Outpost Security Suite Pro

[Don't.Care.A.Fig 15]

Latin

Так-то оно так, однако... драйвер OFP (6.0.2225.232.0465) afw.sys можно, с помощью, например, этих утилит:

SysLoader http://www.linchpinlabs.com/resources/sysl...sage-design.htm

Windows NT Device Driver Installer

http://www.beyondlogic.org/dddtools/dddtools.htm

деактивировать таким образом, что он больше не будет загружаться и после перезагрузки системы (и OFP никак нас не информирует о том, что его драйвер не загружен и защита частично не функционирует), соответственно больше не будет контроля kernel-mode драйверов и т.п.

Это можно сделать при загруженном OFP c включенной самозащитой.

Возможно, так же можно деактивировать и другие драйвера OFP.

[Иван 290]

Для читающих по английски обзор OSS

Agnitum Outpost Security Suite Pro [PC Pro]

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/labs/145068/agnitum...-suite-pro.html

COMPANY: Agnitum PRICE: $50(around Ј24) per year for 1 PC

RATING: ***** ISSUE: 160 DATE: Dec 07

Verdict: Impressive with firewall-type attacks, but less so elsewhere.

When we tested Agnitum's Outpost mini-suite in May 2006 (see web ID: 84935), we liked its philosophy, but weren't fully satisfied with the protection it gave. Although the package is now more ambitious, the story is the same. On paper, Outpost's focus on potential vulnerabilities rather than signatures sounds clever, but in our malware test it came last, failing to identify more than 20% of threats.

Agnitum's firewall also failed to win us over. When it's first installed, you can start it in "learning mode", in which it raises no alerts and silently builds rules based on user activity - an evidently vulnerable approach. We declined this and found ourselves continually pestered over occurrences that should have been dealt with in the background. On the plus side, it fared well in our penetration test, giving no information whatsoever to the attacker while relaying extensive details to the user.

Outpost did nothing to stop us receiving phishing emails, nor clicking on their links. A blacklist blocked access to 43% of the bad websites we tried to access, but we sailed on to the rest unhindered, and the attempted attacks launched from those pages went undetected. The adaptive spam filter seemed to add nothing to Windows' own junk filter: we can only hope it learns in time.

Finally, once we'd installed it, our test PC took more than two minutes to boot - a full minute longer than the next worst result. This, coupled with the fact that it missed so much malware, means that investing in Outpost simply doesn't make sense, even with its exemplary response to firewall-type attacks.

[Виталий Я. 859]

Иван, спасибо, что следите за мировыми трендами. Знаю про большие вопросы к методологии теста PC Pro (без конкретики).

Из свежего - есть еще один обзор того же времени изготовления от чуть более известного журнала: PC Magazine

Security Suites 2008 - Outpost Security Suite Pro 2008: At A Glance

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2231448,00.asp

Дурацкий asp-движок сейчас не грузит ни страницы, поэтому прошу кого-нибудь более удачливого скопипастить abstract статьи сюда.

[Latin 5]

Вот по этой ссылке http://www.pcmag.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=221340,00.asp загружается нормально, правда грузит все статьи.

Outpost Security Suite Pro 2008

REVIEW DATE: 12.11.07

BOTTOM LINE:

This suite ranks with the best for malware protection and removal, and it has a good, tough firewall—albeit an old-school one that asks more (and more confusing) questions. It protects effectively, but you do have to read the pop-ups or risk blocking good programs.

PROS:

Firewall stealths all ports, detects port scans. Host Protection catches leak test programs. Highly effective at removing and blocking malware. Renames executable e-mail attachments for safety.

CONS:

Host Protection catches many innocent programs. Spam filter does nothing without training; on tests, it did nothing even with training. No parental control.

COMPANY:

Agnitum Ltd.

SPEC DATA

Price: $49.95 Direct

Type: Business, Personal, Professional

OS Compatibility: Windows Vista, Windows XP

EDITOR RATING:

By Neil J. Rubenking

The 2007 edition of Agnitum's security suite had a somewhat patched-together appearance, and a few of the security elements didn't work without some serious do-it-yourself effort. Outpost Security Suite Pro 2008 (OSS 08) looks a lot better, as it no longer has that visible plug-in architecture with its artificial separation into "My Internet" and "Plug-ins." It also did a lot better in antispyware testing. But apart from that it hasn't changed a lot. Among other problems, there's still too much reliance on users to answer the suite's many pop-up questions.

