE’s device, system, servers, application software, and peripherals that is gathered periodically. BLUE RIDGE may use this information for all purposes of performance hereunder, and for other purposes as long as it is in a form that does not personally identify LICENSEE.

Very unhappy that Blueridge Networks' legal department has refused to change the wording to reflect their alleged actual data collection activities.

 

So if AppGuard had everything turned on, I bet it would pass these tests?

 

Yes

 

What's the point of having a security program set to "barely breathing" & then saying "Look, look, its a loser!"

 

I agree, same Thing is when antivirus products block most threats with their webfilter People complain that the program doesn't detect the malicious file with signatures when you proceed to the site anyway and download the file. That doesn't make any sense to me. Personally I prefer antivirus products that have very good webfilters rather than good signatures because I want my security program to prevent me getting in contact with any malicious file in the first place. I don't want to download it first to have the antivirus detect it as malicious.

 

I'm new to this so I have some questions:
-Are there any differences between the 32 bit and 64 bit versions?
-How do the corporate and personal edition compare? There is only a feature list of the corporate version on the website?
-Is the MBRGuard driver unsigned? During trial install, windows give a pop-up about the driver.
-With the default high level user-space is of course blocked, and if I try to execute an unsigned file, AppGuard will give a notification in the tray icon, but when I execute a signed file and is thus automatically executed as guarded, there is no notification. Is it possible to set it to notify on guarded execution as well, or only on guarded execution of new files?

I've found an interesting topic here:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1961897
-What applications should be Guarded(except of course browsers, pdf-viewers, media players etc?) It is suggested here that some windows internals should be guarded too, for better protection?
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1963156&postcount=35

 

Hi Pete,

Yes, this is correct. I previously posted on this and suggested changing Privacy Mode to make it independent of the Protection Level. Barb C said it is something BRN will consider for the next release.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2129662&postcount=1759

Regards
pegr

 

You're welcome.

 

I want to have the ability to choose an entire folder in C:\ Program Files to define an application as a power app instead of having to choose each individual executable. It can be impossible for the user sometimes to know which executable needs elevated rights for the application to function correctly. In some cases only the developer will know which executables will need to be defined as Power Apps in order for their application to function correctly. I have defined 5 executables for Online Armor as Power apps from C:\ Program Files (x86) to be safe. Also an application could be working perfectly fine with AG, and then have a conflict with AG after being updated with component changes. This would be very unlikely to happen if the entire folder was excluded. Adding this functionality to Appguard should cut down on support tickets, and keep them from loosing users that get frustrated with application conflicts. I know one should not add an application as a Power App unless absolutely necessary, but some applications will have conflicts unless steps are taken to avoid these conflicts. Months ago they told me they may do this in the next release.

Below is a screen shot of my online Armor Folder. See what I mean? Can you imagine someone that is not so tech savy trying to decide which executables need to be Power Apps if they experience an application conflict. They would be more likely just to uninstall AG.