Is SafeOnline an improvement?

Is everyone happy with SafeOnline? Has it changed Prevx for better or worse? My general feeling is that a once easy-to-use program has become more complex and troublesome... but I haven't had much luck with the RCs, so that's why I am asking for opinions.

 

Well, it is not final yet so there are lingering bugs that still needs to be fixed. With my experience so far, I'd have to say that nothing much has changed. When it is working well, it doesn't bug you at all; the protection is transparent to the user.

 

every RC release has caused me the same issue, so i cant really comment since im unable to use it.

 

Yes - when kept turned "off" but only switched "on" before going to https sites.

 

Well you fine folks are having problems I'm not, so it's hard to say with some setups are fine and some are not but mine works very well!

TH

 

I'm happy with SafeOnline. Think it is an improvement, an extra security against undetected malware. Especially those banking trojans and other information stealing malware.
The bugs i've noticed on my systems are solved. That leaves me nothing to complain about

 

I personally LOVE the idea behind SafeOnline but have a feeling that Prevx guys bit more then they can swallow: there's just so much stuff to test with to make sure the product is compatible with -- various browsers, add-ons, plugins, SSL VPNs, Web-based applications, security applications, etc., that making it work with most of them is gargantuan task, to say the least.
I've been waiting for a product like this for over two years, but right now, in a beta form, I find myself turning off SafeOnline more then I keep it running, as it's interfering with my daily work.
I honestly hope Prevx guys can get this to work. It's a noble, but very hard work, and somehow I have a feeling that other vendors are looking at success/failure outcome of this process as a deciding factor for their own developments of similar projects.
My $0.02.

 

I think SaveOnline is a good improvment. But i really hope that they are not moving to a suite like product!
I am running PrevX stand alone cause it is light and fast. If it turns into a suite i will kick it off.
I think SaveOnline, Offline Signatures and USB-Lockdown are enough features for a Version 4. If they would like to make their product better after adding these features they should concentrate on detecting malware, rootkits and the removal. That is much more important then new (unnecessary) features.
I understand that the pressure given by the market is high but i think PrevX should keep their philosophy of a fast, lightweight and working! solution.

 

Hrm.... have you been stealing our internal documents We have big plans for v4 and they don't include any degree of bloat or unnecessary features. We initially planned SafeOnline to be the big new feature in v4 but changed our roadmap because of a significant demand for the improvements SafeOnline provides.

Yes, this is exactly what we're aiming for - it should not affect the usability at all and users should not notice it until they need to. I think we've fixed almost all of the outstanding issues currently, Page42 - if you're still running into problems with 3.0.4.210 could you let me know some details so we can try and reproduce them?

At Prevx we have a few requirements for any new module under consideration for addition:
- Must be easy to use
- Must be small, fast, and light
- Must provide tangible benefits in protection without hurting the user experience
- Must be compatible with other security solutions as best as possible (there may always be outliers but we try and cover literally everything)
- Must be a better mousetrap: there is no value in duplicating what another product already brings to the table so we generally take a completely different approach to solving problems

As dlimanov has pointed out, it is difficult to produce browser protection software, partially because of how complex browsers are but moreover because there are a lot of other browser protection programs which all try and do similar things at the same time. Windows, being a full operating system, has structures in place which allow software developers to work in a documented platform. Browsers, however, are a different beast entirely, creating wide room for issues, especially when protection elements are all trying to load at the same time.

I think there are still some bugs/incompatibilities to iron out with SafeOnline but from what we've seen and heard, it is doing quite well so far. We are eventually going to release it but we won't release something the community does not like and find beneficial.

 

One of the earlier RC's had check boxes so I could "tune" the SO behavior, but now thats gone and replaced with sliders. I use GW Pro for browser isolation and it has worked very well for me, but I also use P3 so many of the new features won't in the current configuration won't work for me. I thought the check boxes were a better idea so I could use SafeOnline to compliment my other security app by being able to turn off features that were unneeded. For example, any one that uses Defensewall or Geswall or SanboxIE would not need to isolate their browsers because they already are by these other apps.

 

I've been seeing P3 all over Wilders recently. What exactly does it mean?

Also, I agree with 1000db's opinion about the sliders/checkboxes. IMHO, you could still keep the slider but also put a checkbox besides the options. When a user modifies the checkboxes, the slider moves into "Custom." Just a thought.

Thanks!

 

P3 is Prevx 3.0 (or Pentium III but we don't want to go back to those days )

We've moved away from the individual checkboxes because of logic issues: the options are now stored logically so that lowering one level of security incrementally lowers only necessary options. (For example, lowering it one level turns off screen contents protection and browser window protection, and it would be illogical to have browser window protection without screen contents protection built in).

 

I am just a good listener.

Good to hear that you are not planing to built up a suite.

 

I've reverted to v3.0.1.65 after having tried the 1st RC. The blue screens were enough to put me off... I know, what a lightweight. I've watched these threads for news of progress, and honestly, I see good and bad. I suppose the bad is just a few users with less popular browsers or other incompatible security software. I prefer to wait until Prevx is done with testing before installing a new version.

If SafeOnline isn't going to be able to protect me differently than GeSWall, then I obviously want the ability to turn it off. If it is going to offer different and/or better protection, then I'd like to be able to run it alongside GeSWall.

 

I'm not familiar with GeSWall enough to make a definitive assertion on it but I believe that SafeOnline is the complete opposite of what GeSWall provides. Our goal is to be compatible with as many security programs as possible and I'm unaware of any incompatibility with Prevx + GeSWall in build 3.0.4.213.

 

Although I have read the whitepaper documented elsewhere, I'd like to ask for clarity's sake if the SafeOnline feature is in effect a HTTP scanner. In other words, is Prevx now incorporating web scanning techniques?

 

With 3.0.4.216 safeonline is still unable to provide protection if the browser is isolated by GW. The only way I've found to make it work is to add prevx as a system resource in GW. My guess is that this will be a design incompatibility similar to defensewall.

 

I am starting to think that a good rule of thumb with Browser Virtualization apps would be the same as with AV's. Only run 1 at a time. It seems if you get running more than one virtualization app at once there are conflicts, and this is not directed solely at Prevx.

 

I agree

TH

 

But then there is this from Joe...