The $49.95 price seems like a bargain, except that it gives you just one license. The vast majority of security suites cost a bit more but allow up to three installations. On the other hand, for $99.95 you can get a family pack that allows five installations.

Just about every modern suite's user interface starts with a home page that displays overall status, reports any problems, and offers to fix whatever is wrong. Not this utility: Its Welcome page just offers news and some Web shortcuts. If your firewall is turned off or your antivirus definitions are outdated, the program's tray icon turns red, but that's all the warning you get. This is one time when going with the crowd would've been a good thing.

The main window is attractive and offers easy access to all program features. A main page for each major feature shows its enabled/disabled status and other important information. Most of these pages include sub-pages—for example, the Anti-Malware page includes a sub-page listing quarantined files. You access configuration settings in a single dialog that's separate from the main display. This dialog is quite different from that of the previous version and easier to manage.—Next: Busy, Busy, Firewall

Busy, Busy, Firewall

Agnitum's suite accreted around the Outpost Firewall—a strong center that put all of my test system's ports into stealth mode, making the system invisible to attack from outside. It also detected the tools I use to test stealthing, labeling them as port scan attacks, and it blocked all access from the test sites for 5 minutes. So far, so good.

The firewall controls which programs can access the Internet, but outside of a few known programs, it relies on you to make the final decision. When a program attempts Internet access for the first time, Outpost asks whether to allow it, block it, or apply an appropriate preset. The default is to create a rule using the preset; you can also choose to allow once or block once without creating a rule. The firewall's messages can be confusing, but clicking on the Smart Advisor link brings up an often-helpful description to guide your decision. Still, I prefer the more modern firewalls that make security decisions for themselves, like those in Norton Internet Security 2008 and Panda Internet Security 2008, for example. They're much more qualified than most users! If you're confident that your system is 100 percent clean, you can tell OSS 08 to "train" for a week—meaning it will define rules that always allow access for any program that runs during that week.

Not counting the laissez-faire Allow- All and the maniacally locked-down Block All, the firewall offers three protection levels. You'll want to stick with the Rules Wizard level; that's the behavior I've described here. Allow Most permits all communication that isn't specifically blocked, and Block Most blocks all communication that isn't specifically allowed. The former is almost no protection, and the latter blocks even useful and important programs: For example, it wouldn't let me check e-mail until I explicitly opened the configuration dialog and made Outlook Express a totally trusted program.

Some malware authors try to evade normal program control by turning a trusted program to the Dark Side and forcing it to do their dirty work. When you install this suite, it offers you a choice of security levels: As long as you choose Advanced, OSS 08 will block these sneaky techniques, too. I tried a dozen leak test programs, and not only did OSS 08 detect them all, it identified the exact technique being used, which included injecting components into another program, modifying another program's memory, and launching a trusted program with command-line arguments to control its actions. I did have to actively choose to block these actions, but when I did, the operation succeeded in every case.

The feature that managed to catch these leak test programs—Host Protection—is quite similar to the OSFirewall in ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite 7. Host Protection also prevents a variety of critical system objects, such as start-up entries, WinLogon settings, and IE settings, from undergoing unauthorized changes. It proved its value once again when I used the Core Impact penetration tool to unleash several exploits: The feature stopped an exploit that managed to penetrate Windows Live OneCare 2.0 and BullGuard Internet 8.0.

But there's a fly in the ointment. While Host Protection does indeed identify and block potentially dangerous activities by malicious programs, it's an equal-opportunity alarmist—that is, it flags those same activities in perfectly innocuous programs. I tried installing a dozen PC Magazine utilities, and OSS 08 flagged every one as suspicious. For one program, it gave me six different pop-up warnings. With other programs I had to wade through confusing option screens to allow necessary port access. One benign program was identified as active malware! Even the innocent non-Internet-aware ColorClue game was accused of trying to get control of another application through Dynamic Data Exchange.

