Started by HJLBX, April 11, 2016, 01:56:50 AM
Quote from: fixer on May 24, 2017, 04:59:54 PMOzone, don't worry, we've got this issue in our TODO list to fix it. But it'll be in the next release, not 2.2.0.
Quote from: fixer on May 24, 2017, 08:33:51 PMUmbra, we'll add something like active/inactive rule, we've got it in our TODO list.
Quote from: Ozone on May 25, 2017, 08:51:35 PMafter some testing it seems that HIPSAgent64.exe cpu usage is related to IE – isolation border and renamed windowin previous version I didn't have this problem
Quote from: shmu26 on June 06, 2017, 10:15:32 PMQuote from: Ozone on May 25, 2017, 08:51:35 PMafter some testing it seems that HIPSAgent64.exe cpu usage is related to IE – isolation border and renamed windowin previous version I didn't have this problemI am on the 2.2.0 public release, and for the first couple minutes after startup, I see CPU usage of about 30% for HIPSAgent64.exe. This causes a very significant delay in the launching of isolated apps, until the CPU finally goes down.It doesn't seem to matter whether or not I enable isolation border and renamed window.Windows 10 x64 CUWindows DefenderNVT ERP
Quote from: fixer on June 06, 2017, 10:11:14 PMOK, we'll add SHA512 marker.Open file location button is already planned. Timestamp... hmmm, what's the use-case for this feature?Initial rulespack is already completely editable, I'll announce RulesManager separately in a couple of days I think. It's really powerful, but not so nice and pretty and not so stable, that's why we haven't included it in a default build.Google safe browsing - you mean that red window popping-up and scaring users that this site serves malware?Ogh, it's a funny story actually. Well, "funny" also depends on your point of view. Anyway at first they didn't like ReHIPS setup. Have no idea why actually, it's served through https, certificate is OK, it's signed with a valid signature, no protectors, packers, whatsoever, no AV detections, compiler and installer are also standard and wide-spread. I decided it's not good and tried to fix it via google webmaster tools. Now the whole forum and site are banned as their crawler found links to the setup. I'm afraid to fix it further, maybe they'll ban the whole server In other words we're working on it, but google is google. I never had any hard feelings towards it. But when you face this and don't have many options what to do and there is no adequate support, it's hard to remain unbiased.
Quote from: Ozone on June 09, 2017, 03:29:02 PMI should be more specific, I mean timestamps for file hashes (when hash was added), so it will be possible to figure out when file was modified because if "Ignore File Modification" is checked there is no warning.
Quote from: Ozone on June 15, 2017, 03:39:00 PMI was trying https://www.airlockdigital.com/application-whitelisting-auditor/ and after "hundreds" popups ReHIPS GUI crashedadditional infoI have only allowed program to launch, later (other) permissions were blockedafter crash I have run GUI again (ApplicationWhitelistAuditor.exe was still running) and after "hundreds" popups ReHIPS GUI again crashedI was in shadow mode so no log