Unified Application Control

[glifford]

@Dch48 post:16

How is it hard to fathom? Some people don’t want any rule sets other than what may be needed to restrict unknown things until they either become known and trusted or are determined to be bad and get blocked. After either determination is made, any created rules can then be deleted. For known safe things, why bother?

I have been using v6 for a while now and I have no rules of any kind except the default ones. A little more tolerance for other views would be nice.

Do not confuse my critique of conduct or rationale (or lack thereof) as a critique of the view that CIS aught to remain (or become more) automated. Do not construe my offense at thoughtlessness or undue entitlement as offense at an end user experience that would satisfy you. You are doing so in err.

Maybe I shoulder some of the blame for not making a poll-option whereby you (and others) could declare, “this is not important to me,” but there is an ocean of difference between dislike and indifference. To vote the former without so much as an inkling as to why - to declare a dislike of the entirety of a person’s efforts without any indication as to the grounds - is unduly callous.

And yes, it is hard to fathom the idea that should someone be given a table with information, that they would not merely find it unimportant to be able to sort and search that information, but actually dislike having the ability to do so.

Suggesting that my aforementioned incredulity and offense are derivative of an intolerance for your views is snide and ridiculous, that is, unless the view to which you’re referring is not for a better user experience for both of us, but rather the adversarial view seeping through your comments that the user experience aught not to be improved for those of us who don’t use the program as you do.

@Dch48 post:15

There is no fantasy involved and there actually are no options I’d like to see removed. I don’t see a reason for any animosity and consider it unwarranted. I just don’t see any reason for the amount of program control that was presented.

The fantasy to which I refer is that which your comments beg, by analogy, of the car that maintains itself. That you 1) comment that you are content to let the program handle what the user is already empowered to tweak, 2) under the context that improvement to the experience would be unnecessary, suggests that 1) the user experience of fine tuning rules aught not to be improved, and 2) the ideal nature of a security suite, as one which can manage itself, renders improvement to fine tuning (even fine tuning itself) obsolescent.

But allow me to entertain the notion that you actually draw a blank as to even a single reason for my suggestions. Currently, should one want to make changes to the way CIS handles a single program across its multiple components, the user must jump across numerous windows. Here, I’ve suggested the convenience of being able to manage a single application in a single window. This, even the idea in itself, is something to dislike - something so unnecessary that it should not be available? Is there not any reason there? Shall I continue?

Lastly, I’d like to point your attention to the poll. I do believe I’ve made it possible to change one’s vote, and I’ve now added the ability to claim indifference as oppose to merely like and dislike. I trust, as in alignment with your attempts to temper what you’ve said, you’ll choose the option which better suits your genuine feelings toward the ideas presented in the original post.

[glifford]

@kitmub post:12

i like the idea especially the apply, sort, search and combining it into one

Thank you.

honestly i like round 3 and or 2 but not so sure about the treeview

I feel similarly about the tree view. I’m not ready to give up on it just yet though.

though i guess it looks hard for other user but if it is using the same theme as cis 6 it may resolve some of the overwhelming look to the user, by theme i mean using link like combobox instead of actual combobox and it seems the current cis 6 application rules and firewall rules seems easier for the majority

I am an ardent supporter of buttons that look like buttons, drop downs that look like drop downs, etc. I prefer linked text to only ever open a new window, as oppose to masquerading as a number of ui widget types.

and it seems the current cis 6 application rules and firewall rules seems easier for the majority

I think what I’m proposing is actually easier, but you are right that it doesn’t seem easier. There is still too much clutter. I think hiding the in-table buttons until the field is moused-over would help.

also thought if the textbox in basic was labels instead but it would be bad if the description is to long

I’ll experiment with removing the text box and making the description more like a label.

for the alert i do like how online armors arlerts look i do think the user need to see the if its in/out, protocols and from where and to where for firewalls at least

None of these windows are alerts, to be clear. Are you talking about the alert in my old CIS Charrette thread?

[Dch48]

You are correct that if the option in the poll that now exists was there when I voted ( I was the second vote for dislike btw, not the first who gave no reasons) I would have chosen that. I would change my vote now but I don’t see the option to anywhere.

As far as the self maintaining car, I never said or meant that. I just want something that only controls possible threats and lets the safe stuff do whatever it needs to in order to function correctly without me having to allow it to. Only warn of possible problems like the gauges and/or warning lights in your car do.

[glifford]

@Dch48 post:19

You are correct that if the option in the poll that now exists was there when I voted ( I was the second vote for dislike btw, not the first who gave no reasons) I would have chosen that. I would change my vote now but I don’t see the option to anywhere.

It’s alright then.

As far as the self maintaining car, I never said or meant that. I just want something that only controls possible threats and lets the safe stuff do whatever it needs to in order to function correctly without me having to allow it to. Only warn of possible problems like the gauges and/or warning lights in your car do.

For emphasis, none of what I propose requires that you intervene where previously you had not. To stretch the analogy, I’m trying to give those who’d prefer to be the mechanic, a jack instead of a stump of wood.

And I still take issue with what has to be exaggeration on your part: your self-admitted complete lack of a clue as to what reason there might be for any of these improvements in concept or the proposed implementation. Your implicit insistence, on these grounds, that they ideas be forgone is grating.

[gvvsss]

I really appreciate your great work in designing all beautiful/elegant and yet powerful UI design to “control” application behaviour control, which is already present in CIS but in a chaotic/“not easily approachable” manner.

I hope that the Devs of CIS consider this seriously and soon implement this in future versions of CIS.

Thanks for your work.

