Ghost Security Suite [Beta] V1.2?

[smith2006]

Are we almost there? Any update?

[farmerlee]

I hope so, its been pretty quiet here in the ghost forums, hopefully that means they are hard at work on the next release :P

[smith2006]

-{ Quote: "I hope so, its been pretty quiet here in the ghost forums, hopefully that means they are hard at work on the next release :P" }-

Thanks for the reply.

This forum has been quiet, not much happening.

It is a ghost town. ;D

[farmerlee]

-{ Quote: "Thanks for the reply.

This forum has been quiet, not much happening.

It is a ghost town. ;D" }-
Yes it truely is a ghost forum :)
I have regdefend, i'm awaiting the official release of appdefend before i consider purchasing it or not. Hopefully thats not too far away.

[starfish_001]

I bought both but have recently changed to SSM now.

Very little news about GSS for a long time now

[[suave]]

-{ Quote: "I bought both but have recently changed to SSM now.

Very little news about GSS for a long time now" }-

Me too. Changed to SSM because it seems to be under active development.

Haven't seen any updates to GSS in a long time and the forum is rather dormant these days. :(

I still love AppDefend, and hope Jason is whipping up something special :)

[smith2006]

Perhaps Jason or someone involves in the Alpha Testing can give us some ideas?

[Optimist]

-{ Quote: "Thanks for the reply.

This forum has been quiet, not much happening.

It is a ghost town. ;D" }-


Only one few years patience! ;D

[Optimist]

-{ Quote: "I hope so, its been pretty quiet here in the ghost forums, hopefully that means they are hard at work on the next release :P" }-

I think you are the "Optimist" here! ;)

[farmerlee]

Yeah i try to stay optimistic. I'm not going to bad mouth the product just because development speed is not to my likeing. GSS does a great job and if a release is to be made then i'd like it to also do a great job with none of the bugs i see in a lot of rapidly released products.

[Optimist]

-{ Quote: "Yeah i try to stay optimistic. I'm not going to bad mouth the product just because development speed is not to my likeing. GSS does a great job and if a release is to be made then i'd like it to also do a great job with none of the bugs i see in a lot of rapidly released products." }-

I have bought the beta version. I am disappointed with the long development time for the ready version. Something like that is not serious! :thumbd:

[starfish_001]

I prefer GSS to SSM but without any real roadmap and no release for a long time SSM seems a whole lot better - updates a an almost too frequent basis

Although Pro security has promise

[farmerlee]

-{ Quote: "I have bought the beta version. I am disappointed with the long development time for the ready version. Something like that is not serious! :thumbd:" }-
Yeah i almost bought it when i got regdefend but i noticed it was still beta so i refrained from purchasing it until i can see the final release.

[farmerlee]

-{ Quote: "I prefer GSS to SSM but without any real roadmap and no release for a long time SSM seems a whole lot better - updates a an almost too frequent basis

Although Pro security has promise" }-
Yes prosecurity is definitely showing good promise, i'm trialling it at the moment while i wait and see whats happening with ghost security and its future plans.

[xwray]

...as dead as the forums appear to be? Is there any hope for a new release and continued development or has the proverbial wad been shot?

[farmerlee]

I'm not too sure, i believe ghost security is a one man gang so it will probably take him a little longer than normal to release updates.

[tlu]

-{ Quote: "I'm not too sure, i believe ghost security is a one man gang so it will probably take him a little longer than normal to release updates." }- Nevertheless it would be important if Jason appeared in the forum at least every now and then. I'm still using his applications but I'm afraid that more and more users might interpret his not showing up here as a disrespect against his customers and switch to a competitive product...

[smith2006]

-{ Quote: "Nevertheless it would be important if Jason appeared in the forum at least every now and then. I'm still using his applications but I'm afraid that more and more users might interpret his not showing up here as a disrespect against his customers and switch to a competitive product..." }-

I totally agree with you.

He may be working real hard for the new release but to the extend of neglecting his customers?

I am speechless.:'(

[mplant99]

The main site ( Ghost Security (http://www.ghostsecurity.com/)) has been updated in the last three weeks or so. If you visit it, you'll see that it has been extensively overhauled (much easier on the eyes!), so while there is no evident activity on the forums or in the form of updates, there is still activity! Hopefully this means that an announcement of some form or another is in the offing (AppDefend being released from Beta?).

[turion]

If you are talking about the new layout it was changed 2-3 months ago and there's no update on the site. Anyway i'm sure Jason is busy working, just need some patience with him as he's the only dev :)

[mplant99]

You're kidding?! Time flies - I swear I've visited it in the last month and was presented with the old layout/colour scheme, but then I do swear a lot :dry:

[farmerlee]

The page looks the same to me as it did a few months ago, the changes must have been very minor.

[Chubb]

-{ Quote: "You're kidding?! Time flies - I swear I've visited it in the last month and was presented with the old layout/colour scheme, but then I do swear a lot :dry:" }-

The new web site has been there since 14 Aug 2006!!!

