Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Decopi" data-source="post: 1049187" data-attributes="member: 67091">I started to retest ZAESNG:Version number:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 4.2.121.19549Anti-Ransomware:&nbsp; &nbsp; 4.2.77.19549Antivirus version:&nbsp; &nbsp; 3.85Signature version:&nbsp; &nbsp; 202307121001Engine version:&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; 86.72.12Firewall version:&nbsp; &nbsp; 8.68.72.3Anti-Bot version:&nbsp; &nbsp; 8.68.72.14Definitely the App Control is a step forward.However, the default seems to be &quot;allow all&quot;, and the user needs to deny manually. I don&#039;t like it. But ZA can easily improve that, if they add a simple general &quot;allow all&quot;, &quot;deny all&quot; and &quot;automatic&quot;. Also it&#039;ll be nice if ZA adds another option, allowing the user (manually) to choose in advance which apps are going to be allowed/blocked.The Firewall control improvement, also is positive.However, IMHO, it&#039;s wrong to mix App Control with Firewall. Mainly because firewall functions are not restricted to apps!IMHO, Firewall control should be separated (allowing not only to control apps, but also to control any other connection).And again, the App Control default seems to be &quot;allow all&quot;, therefore the Firewall default seems to be &quot;allow all&quot; too... and that&#039;s bad!I don&#039;t think ZA designed a bad App + Firewall Control because they want to keep the minimalist layout. I remember that WiseVector had separated controls for Apps and Firewall, and both worked like a charm. And WiseVector was minimalist. So, I think ZA still needs to improve both, App Control and Firewall. The current App Control is not adding security layers. And the current Firewall Control, the same. I don&#039;t think both controls need lot of improvements, but I do believe both need to be separated, and both need small improvements.Changing subject, the RAM consumption dropped a lot, around -35% compared to two months ago version.But the Beta version is a little unstable, and has small bugs.This weekend I&#039;ll try to test some malwares against this new ZA version.But at first glance, I like to see that ZA is working, I recognize progress, new features, and I hope ZA will keep adding new improvements.PS: I sent them a message sharing with them my impressions.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Decopi, post: 1049187, member: 67091"] I started to retest ZAESNG: Version number: 4.2.121.19549 Anti-Ransomware: 4.2.77.19549 Antivirus version: 3.85 Signature version: 202307121001 Engine version: 86.72.12 Firewall version: 8.68.72.3 Anti-Bot version: 8.68.72.14 Definitely the App Control is a step forward. However, the default seems to be "allow all", and the user needs to deny manually. I don't like it. But ZA can easily improve that, if they add a simple general "allow all", "deny all" and "automatic". Also it'll be nice if ZA adds another option, allowing the user (manually) to choose in advance which apps are going to be allowed/blocked. The Firewall control improvement, also is positive. However, IMHO, it's wrong to mix App Control with Firewall. Mainly because firewall functions are not restricted to apps! IMHO, Firewall control should be separated (allowing not only to control apps, but also to control any other connection). And again, the App Control default seems to be "allow all", therefore the Firewall default seems to be "allow all" too... and that's bad! I don't think ZA designed a bad App + Firewall Control because they want to keep the minimalist layout. I remember that WiseVector had separated controls for Apps and Firewall, and both worked like a charm. And WiseVector was minimalist. So, I think ZA still needs to improve both, App Control and Firewall. The current App Control is not adding security layers. And the current Firewall Control, the same. I don't think both controls need lot of improvements, but I do believe both need to be separated, and both need small improvements. Changing subject, the RAM consumption dropped a lot, around -35% compared to two months ago version. But the Beta version is a little unstable, and has small bugs. This weekend I'll try to test some malwares against this new ZA version. But at first glance, I like to see that ZA is working, I recognize progress, new features, and I hope ZA will keep adding new improvements. PS: I sent them a message sharing with them my impressions. [/QUOTE]

Verification