So, here again OSS 08 demands that you, the user, make significant security decisions. Its Host Protection blocks both malicious programs and valid programs, leaving the decision in your lap. Most users will be flustered by all the activity and will either click OK (meaning allow the behavior) every time or turn off Host Protection entirely. False positives definitely diminish the feature's value.

The firewall is plenty tough, though, and resists techniques that malware writers might use to disable it. I couldn't kill it using Task Manager, and its Registry settings were protected against my changes. In the 2007 version, I found it impossible to turn off the main service; this version is more subtle. A malicious program can send a function call that asks to stop the service, but completing the action requires confirmation by the user—a strategy that keeps the bad guys out while allowing flexibility for the user. Fine—unless a user who's overwhelmed by the chatty suite's many pop-ups has just started reflexively allowing everything—a real possibility.

My last resort of firewall testing is a funky trick program that tries to simulate the mouse clicks of a user turning off protection. Oddly, where the previous version detected this as an attack, the current version obediently shut down. But this type of assault by malware is wildly unlikely, so it's not a big minus to OSS 08's firewall score.

Since gamers hate being interrupted by an inane security pop-up just as they're about to blow the Boss Bug back to Betelgeuse, by default, when OSS 08 detects a game or some other program entering full-screen mode, it displays a pop-up offering to switch into Entertainment Mode. The next time the same program launches, the suite will switch modes automatically. This mode sets the firewall to the Allow Most protection level and suppresses all pop-ups. That's certainly better than turning off all protection to avoid fragfestus interruptus.—Next: Tougher on Malware

Tougher on Malware

The software's antivirus technology, from the Hungarian company VirusBuster, has received certification for virus detection and removal from both ICSA Labs and West Coast Labs. WCL also gave it checkmark certification for Trojan horse detection. According to Mikhail Zakhryapin, Agnitum's managing director, the company is in the process of obtaining certification for the suite itself. That makes sense, because it includes its own antispyware engine in addition to VirusBuster; hence the combination might well do better than VirusBuster alone. OSS 08 has been tested by Virus Bulletin twice: It failed the first test but got VB 100% certification on the most recent attempt.

The suite scans files for malware on access, on demand, and on schedule. By default, it scans files on any kind of access, but you can switch it to scan only when a file is about to execute. The program runs a quick malware check (which takes well under a minute) at start-up and also after each update to its signature database. You'll probably want to schedule a daily or weekly full scan; hourly is also an option but not appropriate for a full scan. Technically inclined users can define and schedule any number of custom scans.

By default the suite also scans incoming and outgoing e-mail to strip out malicious attachments. Like ZoneAlarm's MailSafe feature, the scanner renames all attachments of various executable file types such as .bat, .com, and .exe. You can still launch the renamed attachment, but you have to confirm that you really want to proceed even after being warned.

A full scan on my standard clean test system took about 28 minutes, which is right in the middle of the times I've recorded for the various suites. But I found the figure for estimated time to completion totally unreliable: It rose to over 2 hours during the course of the scan and was still showing 45 minutes left just before it finished. This peculiarity was even more pronounced on malware-infested test systems. On the plus side, a repeat scan finished in under a minute! That's because by default, OSS 08 uses a procedure the company calls SmartScan, which scans only files that have changed since the last scan. To identify changed files, OSS 08 stores two files in every folder, using the same sort of technique that rootkits use to hide these files completely from Windows. This method should be harmless, as there are no reports of malware piggybacking on these hidden files. But after a scan with SmartScan enabled, Rootkit Revealer reported well over 2,000 discrepancies, and Panda's anti-rootkit crashed, apparently overloaded by sheer numbers. If you run standalone rootkit-detection software on a regular basis, you'll probably want to do without the SmartScan feature.

When I loaded the software on a number of test systems infested with adware, spyware, rootkits, Trojans, and rogue antispyware programs, it installed quickly and, in most cases, without trouble. One system whose malware resists installation of most security software did in fact prevent installation. I tried the company's live-chat support but found that it was available only from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. GMT (or 2:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. eastern). But when I tried during its alleged hours of operation, the live chat still wasn't online. That's a pretty poor showing compared with BullGuard's highly responsive 24/7 live chat, for example.

