Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Decopi" data-source="post: 976504" data-attributes="member: 67091">Hi [USER=76851]@WiseVector[/USER],Thank you very much for your test and answer.Great to know that the right syntax for folders and sub-folders is &quot;C:\*&quot;. If you allow me a suggestion (useful for WV users), it&#039;ll nice to add this example of &quot;C:\*&quot; inside the same tooltip/popup that shows the other examples (when the &quot;i&quot; icon is mouse-hovered inside the rules).Unfortunately I don&#039;t understand when you say &quot;WV rules has more elevated permissions&quot; VS &quot;If you create an exception for a program. the program will be allowed to access internet regardless of “A” rule&quot;&quot;.The reason of my whole previous post and test is focused exactly in this issue! First, let&#039;s be clear that I&#039;m talking about two different kind of &quot;exclusions&quot; at WV: 1) Exclusions by WV; and 2) Exclusions by WV customized rules. As you know better than me, WV can &quot;exclude&quot; (allowing programs to run), and WV can use rules with &quot;exceptions&quot; for programs. All the questions in my previous post were related to these two different WV functions (&quot;exceptions&quot; using rules VS &quot;exclusions&quot; using WV). Your test and your answer seem to be focused only in one function: &quot;exceptions&quot; using rules.In real world, I can allow an unsafe program to run, but I can block its network connections. The two functions are complementary, independent, not subordinated!Unfortunately, if WV detects a program as unsafe, the only way to run this program is by creating an &quot;exclusion&quot; in WV. However, if I do that, then I can&#039;t block network connections for this &quot;excluded&quot; program, because as explained, the &quot;exclusion&quot; in WV overwrites my particular blocking network rules (of this specific program). I did the test lot of times, and I confirm you, if a program is allowed to run as an &quot;exclusion&quot;, any particular network rule is ignored.The test you did is not showing that, simple because your test was not exactly my test, your test is not a conflict between &quot;exceptions&quot; by rules VS &quot;exclusions&quot; by WV.I repeat, I tested by allowing an unsafe program to run (as an &quot;exclusion&quot; inside WV). And at the same time I used a particular blocking network rule (for this program). And in my results, the &quot;exclusion&quot; allowed network connections (despite my particular blocking network rule). By &quot;particular&quot; I mean not &quot;global&quot;, a specific rule for specific program.To be honest, I found a workaround: a) I allowed an &quot;exclusion&quot; to run an unsafe program; and b) I created a GLOBAL rule blocking all network connections, but I added path exclusions inside this rule. This configuration allows an unsafe program to run as an &quot;exclusion&quot;, but with blocked network connections. However and as I said, I never was capable to allow to run an unsafe program, with a specific rule blocking its specific network connections.I&#039;m not saying you&#039;re wrong.I&#039;m saying that my test and questions are not what you kindly replied me.In fact, I&#039;m sure I&#039;m wrong, and perhaps I can solve my issue learning more WV rule syntax.But again, in my current test, I couldn&#039;t block a particular network connection for an unsafe &quot;excluded&quot; program. From my ignorance and in my test, at WV the &quot;exception&quot; function (rule) is subordinated to the &quot;exclusion&quot; function (when both functions should be independent and complementary).Another problem to report for your consideration, is the fact that at rules, the length space for &quot;Program path exclusions&quot; is ridiculous short. Currently, users can add very few path exclusions. As a suggestion, it&#039;ll be great if you expand this space. If any user has a global blocking network rule... then certainly will need lot of path exceptions.Thank you once again.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Decopi, post: 976504, member: 67091"] Hi [USER=76851]@WiseVector[/USER], Thank you very much for your test and answer. Great to know that the right syntax for folders and sub-folders is "C:\*". If you allow me a suggestion (useful for WV users), it'll nice to add this example of "C:\*" inside the same tooltip/popup that shows the other examples (when the "i" icon is mouse-hovered inside the rules). Unfortunately I don't understand when you say "WV rules has more elevated permissions" VS "If you create an exception for a program. the program will be allowed to access internet regardless of “A” rule"". The reason of my whole previous post and test is focused exactly in this issue! First, let's be clear that I'm talking about two different kind of "exclusions" at WV: 1) Exclusions by WV; and 2) Exclusions by WV customized rules. As you know better than me, WV can "exclude" (allowing programs to run), and WV can use rules with "exceptions" for programs. All the questions in my previous post were related to these two different WV functions ("exceptions" using rules VS "exclusions" using WV). Your test and your answer seem to be focused only in one function: "exceptions" using rules. In real world, I can allow an unsafe program to run, but I can block its network connections. The two functions are complementary, independent, not subordinated! Unfortunately, if WV detects a program as unsafe, the only way to run this program is by creating an "exclusion" in WV. However, if I do that, then I can't block network connections for this "excluded" program, because as explained, the "exclusion" in WV overwrites my particular blocking network rules (of this specific program). I did the test lot of times, and I confirm you, if a program is allowed to run as an "exclusion", any particular network rule is ignored. The test you did is not showing that, simple because your test was not exactly my test, your test is not a conflict between "exceptions" by rules VS "exclusions" by WV. I repeat, I tested by allowing an unsafe program to run (as an "exclusion" inside WV). And at the same time I used a particular blocking network rule (for this program). And in my results, the "exclusion" allowed network connections (despite my particular blocking network rule). By "particular" I mean not "global", a specific rule for specific program. To be honest, I found a workaround: a) I allowed an "exclusion" to run an unsafe program; and b) I created a GLOBAL rule blocking all network connections, but I added path exclusions inside this rule. This configuration allows an unsafe program to run as an "exclusion", but with blocked network connections. However and as I said, I never was capable to allow to run an unsafe program, with a specific rule blocking its specific network connections. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying that my test and questions are not what you kindly replied me. In fact, I'm sure I'm wrong, and perhaps I can solve my issue learning more WV rule syntax. But again, in my current test, I couldn't block a particular network connection for an unsafe "excluded" program. From my ignorance and in my test, at WV the "exception" function (rule) is subordinated to the "exclusion" function (when both functions should be independent and complementary). Another problem to report for your consideration, is the fact that at rules, the length space for "Program path exclusions" is ridiculous short. Currently, users can add very few path exclusions. As a suggestion, it'll be great if you expand this space. If any user has a global blocking network rule... then certainly will need lot of path exceptions. Thank you once again. [/QUOTE]

Verification