Jump to content

Beta 9188


JeremyNicoll
 Share

Recommended Posts

Windows 8.1, 64 bit

The beta correctly identifies that I don't as yet have the browser security extension installed on my default browser (which is Firefox),  but I have to go looking in Settings to see that.

I still don't get a warning (when I start Firefox) saying that the extension is not installed there - should that still happen?      I do (still) get the warning when I start Chrome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, JeremyNicoll said:

I still don't get a warning (when I start Firefox) saying that the extension is not installed there - should that still happen?  

yes. as long as you do not have the extension installed and have the notification checkbox ticked, EAM will keep checking and should notify.
do you have FF installed in a non-default program folder ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have the extension installed anywhere yet (been busy, thought I'd wait until I had time to get used to any foibles it may have, and also waiting to see if the warnings started working). 

Firefox is installed in:   "C:\Program Files (x86)\~M-folder\Mozilla\".     The "\~M-folder\" part is definitely of my doing.    The " (x86)" part is probably because Firefox, although I'm running a 64 bit version, presumably updated in-place from a 32 bit version at some stage.

I would have expected your code to be checking an appropriate registry key, maybe: HKCU\Software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox       to find the installed version and then (since some values seem to be stored per base version as well per installed language) eg: HKCU\Software\Mozilla\Mozilla Firefox 64.0.2\extensions.    Are you instead just looking for a specific filename in a standard folder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problems with 9188 so far. Since surf protection no longer allows you to view built in list how would you edit if one of the entries is blocking a site you really want to visit? I have an exception to an entry on the hpHosts list I added (classmates.com). Is it still possible to edit built in list?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

We have removed that option. the list now only shows hosts/rules you added yourself or confirmed as safe.

so whatever you type in that search box, it will only apply the filter on the list of hosts you added yourself, whitelisted/blacklisted. @stapp

When you have 1 entry only, filtering makes no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Frank H said:

so whatever you type in that search box, it will only apply the filter on the list of hosts you added yourself, whitelisted/blacklisted. @stapp

When you have 1 entry only, filtering makes no sense.

Of course it makes sense.. we are testers!!

There was an empty search box so I thought I would have a look to see if GT500 was in there :)

Then I removed GT500 as a test, and it is now impossible to add it back :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, stapp said:

You figured that out because the word 'search' was not showing in the box !!

OK now Frank GT500 is showing and blocked.

(GT500 if you read this I only use it to test)

Nope , i recall you had the same issue a while ago :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeremyNicoll said:

Why is it possible to type characters not valid in hostnames into this search box?

 

The typed characters (should) filter on other columns too and not only on the Hostname column. That works perfectly well in Forensics, but doesn't in Surf Protection. We'll fix that some day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JeremyNicoll said:

Also,  I see that for now, Settings -> Export -> Host rules does export a person-readable file (despite its name of a2user.dat which might imply otherwise) but it only contains the user's own rules.  Why, precisely, are you now hiding the internal rules?

Exports are always person-readable files and only exported the user's own rules.

We are hiding the build-in hosts for the same reason as we hide signatures. This is internal stuff and has no added value for users.
Besides that, we're participating in knowledge exchange deals with third parties and these deals don't allow us to share the lists publicly.

it's also a risk telling everyone where to find malware. There is potential for misuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We are hiding the build-in hosts for the same reason as we hide signatures. This is internal stuff and has no added value for users."

No value for dummies, is this what you think your users are?😒

I remember when OS Armor was bought out by you, the owner said it would be the greatest piece of software, WRONG! 

Man, how can you wreck a piece of software.

Sorry, but that's the truth.

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...