I sent a cry for help via e-mail, which resulted in a request for certain logs. Agnitum tech support pointed me at a knowledge base article on the site that explained how to get around the problem. In a way it wasn't Agnitum's fault. Its software installed fine; a Microsoft redistributable was actually what wouldn't install. And with help from tech support I managed to complete the installation.

OSS 08 detected every single malware sample and successfully removed almost all of them. I define full success as removal of all executable files. If a product tries to clean up but leaves executables behind, I give only half credit. On this test, the suite scored 9.0 out of 10—the same as Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2008 and just a little behind the 9.3 of Norton Internet Security 2008 (NIS 2008). On a separate test using commercial keyloggers, OSS 08 scored 8.5, better than any other recent suite except NIS 2008 (which went 10 for 10). Panda got 10 of 10 on the spyware removal test but turned in a dismal 2.1 for keylogger removal.

Before testing the software's ability to block installation of malicious software on a clean system, I had to cogitate a while over how to handle pop-ups from the firewall and Host Protection systems. For consistency, I decided to block pop-up requests only after the real-time malware protection reported the sample as malicious. The real-time feature detected three quarters of the malware samples as soon as I opened the folder that contained them. But, unlike most security products, OSS 08 didn't delete them! It left them in place but prevented them from launching. That seems weird to me; if a file is a known malware installer, why not delete it? What if it gets launched somehow while real-time protection is turned off?

The utility detected all but one of the remaining samples at some time during each sample's install process but failed to completely block installation of several. By that I mean it allowed them to install executable files. As with the malware installers, the real-time protection module prevented many of the installed executables from launching, but I give only half-credit for incomplete blocking. OSS 08 scored 8.6 of 10 on the spyware blocking test, the same as ThreatFire 3 achieved using strictly behavioral detection. That's decent, but many others have done better. For example, BullGuard achieved 8.8, OneCare got 9.3, and Panda blocked them all for 10 of 10.

On a separate test using commercial keyloggers in place of malware, OSS 08 detected every sample and successfully blocked installation for almost all of them. It wound up with 9.0 of 10, better than any other suite except NIS 2008, which got a 10, and Kaspersky Internet Security 7.0 (9.3). On this same test Panda came in at 3.6 out of 10, proving that you can't always win.

Since OSS 08 blocked most of the malware installers on sight, I challenged its flexibility by testing again using hand-modified variants of those samples. In the real world, many threats self-modify as they spread, so I changed the names, tweaked some nonexecutable bytes, and appended nulls to change the file size. The results demonstrated that OSS is much better at handling known threats than unknowns. The suite still caught a third of the modified samples on sight, but it failed to prevent installation for slightly over half the remainder. Better keep your antivirus signatures up to date!—Next: Spam Filter Still a Dog

Spam Filter Still a Dog

Agnitum offers its antispam solution separately under the name Spam Terrier. It costs nothing and, as far as I can determine, is worth exactly that. It doesn't do anything at all until you train it for a while by rubbing its nose in its messes. When it puts spam in the Inbox or valid mail in the spam folder, you must correct the error; otherwise it will assume the placement is correct and learn from that. Optionally, you can give it samples of spam and valid mail for training.

I carefully trained the filter by 100 messages at a time, using roughly equal numbers of valid mail and spam from real-world e-mail accounts. I highlighted all the spam messages that reached the Inbox and clicked Mark as Spam (it didn't put any valid mail into the spam folder). I expected to see it start catching spam on its own after a few hundred. But even after processing 500 messages, it still didn't do anything.

I figured 500 messages just had to be enough training. Some spam filters—Trend Micro's, for example—achieve excellent accuracy with no training whatsoever. In any case, if I had kept going I would have run out of real-world messages. So I let it process the remaining messages from my two spam-infested sources. Out of over 1,200 messages, it marked exactly none as spam! I actively chose the Scan Folders option from the menu, just to be sure the filter had a chance at processing those messages. No change. Then I changed the filter sensitivity from Medium (described as optimal for filtering spam but avoiding false positives) to High—which includes a warning that good mail may be filtered out—and manually scanned the Inbox again. And again…nothing.

