AppGuard 4.x 32/64 Bit - Releases

Did not know that!

Already got all other apps that I feel to be untrusted in Guarded Apps.

Thanks,
Robert

 

So we've done a little bit of investigating and come to the conclusion that when Chrome is doing a download it is attempting to access the d:\ folder prior to accessing the d:\downloads folder. AppGuard blocks the access to the d:\folder (as expected) and Chrome must receive a deny access indication from the OS. When Chrome receives that error condition, it aborts the download.

 

I use the parental controls but it is not essential for me. What would be more useful would be a shared settings file for all users and maybe a tick box to only allow administrator users to change the settings.

 

Barb, have tried this to no effect.

EDIT: This is my response to your suggestion in your former post, before reading your post 577. No need to further exchange on this, thanks.

 

I don't use it.

 

I also have Chrome's profile on D: using a symbolic link from C:\Users\NAME\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\Default. Am I to understand that, given the behavior you have evidenced above, it's not such a good idea?

 

Do I need any special settings for Chromium? It is installed at C:\Users\Admin\AppData\Local\Chromium\Application\chrome.exe

Chromium would not launch with AppGuard on Medium level so I added Chromium to Guarded apps with the settings of Privacy On, MemWrite On, MemRead Off.

Now Chromium launches.

Are these settings appropriate for the Medium protection level?

I have Windows 7, 32 bit.

thanks

 

You're definitely well protected with those settings at Medium level.

 

Chromium didn't launch from that location because it is located in user space and Chromium is not digitally signed. At medium protection level, only digitally signed programs are able to launch from user space, unless they are added to the guarded apps list. At locked down, only apps in the guarded apps list are allowed to launch from user space. You've added it and that's why it works now.

 

I use it on my kids laptops and they're definately savvy enough to know just dropping the slider will let them do what they like so I'd like to see some form of config lockdown in place. It does not have be be granular and therefore difficult to maintain, just prevent unauthorised changes via password or whatever on an on or off basis.

Cheers

 

Yes, just make parental controls simpler. I think the current form is too complicated. The ability to simply lock the program with a password would be sufficient.

 

I totally agree, make it more user friendly

 

Thanks and thanks shadek for the confirmation.

 

good ideas

 

Yep! I agree too.

On another note, I guess you have no plans to incorporate a way to backup/restore multiple configurations while still having the ability to restore all settings to default.

What's the most important thing in computer management, "Backup, backup and backup!"

Robert

 

They're looking into removing the password feature to save time and focus more on quicker releases and improvements in other areas. I don't think they should change the parental controls at all, that would put them back at square one. Few of us uses it (and it should reflect the user base as a whole decently) and it should be removed if the time is used to strengthen AppGuard's protection (such as MBR guard standalone).

 

I've installed Online Armor Premium for a 30 day trial, but am seeing some glitches. Are there settings for Online Armor that should be made in AppGuard?

 

Thanks Peter2150, but that didn't clear up the problems, so I just uninstalled OA. I'm feeling pretty good with AppGuard and Sandboxie.

 

I've just installed Privatefirewall, an old favorite. Things are running smoothly so far, none of the problems I had with OA. Given that, should I still exclude the AppGuard folder in PF? Should I change any settings in AG?

Is the HIPS in PF useful, should it be left turned on or is it redundant when used with AG?

 

I would use PF HIPS with AG if it was me, but thats just my opinion. Does AG show as trusted in PF? I have not used PF in a while so I don't remember all the options. PF is my next choice of FW other than OA. Excluding AG's folder will not hurt your security any so either way you should be good.

 

For some time have been running PF here on an old XP system -- seems to perform very well. Also had some problems with OA, even though OA is an excellent firewall. I'm also using AG. Not sure whether or not it's redundant, but I left the PF HIPS on (can't hurt anything).

 

We share the same point of view

 

I wouldn't run a HIPS alongside AppGuard, even more so if Sandboxie is part of the equation.

Any attempted changes to your system space are either blocked right away or virtualized. Harmful applications won't be able to launch from user space as well. AppGuard on its own already blocks more silently than a HIPS will do in chatty mode. Trusted activities will be allowed without bothering you and harmful activities will be blocked without bothering you as well. Add a HIPS to that and you will probably just end up answering pop-ups to verify benign activities.

 

Based on the feedback here, I tried this application today. I uninstalled it about 3 hours later after testing. Mostly because of the fact that I cannot have an application block so many things people do on machines I take care of.. Lots of prompts, and random blocks are a bad thing, putting things into install mode, then pulling them out isn't good for installations on total newb computers. Appguard seems to block 100% of every download installation unless placed in install mode, and I cannot rely on users of systems I maintain to be doing that - unfortunately. I assume on machines already setup, with no need to install much, it would be pretty handy.

But mostly what I discovered was F-Secure's DeepGuard is almost identical to this, and I install F-Secure on several dozen computers I maintain. DeepGuard is quite efficient, and isn't overly blocking, and when it does block it's usually a serious offense.

So really, is there any reason to run Appguard on machines with good HIPS already on them, or whitelisting apps? I cannot see why it would offer anything over those already.