Permit Once/Deny Once

Can I ask a general PG3 question? When would you ever select the option pictured below? Same story for "deny once". I can't think of a case when I would pick this.
http://solvent-LLC.com/files/permitOnce.png
It ties into my 2nd half of the question: what is the reason for putting apps that you "permit once" or "deny once" on the security tab at all? I am sure there is a reason, which is eluding me. But if there is no reason, then I guess my suggestion would be to keep those off the list, so as to reduce clutter and make it easier to read the list of authorized apps.

 

What happens if your last action was to permit always or deny always, and you change your mind and decide you want to make the decision on a case by case basis in the future? Then you would change the entry to permit once/deny once.

You won't get the box popping up and informing you, if you give carte blanche to a program to run always.

 

OK fine, but the same thing could be achieved by simply deleting the entry. I still don't see the reason to have the permit once/deny once stored there.

 

Luckman - Hello!


I tend to agree. With PG2, when you selected PERMIT ONCE it did not place the app in the list. I prefer the previous approach.

 

This way gives you the opportunity to make retrospective changes and I prefer it. (though I admit I never ran PG2!).

I like to be able to look back and see what has or has not been given this or that permission. How can you do that if it is not on the list?

 

Topper,

I understand. But think about it - when is the last time you changed your mind from "PERMIT ONCE" to "PERMIT ALWAYS"? I don't think I ever have, and I've been using PG for a while.

Example: When I install an update, or install new software, that application (many times a .zip file) is usually run only once - during installation. I hate it when these apps clutter my list of approved apps. I must admit that I am an over-organized person. So I am continually having to clean these one-time apps from my PG3 list.

Not really that big a problem - I just like it the other way!

 

About a couple of days ago actually!!

I haven't been using PG long and I'm still finding my way around it - perhaps that's why I prefer it the way it is!

 

EXACTLY! this is my sentiment too... I install and test new software on a daily basis. In fact is is a borderline addiction of mine That is, in fact, one of the main reasons I got PG in the first place: to safeguard my PC when running all these new, untested apps.

However, as Dazed said, there is absolutely no need to keep a hash on file for some installer that will be run from the Desktop, thrown away and most likely never run again. These little .exe's and .tmp's just clutter up the display and make it harder to keep a clean, organized list. If others feel differently (e.g., TopperID) then perhaps this could be a preference:

[x] don't store hashes for programs that are only authorized to run once

then the user could decide how they want PG to behave. thoughts?

 

That's not borderline, that's certifiably the real thing!!!!

 

Thanks, Luckman

We're saying the same thing, you just said it much more eloquently that I.