[kitmub]

@glifford post:18

Thank you.

I feel similarly about the tree view. I’m not ready to give up on it just yet though.

I am an ardent supporter of buttons that look like buttons, drop downs that look like drop downs, etc. I prefer linked text to only ever open a new window, as oppose to masquerading as a number of ui widget types.

I think what I’m proposing is actually easier, but you are right that it doesn’t seem easier. There is still too much clutter. I think hiding the in-table buttons until the field is moused-over would help.

I’ll experiment with removing the text box and making the description more like a label.

None of these windows are alerts, to be clear. Are you talking about the alert in my old CIS Charrette thread?

actually the tables and dropdown/combobox is okay for me but thinking for ordinary users they may get overwhelmed of what it looks thats the reason i voted “i like most” if i didnt considered it i would have gone for “i like all”

for the alerts i was just commenting it for this post though i did read the charrette but my mind got confused and shutdowns or lazy to process it ;D

@glifford post:4

That is correct. It’s combining the Application System Activity Control window, it’s child windows for exclusions and “customize policy,” and the Application Network Access Control window. It’s adding some functionality on top of that and making the usability more consistent.

[Jesant13]

I don’t know how much I would use this if it were implemented but I wouldn’t mind at all having it in CIS.

[Mohan]

Not to flame or anything.

Glad to see Dch48 appreciates the concept of Parallel UI’s.

@Dch48 post:41

Probably the ground to take here would be keep Basic UI as current default shown and checking an Advanced Setting toggle’s to show users all the Advanced tab’s, options, toggles, features.

Although Glifford’s a wee bit circumspect about the toggle it does seem to be an option to hide features and keep the Default UI to Basic.

Does make the Dev’s task 2X harder though.

Cheers

[glifford]

@Mohan post:24

Probably the ground to take here would be keep Basic UI as current default shown and checking an Advanced Setting toggle’s to show users all the Advanced tab’s, options, toggles, features.

Although Glifford’s a wee bit circumspect about the toggle it does seem to be an option to hide features and keep the Default UI to Basic.

My indictment of the advanced toggle is this: It’s a nondescript and arbitrary abstraction of the contents and function therein, and so is an obstacle more than a convenience.

“Novice” and “Expert” functionality aught to blend, and if a UI is well designed, expert features aught to be presented simply and directly enough to be approachable by a novice user. My designs, in that regard, have a bit of a ways to go. That considered…

I feel we’ve been somewhat ruined by the fact that the CIS UI has been relentlessly feature-incomplete in its employment of standard widgets. The rules table in this mock up is by no means inert, and the various fields can be hidden or shown via the appropriate context menu. By merely enabling only the Description field, the user is presented with the equivalent of the current UI’s rules list.

However, I consider a table far more accessible than a list here, both in approachability and usability. We’re used to the list, which makes it familiar, but it is unwieldy and it’s really not so easy on the eyes. Assuming those little buttons in the table only show on hover, I really think the table is far more appropriate to both novice and expert users.

EDIT: Just updated the original post with some images that I think demonstrate some of the superiority of the table.

[Mrarnold]

Very nice work glifford.
More colour would be nice though but never the less i like it. :-TU

[Dch48]

I’m much more in favor of a default Basic UI like the current one with a toggle to switch to a more advanced one. I do not think they should be combined. That would scare off too many people trying CIS for the first time.

[glifford]

@Dch48 post:27

I’m much more in favor of a default Basic UI like the current one with a toggle to switch to a more advanced one. I do not think they should be combined. That would scare off too many people trying CIS for the first time.

I’ve attached the window that my design seeks to replace… is this what you’re referring to as the “basic” “current” UI?

[attachment deleted by admin]

[glifford]

Update:

Added File Rating information and reformatted the screen to hopefully be more friendly than the previous iteration. For reference, the previous iteration is attached.

[attachment deleted by admin]

[glifford]

Update…

Made a number of miscellaneous tweaks to the summary and network control tabs to hopefully clean them up and make them less overwhelming.

[Trespasser]

Hello glifford,
Do you happen to have your creation in an application form? If so, I’d certainly like to try it. I especially like the individual application control you initially introduced in Charrette which is sorely lacking in CIS at present.

Thanks. :).

Bob

[Citizen_K]

Stickied…

[smaudet]

I like the concept, however:

Whatever toolkit you’re using atm, can we switch to one that doesn’t hang as much? That’s my primary gripe with the current UI (I like the L&F though). It almost feels like someone wrote it in WPF and I’m waiting for a JS callback to come through…

Could we get the configuration import/exportable as yml/json? That’d be amazing for two reasons:

• wide support, easy plug-ability into web frameworks, easier to tweak by hand and share.
• Support for application bundles - a lot of programs these days aren’t one or even just two executables, there may be four or five runtimes, and a wide library of functions.

[Sagenth]

Glifford I love you bro. Keep up the good work, the more that features and unification gets pushed the better comodo seems to get.

[Sicknero]

This looks fantastic, I’d certainly welcome it.

[nmalinoski]

Hi, new to the party here.

@glifford post:6

Update Round 4: I’ve restored the slide-out buttons available in version 6, but added a way to keep it always-on.

I don’t appreciate Comodo’s slide-out buttons. Honestly, I think they’re too subtle when collapsed and that they should be expanded by default or permanently attached to the UI.

@glifford post:18

None of these windows are alerts, to be clear.

They may not be alerts themselves, but I would greatly appreciate being able to access these dialogs directly from the alerts so if I’m going to have CIS commit a new rule, I can modify it before it gets saved.