Agnitum's managing director confirmed that I had found a bug in the program. Its module for training by example contained an error in logic. Apparently if I had used the training wizard instead, I would have had better results. Unfortunately, there was no time to wait for a significant sample of new real-world e-mail. Perhaps the filter will work better in the next release; for now I have no evidence that it works at all.—Next: Web Control and ID Protection

Web Control and ID Protection

OSS 08 doesn't have a parental control feature as such, but its Web Control module performs a number of related tasks. By default, it blocks banner ads from certain known sites and can optionally block images of specific sizes typical to Web ads. Its site blacklist blocks "well-known phishing and malware sites." The full blacklist isn't displayed, but when it does block a site, you may optionally exempt that site from further blocking, just in case it was blocked in error. Of course, a well-known phishing site is almost an oxymoron: The active ones appear and disappear within a few days. I visited a dozen very fresh phishing sites without any complaints from OSS.

Web Control also lets you specify whether or not a dozen types of active content on Web pages will be allowed or blocked. These include Java applets, Flash animations, and ActiveX controls, among others. You can also set Web control to prompt each time a particular type of active content appears, but this could lead to dozens of prompts on some pages. You can accomplish similar control over active content in Internet Explorer's own configuration dialog, but doing so is much more awkward. OSS 08 also lets you control various types of active content in e-mail.

The ID Block feature within Web Control is much like ZoneAlarm's ID Lock. You create a list of private data that you want to protect and tell the suite whether to replace the data with asterisks or completely block the data transfer. Like ZoneAlarm's ID Lock, ID Block never shows the encrypted private data after you've entered it, so if you want to make a change you must delete the old data and enter the new. That's good; you wouldn't want that data visible to anybody who sits down at your computer. But where ZoneAlarm offers about a dozen categories for private data items, OSS 08 offers just two. It does let you define trusted sites that are permitted to receive private data; however, the dialog to define these exclusions is too complex for the average user.

Outpost Security Suite Pro 2008 does protect you where it counts. However, the spam filter was broken when I tested it, and although the suite does include private data protection, there is no parental control. Still, antispam and parental control features are less important in weighting the security suite's overall scores. Outpost ranks with the best at malware protection and removal, and it has a powerful firewall that strongly resists attempts to kill it—though as noted, it's the old-school type that asks a million tough questions. This suite does protect you, but, if you choose to use it, be ready to read all those pop-ups.

Да..., кто-то здесь на форуме хорошо сказал: "Пользователь хочет чтобы была только одна кнопка "Сделать мне хорошо"" А так статья познавательна, даже баг в антиспаме нашли походу тестирования.

Виталий Я., а этот баг исправлен с момента выхода статьи?

[Иван 290]

да я этот обзор тоже видел, по его итогам OSS получил 3 звезды из 5 возможных

кстати в PC Magazine сравнивали все 2008 комбайны, итог такой

что касается методологии PC Pro она как раз мне довольно близка http://www.pcpro.co.uk/labs/160/security-s...-we-tested.html

Впрочем для обсуждения этих обзоров в целом я предлагаю переехать

PC Pro http://www.anti-malware.ru/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4034

PC Mag http://www.anti-malware.ru/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=30218#30218

[Don't.Care.A.Fig 15]

При загруженом OFP 6.0.2225.232.0465, с включенной самозащитой,

любым менеджером процессов/драйверов можно изменить тип загрузки

для acs.exe на любой из следующих: disabled, demand, automatic; для afw.sys на любой из следующих: disabled, demand, automatic, system; для sandbox.sys на любой из следующих: disabled, demand, automatic, system. OFP при этом не показывает никаких предупреждений. Если выставить тип загрузки для afw.sys и sandbox.sys в disabled, то после перезагрузки системы, OFP загрузится без вышеупомянутых дайверов, но никак об этом не сообщит (!)

Если это не уязвимость, то что? ...

