ProcessGuard Protection List Bug...

Discussion in 'ProcessGuard' started by Maji, Sep 20, 2005.

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

    Maji Guest

    Hi there. I want to say how wonderful I think PG is. Excellent program. :)

    However, I do have to report this bug that's creeped up just in the past few days. It seems that the Protection List in PG isn't diplaying items beyond item #256. That is to say, it displays a static list of 256 applications, but doesn't show me the ones I added to the Protection List after that. The weird thing is that PG reports that the applications ARE in the list (since it wont let me add the item manually), but it wont display them or let me edit them. Obviously, this presents a problem for me. From what I have seen, the Security List does NOT have this bug (i.e. it displays all the applications I have allowed to execute beyond the 256 items in the Protection List). Is there a fix for this bug? Do I have to refresh something or flush something in order to make all of the Protection List items appear? Thank you. :)

    Sincerely,



    A security officionado who loves PG ;)
     
  2. Pilli

    Pilli Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    6,217
    Location:
    Hampshire UK
    Hi Maji, As far as I know there is a 256 process limit in the protection list atm.
    At a guess I would say that you are probably protecting a lot of unnecessary programs.

    HTH Pilli
     
  3. Maji

    Maji Guest

    I am not protecting the processes on my list because I can. My list of processes consists of all of my vital server, operating system, encryption, firewall, and other core sexurity processes. I want these to be protected at all costs. That brings up the total to 250 more or less. Then we tack on programs that I use daily which I want protected from unauthorized viewing and modification, and we go well past the 256 limit. Is this a limit that will remain in future versions of PG? I need to have much larger protection list limit if the application is to be of further use to me. :(
     
  4. Pilli

    Pilli Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    6,217
    Location:
    Hampshire UK
    I am not sure whether that limit will be increased in the next release. An email to support@diamondcs.com.au may be of help and they may also be able to give guidance for your particular situation.

    Pilli
     
  5. Maji

    Maji Guest

    That's ok. PG is just too good of a program to sacrifice for any reason. I guess some of my server processes can lose a little protection. :)

    Thanks for the help. :)
     
  6. myluvnttl

    myluvnttl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Posts:
    150
    Well I think you are full of it, or just way too worry about Security Issue,,,I am run a very secure system running a Sever,PGP,Firewall, AV and anything I need, and I can sleep at night,,,,,you just have way too much unless process or something, cause I have around
    50 to 80 process. :D :D
     
  7. Maji

    Maji Guest

    I could just post my protected list as well as to why the entries are there, but.....I don't think I have to do that. :p

    Besides.....the Security List doesn't seem to have any such limits. What's the big deal about removing the limit from the protection list, as well? It's the same principle in both lists. :p
     
  8. Gavin - DiamondCS

    Gavin - DiamondCS Former DCS Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Currently there is a bug in making changes through the alerts if your list is full, this is fixed already.

    The 256 item limit is reasonable I believe, and saves on allocated kernel memory. Having that many items in the list is probably an indication of running Learning Mode a bit TOO much.

    We are looking at raising it, but probably not in the next version. There hasn't been any real need yet.. only a couple of people have noticed it and one said he trimmed his list back to 140 after checking what was on the list :)
     
  9. Maji

    Maji Guest

    I only used learning mode as suggested in the guide. 256 Processes in my list is not too much for me...it is what I need. I understand that most users of PG probably don't need a bigger list, but I'm just saying I don't see such a need for an arbitrary limit. If Mcafee Desktop Firewall can have a virtually infinite application protection list in its interface, I'm pretty sure PG could do the same if it had to. I'd be willing to take a hit on Kernel Memory Load for a chance to have hundreds if not thousands of applications protected through PG. :p
     
  10. Gavin - DiamondCS

    Gavin - DiamondCS Former DCS Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    2,080
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Hi Maji,

    We're considering a size increase.. are you sure every application in your list needs protection ? The most important are simply any program which has internet access, so the firewall cannot be bypassed by hijacking of one of those apps..

