The list cannot always be sorted as the order of entries is very important. If you use program groups for global or group rules then these may need to be above some applications and below others. The rules are applied going down and the first rule that is not “ask” is applied.
It does need a better find. You can do ^F to find but you need to know where a program is as you have to type in the whole path.
I haven’t notified, that the order of the application is important.
Normally you have just one entry per application, so the order doesn’t interest.
So it would be possible to sort them for example in order of Path Name\application name
or only Application name.
Another opportinity would be to put the File groups at the top, and everything listed as Application should be sorted by PathName.…
I have ordered manually and there has never been a problem.
If you set up rules for groups of applications then it is important. You then get two rules for application, the group rule and individual rules for anything not defined in the group rule. For instance, I have a group rule for applications like browsers, email, media players that use content off the internet to block certain dangerous activities without any pop-up. This must stay above all the individual rules for these programs or the blocked things would be allowed.
tcarrbrion , i got your point (& thanks for the info).
I don’t use any group rules for sensitive internet-facing applications as i use sandboxie for this (all my internet facing apps have a separate strictly configured sandbox). But i am very interested for a how-to for global/group rules deployment.
But something must be done for providing an easy way to find a particular application in the computer security policy. Maybe the application name with sort-by-name should be in a new ‘search’ window or something
The ‘find’ is quite primitive, why not just make the ‘find’ a filter instead and allow the user to start typing letters and the list box is filtered each time for matching entries. This keeps the list in the same order, just hides non-matching entries. The re-arrangement of items while list is has a filter applied can be disabled. Give the filter box a X close button to remove it.
cra1’s suggestion looks adequate to me, esp. because it might avoid adding much bloat to CIS that a fully capable search function may add. This interface could be a synthesized list for HMI use for searching, a view window that would not be capable of rearranging the order of CIS’ accessing the policies. I recommend a secondary viewing window for using the Find function, separate from the existing, draggable ordered policies, but that would, when the target was “Find”-ed and selected, have a button to return to the matching target item in the presently existing, ordered window, so that a mistake could be corrected by the user. +1 from this quarter.
Also, why is there no Poll in this thread? It looks like it is ready for voting.