[A. 876]

При загруженом OFP 6.0.2225.232.0465, с включенной самозащитой,

любым менеджером процессов/драйверов можно изменить тип загрузки

для acs.exe на любой из следующих: disabled, demand, automatic; для afw.sys на любой из следующих: disabled, demand, automatic, system; для sandbox.sys на любой из следующих: disabled, demand, automatic, system. OFP при этом не показывает никаких предупреждений. Если выставить тип загрузки для afw.sys и sandbox.sys в disabled, то после перезагрузки системы, OFP загрузится без вышеупомянутых дайверов, но никак об этом не сообщит (!)

Если это не уязвимость, то что? ...

Оформляете advisory, официально уведомляете вендора. Ждете ответа 7 дней, после чего публикуете на securityfocus, secunia и т.д.

[dr_dizel 385]

Тем не менее запуск eicar он словил вот таким вот образом:

Очень смешно =) И какую такую память другого приложения пытается изменить Eicar?

Чтобы понять, на что же отреагировал оутпост, достаточно открыть консоль в NT и запустить command.com.

[Иван 290]

Outpost Security Suite Pro 2008 получил VB100% в декабрьском тесте Virus Bulletin. http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/2007/12

Но продукту и в разделе "Межсетевые экраны (firewall)" неплохо

Виталий Я. вы по прежнему считаете VB100% нормальным тестом?

Agnitum Outpost Security Suite Pro 6.0.2227.232.0465

ItW: 99.80%

ItW (o/a): 99.80%

Macro: 100.00%

Polymorphic: 85.91%

The available configuration is somewhat limited, with no option to scan archives in on-access mode, but other files did seem to be inspected regardless of their extension, and speeds were fairly reasonable considering. False positives were entirely absent, and detection in most of the test sets at the pretty high level expected from the VirusBuster engine in use. In the WildList set, however, a single instance of a W32/VB worm was missed, as well as two samples of one of the new W32/Virut variants. This presaged problems for some of the products further down the list using the same technology, and meant Agnitum didn’t quite manage to add to its VB100 tally.

замечу сразу, лично для меня тесты VB100% и их результаты (особенно псевдо ItW коллекции) не имеют никакого значения

[Виталий Я. 859]

Виталий Я. вы по прежнему считаете VB100% нормальным тестом?

замечу сразу, лично для меня тесты VB100% и их результаты (особенно псевдо ItW коллекции) не имеют никакого значения

А в чем проблема? Надеюсь, вы в ветке ЛК тоже написали "вы по прежнему не считаете VB100% нормальным тестом?"

Иван, раз вас так интересует АВ-компонента комплекса, то Вы, вероятно, хотели так привлечь внимание к факту добавления в базу сигнатур Outpost Security Suite 140 тысяч вирусных сигнатур, произошедшего накануне? Тогда спасибо, присоединяюсь к вашему выступлению.

Если же философски рассуждать, нет практически ни одного идеального тестирования, и многие из обсуждающихся здесь также не выдерживают критики в своей методике применительно к фаерволоподобному решению. И что - рвать волосы, посыпать голову пеплом от непрохождения теста? Защита Outpost является комплексной, и VB100 - всего лишь одна из реперных точек, нравится это кому-то или нет. Для авторов Outpost это своеобразный маркер качества, т.к. рынок фаерволов изначально иной, и с комплексным АВ-решением нужно заново пройти "путь воина", следуя по маркерам.

Хорошо, нам вот кажутся (но лишь отчасти) несостоятельными ликтесты Матусека, и что? Антилик наш ему уже не обойти, а в мире, где 90% вредоносного ПО - troj- и botware, существенно наличие в составе АВ-решения хороших host protection & antileak.

И, вообще, блюдите политику ресурса, обсуждайте тут свойства фаерволов

[Иван 290]

И, вообще, блюдите политику ресурса, обсуждайте тут свойства фаерволов

а мне эта политика не нравится, OSS - это комбайн, а не фаервол

[Dexter 20]

На днях пришло письмо(спам?):

Dear Outpost User,

You are receiving this message because you received your Outpost Security Suite Pro license from a CD cover mount, and your software is now out of date.

You need updated protection to survive in today’s cyber battle ground!

Outpost Security Suite PRO 2007 is good software, but it was designed before Vista came on the scene and before today’s devious threats became a reality.

For comprehensive protection against all known web-borne threats, choose Outpost Security Suite Pro 2008.