    And of course you should protect all Windows services which are ever run, as well as all security programs. In any case, if we do up the limit to 384 or 512 apps, would that be enough do you think ? :)
     
  11. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
  12. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    17,047
    I'd sure be very curious as to why one would need that many programs. Remember we are only protecting programs that malware might have an interest in messing with. Just protecting stuff for the sake of it doesn't make sense.
     
  13. gottadoit

    gottadoit Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Posts:
    601
    Location:
    Australia
    Even if the size of the list isn't changed, a warning dialog should be introduced rather than just allowing the list to grow past the capacity for the program to display it
     
  14. Maji

    Maji Guest

    First of all, I want everyone here to understand that I am not at all angry or disgruntled about this protection list issue. Compared to the bugs in the other security programs I use constantly which have yet to be repaired, this one is miniscule. I guess it's just annoying to me that I can't stick all of the apps in there which I either feel need protecting or which fail to function without some sort of protection or permissions enabled. For example, I reinstalled Adobe Acrobat Professional 7 yesterday, and this resulted in several adobe components requesting special permissions to install drivers. If I hadn't sacrificed some apps the day before to make some room in my protection list, I wouldn't be able to use Adobe Acrobat today. Personally, I feel that this type of situation could be entirely avoided by giving the protection list a little flexibility.

    That being said, I do have a suggestion as to how the list could be expanded. Would it be possible to make the protection list multi-paged? That is to say, keep the 256 limit, but make that a per-page limit instead of a global list limit. Basically, the list interface would remain the same except for the addition of next and back buttons (or arrows) at the bottom of it, which would become active as soon as the list grew beyond 256 applications. That way, the program wouldn't have to allocate any more kernel memory than it does right now. Instead, it would simply swap out of memory one page of the protection list and swap in another.

    I'm not a proficient programmer, so I'm not sure if any of what I just said is even doable or a good idea, but I just wanted to state my thoughts. In any event, even the slightest expansion of the list would be greatly appreciated. As long as the program's performance isn't negatively impacted, I will take whatever you guys can dish out. Until then, I'll tough it out somehow. ;)

    Once again, thank you for a truly solid product. The beauty of it is that it simply works. Trust me, that's the highest praise you can give any software product. :D
     
  15. berng

    berng Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2005
    Posts:
    246
    Location:
    NJ, USA
    Same thing with me. Its not that I want to protect them, but a lot of my programs require global mouse hooks or drivers.
     
  16. andreika

    andreika Guest

    Why not set a global registry key with the max. number of processes - the PG driver will read it during the system start, allocates its memory and load/trim process list to this number. This will allow any advanced user to set his own limit (and thus kernel memory usage) and solve any questions...
     
  17. philthee

    philthee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2005
    Posts:
    1
    Although I haven't hit this limit yet (166 processes that are in regular use), I often find entries that are out of date because the install location for version X of a program is different from that for version Y.
    Can I suggest that PG be given a feature to scan the protection/security lists and "purge" list entries corresponding to files that no longer exist?

    Thanks for a great application - nice to see such a quality product coming from my home town :)
     
  18. billaku

    billaku Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2005
    Posts:
    67
    Location:
    Texas Central Coast, US
    ProcessGuard Lists Not In Folder Duplicates

    Great idea.

    Have experienced the same. When seen, I cleanout, delete.

    Even: Install to D:\A B (space)
    Unistall for some reason
    Reinstall to D:\AB (no space)

    Then there are dups.

    If your suggestion of purging would for some reason be considered some sort of security risk, maybe the scan could somehow highlight or mark the lists entries.

    Or insert entry in existing columns:
    Protection | Other Options: Not installed in this Folder
    Security | Last Action: Not installed in this Folder

    Of course leaving it, for good or bad, to user to leave or delete.


    edit:
    Or add another column each list with a comment
    Installed this Folder | Not installed this Folder
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.