This requires functionality that VSE does not have; at least, it's not exposed in the UI. You should submit a PER.
If you want to pursue a custom solution, wherein you get a customized Access Protection rule file that has the flexibility to do what you're seeking, you could reach out to our Professional Services team via your Sales contact.
The rule in question is designed to block any program from executing code out of a folder that has TEMP in the name.
You could get it to work by excluding the browser process name - but then what would be the point of having the rule On.
Excluding the process you want to run doesn't/won't help; the exclusion needs to be for the process that's doing the launching - and in this case, it's your browser that's launching those files.
Well thats unfortunate.........As in a typical environment....most of our users are "Standard Users". They do not have the ability / permission to Disable Access rules temporarily. So in turn, I either have to not use Access rules, or give users: POWER USER or Admin rights? Hmmm....Not verry appealing....
So what you are saying is that I need to contact McAfee and possibly spend more money for a custom solution? That would be unfortunate....if the case...maybe it wont cost...I am just not familiar in doing so....Either way it seems from your comment that it is a common issue.
So I guess I am left contacting McAfee for more details or Disabling good functionality.
please allow me to give some advice, maybe it proves helpful: if you cannot use the AP rule allowing your particular processes and blocking others, you perhaps could then stop using that rule to block apps from running in the Temp folder and instead enable other AP rules that would block processes from doing u nwanted things in a later stage at other entry points: these rule include browser protection and autorun prevention, maybe device driver installation.
I consider these actions to be more characteristic signs of malware and theses rules enable differentiating between processes in terms of which to allow and which not.
Ultimately this rule is probably not acceptable for 99% of end user desktops. Sure, it stops a lot of bad things. But there are plenty of rules within Access Protection that are there for emergencies or suspected infections. I don't think it is reasonable to be able to turn them all on. I applaud you for the attempt, but this particular rule is probably one that isn't workable for the reasons you've outlined here.