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=143108

[gottadoit]

I know that Jason has been working on the program since the last public release so things are still happening

Like everybody else I don't really understand why he doesn't drop by and say a few words from time to time (even if he didn't want to publish details of the changes or new features etc)

[tony62]

One of the main reasons i visit Wilderssecurity is to check on Ghost Security Suite progress:ouch:

[gottadoit]

tony62,
There is a thread you can subscribe to so that you don't have to poll the forum

You could add the ghost forums to your RSS reader, that is what I do
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/external.php?type=rss2&forumids=14,72,76,78

[Optimist]

-{ Quote: "I'm not too sure, i believe ghost security is a one man gang so it will probably take him a little longer than normal to release updates." }-

It is not good feeling if the safety of the computer depends on only one single person. :(

[tony62]

-{ Quote: "tony62,
There is a thread you can subscribe to so that you don't have to poll the forum

You could add the ghost forums to your RSS reader, that is what I do
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/external.php?type=rss2&forumids=14,72,76,78" }-
Thanks gottadoit, though it is still an good excuse for me to have a look at wilderssecurity anyway;)

[gottadoit]

-{ Quote: "It is not good feeling if the safety of the computer depends on only one single person. :(" }-Optimist,
When dealing with small businesses (starting out and even some established ones) it is often the case that a lot (if not all) of the coding is done by one person. In terms of safety you need to evaluate that yourself of course but there is a simple way to minimise any perceived risk. When you evaluate or decide to purchase and use a program on offer make your decision based on its current state and not any future promises.

Jason has taken much longer that his usual time to deliver an update to the AppDefend beta, but looking at the current Beta on its technical merits it is still fairly good. There have been a few minor issues and some new kill techniques have been published that it doesn't block at the moment, but it is still a work in progress and still holds promise.

The competition have of course continued with their products but having more choice is healthy for both the consumers (us) and the software developers. I certainly haven't given up on seeing this product progress and mature, its just taking longer than I expected

[Optimist]

Hello Gottadoit,
thanks for your statement. :)
Optimist

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "It is not good feeling if the safety of the computer depends on only one single person. :(" }-

Sure thing, large companies like Microsoft with thousands of programmers and software engineers are a much "Safer" thing, when it comes to security... eh?

Well maybe not. Just think about how easy it would be for so many people to insert private code to do something unethical when so many hands are working on millions of lines of code... At least with small outfits you know who to blame when things go wrong...

Just a thought!

[Optimist]

-{ Quote: "Sure thing, large companies like Microsoft with thousands of programmers and software engineers are a much "Safer" think when it comes to security... eh?

Well maybe not. Just think about how easy it would be for so many people to insert private code to do something unethical when so many hands are working on millions of lines of code... At least with small outfits you know who to blame when things go wrong...

Just a thought!" }-

Obviously you have misunderstood me. It is well due to my bad English. I do not doubt the integrity of Jason! But the development of a security software can suffer, that the only developer is prevented (illness etc. under this.)

[daveiw]

Sorry to jump onto this thread, but what is SSM please? I have no idea and was wondering...

Thanks in advance.

[[suave]]

-{ Quote: "Sorry to jump onto this thread, but what is SSM please? I have no idea and was wondering...

Thanks in advance." }-

SSM = System Safety Monitor (http://syssafety.com)

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "Obviously you have misunderstood me. It is well due to my bad English. I do not doubt the integrity of Jason! But the development of a security software can suffer, that the only developer is prevented (illness etc. under this.)" }-

Well, yes. But you could also have a large outfit just as easily prematurely releasing meaningless updates just to keep people happy. I think it happens enough in the industry as it is. The fact is that even though this tool is still in beta it does a pretty decent job.

I think we should be more upset with Microsoft who develops O.S's without this sort of user process controls built in. (the main reasons why we as consumers are having to cope with viruses and poor security). I still have to see a good valid excuse why this Host based filtering has never been available to us from within an operating system. It makes me think that this is a rather convenient ommision considering how obvious a preventative measure it is...

[[suave]]

-{ Quote: "I think we should be more upset with Microsoft who develops O.S's without this sort of user process controls built in. (the main reasons why we as consumers are having to cope with viruses and poor security). I still have to see a good valid excuse why this Host based filtering has never been available to us from within an operating system. It makes me think that this is a rather convenient ommision considering how obvious a preventative measure it is..." }-
It's probably because MS designed the OS with the average user in mind. Most people wouldn't want to be bothered with this kind of protection and would just think Windows is stupid if things popup all the time asking for permission.

Let's face it, the average users vastly out number security freaks like us :)

So MS would rather satisfy the majority of users in order to make the money ::)

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "']It's probably because MS designed the OS with the average user in mind. Most people wouldn't want to be bothered with this kind of protection and would just think Windows is stupid if things popup all the time asking for permission.

Let's face it, the average users vastly out number security freaks like us :)

So MS would rather satisfy the majority of users in order to make the money ::)" }-

I agree fully but the issue is that we are not even offered the choice. The idea is that like other software they integrate into the OS. It could just as easily be a feature one must opt in to use. It would at least offer power users the ability to tighten up security up to a more acceptable standard and I bet a dollar to a donut we would have seen a hell of a lot less security related problems over the years...

