DefenseWall causing OA++ popups to load up slowly

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by nineine, Feb 6, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. nineine

    nineine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Posts:
    140
    Hey everyone,

    I have been testing out OA++ with DefenseWall and the OA++ popups are loading up slower now than they were prior to installing DW. When a popup comes up, you first see the colors of it come up, then about a second later the text appears. Anybody know what causes this and what I need to configure to stop it from happening? Thanks!
     
  2. Keyboard_Commando

    Keyboard_Commando Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Posts:
    690
    Yes.

    The answer to

    You only need one of those you currently have. I am surprised anyone can manage to run them together. OA++ for instance requires 118k + in ram alone for its AV database loaded in memory - that's what it shows on my PC.
     
  3. Ed_H

    Ed_H Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    662
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I have used OA++ along with DefenseWall without causing any issues with OA's pop-ups. Have you added DW to OA++ exclusions? That might be enough to fix the problem.
     
  4. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    i was about to say that:D
     
  5. Threedog

    Threedog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    1,125
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    I never had any problems running OA++ and Defensewall togeather. Using XP Pro tho.
     
  6. nineine

    nineine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Posts:
    140
    I'm currently running OA++, DefenseWall, and Sandboxie, and I'm still in the process of configuring them all. The only time OA++ uses up that much RAM is when I am doing a Full System AV Scan. If I am just using Firefox, OA++ doesn't use more than 10MB of memory, and SB is about the same, while DW is at 60MB. I don't think that is a great deal of memory usage, considering this machine has 3GB of ram in it.

    Yes I have. Before I even had SB installed, I had allowed and trusted all of DW's processes in OA++. Still OA++'s popups loaded slowly.

    EDIT: Oh wait exclusions? Nope I haven't. Right now I have dwall.sys, dwall_ext.dll, defensewall.exe, & defensewall_serv.exe all set to trusted and allowed. However some of these files are located in the System32 folder and some are in the System32 Drivers folder. Exclusions only allows you to add folders, not executables or files. Which folders would I have to add to exclusions? I would think it is a bad idea to add these whole folders to exclusions.

    Also on another note, does anybody know how to stop DW from putting Firefox on the Untrusted Application List? When I remove FF and then run it, DW adds it back onto the list.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
  7. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    with defensewall just leave it at default settings,it is very strong like this;)
     
  8. nineine

    nineine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Posts:
    140
    Yes it definitely is , but I have now added Sandboxie into the mix. I have read that making Firefox and other Internet Facing Apps Untrusted in DW and Sandboxed in SB will slow them down. There is however another approach to using these two programs together that will not make them overlap/conflict and cause slowdowns. In order to do this approach I would need to remove Firefox from the Untrusted Application List. Unfortunately that isn't working for me for some reason.
     
  9. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    i understand but 1 think i can tell you you actually dont need sandboxie when you run defensewall;) maybe with online armor with defensewall is more than enough,i tested both together SB+DW and to tell you i ended up using only defensewall in all my pcs
     
  10. Threedog

    Threedog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    1,125
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    I tested them both. Either works great with OA.
     
  11. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    i see:)
     
  12. nineine

    nineine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Posts:
    140
    Just in case people are missing these questions in my posts, here are the two things that I am trying to figure out:

    If anybody can help me out here, that would really be appreciated.
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2010
  13. Ed_H

    Ed_H Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    662
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I added C:\Program Files\DefenseWall to OA++ Exclusions and have not had any issues.

    Firefox should be in DW's untrusted list as well as any other internet facing app. Why do you want to remove it?
    Edit: Sorry I now understand why you want FF untrusted. Maybe best to Ask Ilya at the DW forums how to make this happen. He is very responsive, to say the least.
     
  14. Ed_H

    Ed_H Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    662
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    My experience as well.

    I run OA++ and DW v3 most of the time. If I am venturing into the dark side on the internet I also use SBIE or ShadowDefender. No problems with any combination.
     
  15. nineine

    nineine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Posts:
    140
    I wouldn't say that the popups load up super slowly... they're just slower than they were before I installed DW. They used to just pop right up. Now I see the background color load up for like a second, and then the text shows up after that. It's just noticeable, not super annoying. Are you sure your setup doesn't do this? I will try adding that folder to my exclusions.

    Also read this post. This is essentially how I am trying to setup my DW with SB. Having Firefox Sandboxed while at the same time Untrusted, makes it load up slower and run slower. This is because the protection is "overlapping". The same thing goes for any other App protected this way.

    On another note, my intentions after I have OA++, SB, & DW all working perfectly, have been to add ShadowDefender into my security setup. This IMO would be the ultimate security configuration.
     
  16. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    yes i know but running all 3 sandboxie/defensewall and OA will be to much i think
     
  17. Ed_H

    Ed_H Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    662
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Yep...definitely overkill. I am working on a new setup.
     
  18. Threedog

    Threedog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    1,125
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Overkill also in my opinion, although I have loaded up that heavy for experiments. Really, OA++ is enough protection for most people. Especially if you have the "Run Safer" option in play. I have found as you are that the more you throw into the mix the more slow down's you have.
     
  19. nineine

    nineine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Posts:
    140
    Yes but I was getting the popup slow downs with only OA++ and DW installed. SB was not installed. I am only experimenting right now with this setup. It is not a 100% keeper, just yet.

    Also Ed_H, I added that one folder to exclusions and it did not help.
     
  20. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    at this moment i want to test OnLine Armor;) ,so you will see my signiture change alitle:argh:
     
  21. Threedog

    Threedog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    1,125
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Now you got me thinking. I might have to load up my OA image and do some testing.
     
  22. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    i am installing now it is at 71%:)
     
  23. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    i wonder if some one try it with rootkitso_O
     
  24. Threedog

    Threedog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Posts:
    1,125
    Location:
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    I have. If the AV part of OA++ don't catch it the HIPS part of it will. Then it is up to the user to be on the ball enough to say "no to the nasty."
     
  25. nineine

    nineine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Posts:
    140
    Awesome everybody!! :thumb: If you guys could try running OA++ without DW, and then after with DW, to see if you get this problem, that could be really helpful to me. Pretty Pleeeease111!! :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.