Private Firewall Updated (again)

Discussion in 'other firewalls' started by Scoobs72, Dec 9, 2010.

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

    operamail Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Posts:
    254
    Thanks for the update. Just saw this on file forum. Was about to post it.:D
     
  2. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,655
    Location:
    USA
    Can I update my current version 7.0.24.10 over the top?

    Edit in: I found the answer... I'll post it here in case anyone is interested.
    :thumb:
     
    Last edited: Sep 27, 2011
  3. operamail

    operamail Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Posts:
    254
    I'm running administrator account on my system. When I set certain programs like web browsers, email clients to "limited", I can not turn off my computer from the start menu. I can only log off my account first and then turn off. Also I cannot install certain softwares. I tried to install free download manager, but it failed saying don't have access to directory - program files. But when I restart my computer, the problem won't exist. Logging off my account and then logging in may also solve the problem.

    Anyone having the same problem?
     
  4. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,961
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    I'm also working as an administartor and I didn't have the same problem...everything works OK - no conflicts, no freezes thru applications in "limited rights" (MS Office, IE, Firefox, Firefox plugin-container, Foxit Reader, Adobe Reader, MSM...). Some new fatures on screenshots
    "Added log level control: Off, Low, Med, High.
    Added ability to right mouse click event in FW log to add IP to the Blocked or Trusted List."

    110927182818_1.jpg
    "Added Restricted Rights feature"
    110927182924_2.jpg
     
  5. operamail

    operamail Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Posts:
    254
    Have you tried to select the "limited" option for some processes through the process monitor alert? I've contacted with Greg, trying to reproduce the issue. No luck for now.
     
  6. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,961
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    No...I have not tried this feature. BTW...I think that in "limited" option could be - maybe even should be - some sign (text, border, etc.) that would indicate that the program runs in "limited mode". Now I didn't find such marks.
     
  7. operamail

    operamail Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Posts:
    254
    Yeah, that feature is not included yet, coz it's still in its very early stage. The most important thing right now is to make it as stable as possible. Anyway I think Greg is able to make anything(of course not bad ones;) ) happen.
     
  8. 2good

    2good Guest

    just got an update

    RELEASE NOTES - 7.0.25.4, posted 9/30/2011
    - Fixed defect in Restricted Rights feature (assigning limited rights to certain applications using alerts might inadvertently reduce rights for iexplorer.exe).
     
  9. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,961
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    Thanks 2good :thumb:
     
  10. operamail

    operamail Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Posts:
    254
    FYI, it's explorer.exe. Greg made a mistake.:rolleyes:
     
  11. lws

    lws Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Posts:
    196
    Thanks for the info. Received the internal update also.
    Actually this is what is on the support website.

    RELEASE NOTES - 7.0.25.4, posted 9/30/2011
    - Fixed defect in Restricted Rights feature (assigning limited rights to certain applications using alerts might inadvertently reduce rights for explorer.exe)
    (notice it states)
    explorer.exe not iexplorer.exe

    -http://www.privacyware.com/PF_support.html
     
    Last edited: Sep 30, 2011
  12. operamail

    operamail Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Posts:
    254
    Yes, I know. I made contact with Greg. It was a typo, and he corrected it.
     
  13. ocsi

    ocsi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Posts:
    95
  14. operamail

    operamail Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2011
    Posts:
    254
  15. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,655
    Location:
    USA
    Thanks for the Matousec link, osci.
    The vendor responses are a good inclusion.
    Greg Salvato's submission from yesterday was very complimentary of the Matousec team...
    I really like that Privatefirewall, per Greg, is not satisfied with 98%, and "will investigate and remedy the three outstanding identified flaws".
    That's an impressive attitude.
    :thumb:
     
  16. lws

    lws Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Posts:
    196

    :thumb: :thumb: Very impressive."I'm glad I use Private firewall, don't you wish everyone did ? " :D
     
  17. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    On one hand I'm kind of glad they (Privacyware) are increasing Privatefirewall's effectiveness, even if it's a lot more theoretical than practical. On the other hand however, I'm a bit worried that Privacyware might succumb to this "1st in Matousec's tests" craze and even start paying for retests, which I suspect happened this time.
    I'm not worried about the protection level, as Privatefirewall isn't a placebo like PC Tools Firewall Plus, and has always offered good protection, but it is a bit shallow behaviour.
     
  18. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,655
    Location:
    USA
    Hi Night_Raven
    You may already have read this in the Proactive Security Challenge FAQs, but since it does directly address the very concern that you have raised, I'd like to post it here.
     
  19. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    Not good enough. For one thing, on another page they still say there are no limits of paid tests. And even if there really is a limit, it's not clear what it is. I refuse to believe that Matousec would limit them too much. After all that's how they make money. If I am to take them seriously as a really independent testing organization and consider them the least bit credible, they need to drop this absurdly biased level-based system. Unitil they do that they remain just another money hungry self-serving bunch of scam artists.
     
  20. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,655
    Location:
    USA
    You're a long way away from Greg Salvato's opinion of the Matousec team...
     
  21. Night_Raven

    Night_Raven Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Posts:
    388
    You're misunderstanding. I never said the people at Matousec are incompetent and don't know what they're doing. Quite the opposite, I'm sure they are quite good at what they do, but that doesn't change the fact that they are still scam artists. One can be both. In fact being smart and knowing one's stuff makes one a better scam artist. Also, no vendor would bad-mouth Matousec if its product scores well. Actually, no vendor would respond with sharp criticism anyway, as there is the company name to think of. The only response that comes close to criticism is EMSISOFT's. Everything else is something like "thanks, you're so great" or "thanks for testing, we'll look into it" - either happy with the end results or just generic responses to acknowledge the results and for some publicity as well.
    I could delve deeper but it would get even more offtopic.
     
  22. AaLF

    AaLF Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Posts:
    986
    Location:
    Sydney
    bump.

    Any news on this front?
     
  23. Page42

    Page42 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2007
    Posts:
    6,655
    Location:
    USA
    You're quite right about going off topic, and so I will post my last 2¢ on the Matousec tests as they pertain to Privatefirewall.

    I will say is that what we have here is much more a case of disagreeing than misunderstanding. Your 'scam artist' premise is faulty in that to be true (and let's face it, you can only make accusations, you can't prove anything) it would require that all participating companies must be complicit, and I just don't see where a guy like the CEO of Privacyware would wish to associate himself and his software with scam artists. And what makes you think that companies like Comodo, BitDefender, Kaspersky, MalwareDefender, Outpost and others are willing or even likely to participate in biased testing? Or that you know more about the true nature of Matousec testing then they do? It must be one way or the other, for your premise to be true.

    When Greg Salvato of Privatefirewall says that Matousec, more than anyone else, is able to "effectively assess" vulnerabilities, I take that as meaning he does not believe there is any scamming taking place.

    As always, I respect and appreciate an opposing viewpoint.
     
  24. AaLF

    AaLF Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2005
    Posts:
    986
    Location:
    Sydney
    Does PrivateFirewall have any defense mechanisms against these secirity threats?

    -http://www.spyshelter.com/download/AntiTest.exe-
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 11, 2011
  25. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    7,330
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Concur.

    I feel that those benighted folks who disagree with me have an inalienable right to be wrong. ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.