GW and SBIE

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by HURST, Jul 2, 2008.

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

    HURST Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,419
    I have seen a lot of members here lately that combine Defensewall and Sandboxie.
    I don't remember having seen anybody using GesWall and Sandboxie. Is this possible? Has anybody tried this?
     
  2. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Please use either, it just makes no sense combining policy sandbox with an application based virtual sandbox, combining shadowserver/powershadow/returnil with a policy based sandboxhas at least has one (1) purpose (clear all colledted data and changes).

    Combining a policy bases and applicaton based virtualisation application is starting to drive backwards, sure you can cope with the counter steering, sure it drives slower (less gears backwards than forwards), sure you have only one screen wiper at the back (because you drive more slowly, you even do not find it a big drawback that its capacity is way less than the front sreen wipers, which are more or less useless anyway now you started to drive backwards, maybe some car maker could do some value engineering and bring out a entry model with no front screen wipers, only one gear for driving forward, may be the money saved could be used for a second reverse gear, wow that would be magnificent)


    AAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH:cautious: :blink: o_O :gack:

    Please . . . please . . .
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2008
  3. HURST

    HURST Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Posts:
    1,419
    Yeah. I should probably clarify that I don't intend to use both. I'm happy with SBIE.

    I was just wondering, since I've seen people using SBIE+DW, but I haven't seen anybody using SBIE+GW.
     
  4. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Good on you :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:


    Obviously GW being somewhat more difficult to use, it also seems to have a positive impact on its users (using common sense) :eek: :eek: :eek:
     
  5. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    I don,t agree to combine two of them, whether it is GW plus SBIE or DW plus SBIE.

    I will prefer to add something diifferent like a Behav Blocker etc.
     
  6. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Yes Yes another member who thinks it is nonsense to combine a policy sandbox and a application based virtualisation sandbox, Aigle THX

    More ... any one . . .:cool:
     
  7. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,057
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I would think, Geswall and Threatfire would be better.
     
  8. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
  9. ErikAlbert

    ErikAlbert Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2005
    Posts:
    9,455
    That's because some members like to play with these combinations and like to solve the possible issues. It's the challenge to make it possible, what looked impossible. After that back to normal. What else is there to do at Wilders ? You have to post about something, otherwise your post counter doesn't increase. :)
     
  10. CogitoErgoSum

    CogitoErgoSum Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Posts:
    641
    Location:
    Cerritos, California
    Hello HURST,

    I am in full agreement with both Kees1958 and aigle that there is nothing to be gained as far as security is concerned in regards to combining a policy restriction sandbox with a virtualization sandbox. I am also inclined and partial to pairing DW or GW with an intelligent behavior blocker.


    Peace & Gratitude,

    CogitoErgoSum
     
  11. Hugger

    Hugger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Posts:
    1,003
    Location:
    Hackensack, USA
    Possibly you spoke too soon.
    Hugger
     
  12. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Luckily I triggered some reactions, CognitoErgoSum is a die hard DW user, he balances sanity into the right direction. For which I thank him :thumb:

    In Holland the saying goes "when you trigger others (tease), you also have to be able to receive (a witty response)"

    So yes problably too soon, but much too late when looking at all those policy/application virtialisation/partition-disk virtualisation defense layers so pain stakenly build by other members", after all Trjam says that one layer is enough aslong as it is a policy HIPS (sandbox) layer.

    What is your oponion on this?
    a) Policy HIPS are the strongest HIPS around (for the average John/Jane PC)
    b) When using a router it is all you need, for ease of use you van
    B1) throw in a behavior blocker (ThreatfIre)
    B2) throw in an AV
    B3) throw in a HKCU/files protector like drive sentry
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2008
  13. Hugger

    Hugger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2007
    Posts:
    1,003
    Location:
    Hackensack, USA
    Kees1958
    Getting people to look at what they are doing from a different perspective is one of the best things you can do for them.
    I'm not knowledgeable enough to comment on your questions.
    But what works for me are the programs that I can use without causing too many problems for myself.
    I'm putting together a new pc in a few weeks, finally, and still don't know if I'd be better off with Geswall or Defensewall.

    Hugger
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.