GeSWall Guru Question Part I

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by IceCube1010, Aug 3, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    Hi Everyone

    I will post this on Gentlesecuritys site as well. When I'm using GeSWall with IE8, I receive plenty of warnings/redirects etc. due to registry, file stuff in GeSWall. (the popup notifications). However, when I use FF3.5 I get very few warnings/redirects etc...

    My question is simple, does this mean FF3.5 is more secure than IE8 hence GeSWall needs to do less or does this mean not all of FF3.5 is getting Sandboxed/policy restricted hence less security given by GeSWall for FF3.5

    thanks for any input on the question,
    Ice
     
  2. dell boy

    dell boy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2009
    Posts:
    240
    Location:
    uk, england
    i think ( i dont know) that its simply because they work differently, i have 4 different browsers on my system and they all have different amounts, i noticed that having avg link scanner does make some popups every time i google search, probably because thats when its working. i doubt its anything to worry about because browser protection isnt a problem when isolated..
     
  3. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    thanks!
     
  4. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    It does say something how easy they are to isolate. As a general rule: when interfaces/dependancies are more clear/less complex, the easier those aps are to secure. So indirectly it has influence.

    Chrome or FF portable are therefore 'better' to guard than IE or normal FF.

    When you use Iron/Chromium portable, you can easily tell GeSWall to isolate it (meaning REDIRECT few Google registry entries in Software hive, redirect file access to the directory you have installled it in, allow the directory you mentioned in Iron/Chromium download directory, redirect Temp dir access and deny all other ==> Effect: only downloaed files are kept after end of a browsing session with Iron/Chromium portable. Those files are untrusted, so paralised)

    Cheers Kees
     
  5. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    as long as it's giving me a protection i wil not bother to think about there points. I actually turn off policy notifications completely as they are obtrusive. I enable them only during testing.
     
  6. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    5,828
    Location:
    Last Breath Farm
    I have Policy Notifications disabled. Only Attack Notifications are enabled. If I turn PNs on, they are just a distraction. :)
     
  7. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    thanks for the replies. I'm probably looking into it too much.
    Ice
     
  8. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    When I know my policy rules withing GW monitor work as intended, I set security to high, disable notifications and set attack warning to auto kill/terminiate without notice.

    Happily using a high volume notification level webbrowser (IE) alongside a low pop-up notification browser (Iron portable)

    Regards Kees
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.