Learn more about how Outpost Security Suite Pro has improved in the past year.

Upgrade now and, for just ?19.95, you can get a three-computer license for Outpost Security Suite Pro 2008!

Sincerely,

Your Agnitum Team

Taking Care of Your Security

http://www.agnitum.com

1.Ни разу не был покупателем outpost.

С чего они решили?

2.Переход с 2007 на 2008 платный. Брр. Прям симантеки.

Абыдно. Не по-нашенски как-то.

3.Этот адрес почты был только у одного инет-магазина и одного производителя программного обеспечения.

Вот ведь гады - кто-то слил.

[Виталий Я. 859]

На днях пришло письмо(спам?):

1.Ни разу не был покупателем outpost.

С чего они решили?

2.Переход с 2007 на 2008 платный. Брр. Прям симантеки.

Абыдно. Не по-нашенски как-то.

3.Этот адрес почты был только у одного инет-магазина и одного производителя программного обеспечения.

Вот ведь гады - кто-то слил.

Не-а, сами знаете как с этим четко у вендоров - никакого спама.

1. Вы наверняка ставили Outpost "from a CD cover mount" - короче, регили на свое мыло журнальную версию, но забыли. Если считаете, что Ваши права нарушены - велкам в техподдержку.

2. Переход между версиями бесплатный. НО: миграция с журнальной версии (доставшейся пользователю бесплатно - верней, по цене журнала) стоит денег - универсальные 40% скидки при переходе, что по сути цена ОЕМ-лицензии. Если считаете, что Ваши права нарушены - велкам в техподдержку.

3. Не может быть левых адресов в нашей базе подписчиков. НУ НИКАК. Остальные вопросы - плз в техподдержку.

Мои извинения, если Вы таки не вспомните о факте регистрации Outpost на свое мыло.

[Dexter 20]

Не-а, сами знаете как с этим четко у вендоров - никакого спама.

1. Вы наверняка ставили Outpost "from a CD cover mount" - короче, регили на свое мыло журнальную версию, но забыли. Если считаете, что Ваши права нарушены - велкам в техподдержку.

2. Переход между версиями бесплатный. НО: миграция с журнальной версии (доставшейся пользователю бесплатно - верней, по цене журнала) стоит денег - универсальные 40% скидки при переходе, что по сути цена ОЕМ-лицензии. Если считаете, что Ваши права нарушены - велкам в техподдержку.

3. Не может быть левых адресов в нашей базе подписчиков. НУ НИКАК. Остальные вопросы - плз в техподдержку.

Мои извинения, если Вы таки не вспомните о факте регистрации Outpost на свое мыло.

Ага. знаю.

1.Не ставил, не знаю, у меня только игромания бывает, etc, а она вроде не дает синяков sandbox.sys))

По крайней мере я не ставил с журнального диска, у меня и так источников хватает.

2.Это радует.

3.Могут, хоть у меня и не левый. ))

[Виталий Я. 859]

Ага. знаю.

1.Не ставил, не знаю, у меня только игромания бывает, etc, а она вроде не дает синяков sandbox.sys))

По крайней мере я не ставил с журнального диска, у меня и так источников хватает.

2.Это радует.

3.Могут, хоть у меня и не левый. ))

1. Ага, а еще аутпост реестр мониторит, но при этом не киляет explorer.exe

2. Это так и есть.

3. Выясняйте, кто и при каких обстоятельствах вносил ваш адрес при скачивании продуктов Outpost в рег. данные.

В нашей базе все события приведены, можете кинуть в личку адрес - проверим в начале рабочей недели.

[Helgin 5]

Предложение модераторам - сделать раздел по комбаинам, и собрать там обсуждения KIS, OSS, других производителей. Будет логично и удобно.

[Don't.Care.A.Fig 15]

Предложение модераторам - сделать раздел по комбаинам, и собрать там обсуждения KIS, OSS, других производителей. Будет логично и удобно.

Не специалист я, чтобы правильно advisory оформить, да и в новых версиях подобных проблем уже нет. А то, что антикейлоггер добавили - круто это! Вообще, думаю, вряд ли кто будет спорить, что Oupost Firewall Pro один из лучших firewall'ов в мире.

Вопрос разработчикам: не могли бы вы сделать, чтобы Outpost детектил и показывал при наведении мыши на значок в трее не только внутренний (LAN, вида 192.168.1.x), но и внешний Internet IP адрес, ну или два внешних адреса, если на модеме поднято два подключения (я об ADSL подключениях). Простейшие программы, типа My IP Address и IP Monitor подобное умеют, однако в firewall такая функция гораздо полезнее и важнее.

[Umnik 997]

Don't.Care.A.Fig

С таким пожеланием Вам на официальный форум Аутпоста, а не сюда.

[Alex_Goodwin 81]

Don't.Care.A.Fig

С таким пожеланием Вам на официальный форум Аутпоста, а не сюда.

Слава модераторам, гонящих трафик на посторонние ресурсы!

[Виталий Я. 859]

Don't.Care.A.Fig

С таким пожеланием Вам на официальный форум Аутпоста, а не сюда.

Я бы вообще в техподдержку обращался напрямую. При желании - пообсуждал бы на форуме пользователей Outpost.

Обсуждать же в теме про "комбайн" вопросы чисто firewall - не очень уместно. Это к слову о размещении топика.

[UIT 103]

Сегодня обновлял OSS. Это так предусмотрено, что при запуске обновления - обновляется только все комплексно. Мне собственно нужны были обновления только для антивирусного модуля.

[Виталий Я. 859]

Сегодня обновлял OSS. Это так предусмотрено, что при запуске обновления - обновляется только все комплексно. Мне собственно нужны были обновления только для антивирусного модуля.

Да, а что Вас взволновало?

[UIT 103]

Да, а что Вас взволновало?

Хотелось быть экономным и не скачивать лишнее. Как вручную так и через автообновление.

Вы можете еще подсказать:

1. Есть ли возможность скачать с официального сайта актуальный архив для обновления модуля антивируса.

2. OSS имеет ли функционал создания резервной копии антивирусных баз.

3. При наличии проблем при обновлении - насколько я понял, возможности загрузить только недостающее - нет.

4. Пользователи постоянно обновляющие продукт - не жалуются ли на проблемы при обновлении.

5. Примерно 50 МВ у меня составил объем скачанных данных для обновления базы модуля Антивирус+Антишпион.

Первое обновление версии 6.7.1 (за чистоту не ручаюсь - было несколько неудачных попыток) дата релиза 24 сентября 2009 (пробная версия). Почему столь большой объем? В загружаемом списке я увидел только файлы антивирусных баз.

[Виталий Я. 859]

Хотелось быть экономным и не скачивать лишнее. Как вручную так и через автообновление.

Вы можете еще подсказать:

1. Есть ли возможность скачать с официального сайта актуальный архив для обновления модуля антивируса.

2. OSS имеет ли функционал создания резервной копии антивирусных баз.

3. При наличии проблем при обновлении - насколько я понял, возможности загрузить только недостающее - нет.

4. Пользователи постоянно обновляющие продукт - не жалуются ли на проблемы при обновлении.

5. Примерно 50 МВ у меня составил объем скачанных данных для обновления базы модуля Антивирус+Антишпион.

Первое обновление версии 6.7.1 (за чистоту не ручаюсь - было несколько неудачных попыток) дата релиза 24 сентября 2009 (пробная версия). Почему столь большой объем? В загружаемом списке я увидел только файлы антивирусных баз.

1-2. Обратитесь к поддержке

3 - ждите версии 7.0, там изменяется алгоритм апдейта

4-5. Возможно. знаю о жалобах в указанный период.

Возможно, при апдейтах очень много неинкрементальных баз перезаливалось.

[UIT 103]

3 - ждите версии 7.0, там изменяется алгоритм апдейта

Все понятно, спасибо.

Зачем потенциальному или существующему пользователю ждать. Вот Norton AntiVirus 2010 при сбое, спокойно продолжил догрузку обновлений. А что собственно мешает компании Agnitum, сразу все реализовать в наиболее приятном, полном и рациональном для пользователя объеме. Антивирусная составляющая существует не первый год. ???