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "']Let's face it, the average users vastly out number security freaks like us :)

So MS would rather satisfy the majority of users in order to make the money ::)" }-

Think if the average user actually knew how rather easily they could have prevented perhaps 60% of virus or spyware infection by simply having a simplified user interface to control Processes and registry activity that works and effectively provides the user with some decisions over which program is allowed to run and use the network. I think the customer base would actually feel more satisfied about MS products as a result. This even though they may not actually know how to use it. They would feel the Onus is on them to learn and master the technology just like they did DOS and the multiple iterations of windows...

In the end MS would actually make more money just because of the increased confidence in the user base... Perhaps not but it's a thought!:blink: :lurking:

[[suave]]

Don't get me wrong, I would be very proud if MS would give us a built in HIPS for Windows. And I agree, without the HIPS it is like they are selling us a car with a flat tire... it's just not complete without it.

But at the same time, adding the HIPS would only satisfy a small amount of users and just totally confuse the average ones. And for the amount of extra work they would have to do just to satisfy us security freaks... well, maybe MS just wants to take the easy way out.

I do agree that there are many average users out there who would pay attention to this type of security if they actually knew about it and what it would do for them. But MS doesn't think so... so no matter what we say, it wont change anything.

It would be cool if it were an optional security feature like Windows Firewall, like you mentioned. But at the same time, it would be a feature that only advanced users would use and probably cause problems for the average users if they enabled it by mistake. And MS knows that.

Look at Vista, I never used it yet but I saw a news report a few nights ago talking about how MS designed it for people who never used PCs before. Everything is so easy... blah blah blah... Forget about average users, they are targeting the absolute beginners. They're clearly not heading in the direction of pleasing us. ;)

[Hermescomputers]

Cant wait for the next iteration of GSS...::)

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "']
Look at Vista, I never used it yet but I saw a news report a few nights ago talking about how MS designed it for people who never used PCs before. Everything is so easy... blah blah blah... Forget about average users, they are targeting the absolute beginners. They're clearly not heading in the direction of pleasing us. ;)" }-

Well I would tend to agree with you after all the effort they spend trying to train already highly skilled tech support staff to take care of us users!!!

[[suave]]

-{ Quote: "Cant wait for the next iteration of GSS...::)" }-
You and me both! ;D :thumb:

Edit: LOL @ the pic :P

[berng]

-{ Quote: "Cant wait for the next iteration of GSS...::)" }-

I'm in the 50's so I may not live long enough.

[Optimist]

-{ Quote: "I'm in the 50's so I may not live long enough." }-

Yes, this could get scarce!
But I wish you a good health and a long life! ;D

Edit: I am already 56 years old. ohhh ohhhh!

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "I'm in the 50's so I may not live long enough." }-
-{ Quote: "Yes, this could get scarce!
But I wish you a good health and a long life! ;D

Edit: I am already 56 years old. ohhh ohhhh!" }-

Do like me, write your investment off...............i don't think it will released and with this mindset i can move one to other things instead of blaming myself constantly for having been stupid enough to buy something actually not released almost a year ago!........................and in the unlikely event that it will be released sometime in 2007, then it will be like getting something i never expected. ;) ;D

[berng]

-{ Quote: "Do like me, write your investment off...............i don't think it will released and with this mindset i can move one to other things instead of blaming myself constantly for having been stupid enough to buy something actually not released almost a year ago!........................and in the unlikely event that it will be released sometime in 2007, then it will be like getting something i never expected. ;) ;D" }-

Sadly I have. Too many promises, too much time.

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "I'm in the 50's so I may not live long enough." }-

You might never see GSS in a fully completed state but at least you will never run out of Geritol...;D

[Long View]

Having tried out GSS for a few days now I thought I'd see what everyone was saying. I can understand people wanting a finished product or even the next beta but so far I have been quite impressed - which is not something I could say about ssm ( hardly user friendly - far too much potential for allowing user error)

[farmerlee]

-{ Quote: "Having tried out GSS for a few days now I thought I'd see what everyone was saying. I can understand people wanting a finished product or even the next beta but so far I have been quite impressed - which is not something I could say about ssm ( hardly user friendly - far too much potential for allowing user error)" }-
I find ghostsecurity suite to be the most stable hips type program on my system. Its never caused me any problems and is super light on the resources. I was contemplating getting either system safety monitor or prosecurity but seeing as they both cause me problems i'm sticking with ghost security suite.

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "I find ghostsecurity suite to be the most stable hips type program on my system. Its never caused me any problems and is super light on the resources. I was contemplating getting either system safety monitor or prosecurity but seeing as they both cause me problems i'm sticking with ghost security suite." }-

Administration simplicity does carry a lot of weight in providing a complex security perimeter. I would love to see GSS completed. I would be willing to pay decent $$$ for a tool could provide me real control over security and that also has longevity built into it. Unfortunately Microsoft is trying hard to kill such applications while refusing to integrate the functionality built into the OS. (See patch KB914784) that killed GSS in X64. Besides this is something that should be built in any O.S. sold to consumers. Imagine buying a house without doors or locks? Yet we let them sell us computers containing sensitive info without "US" having full control over how things are secured... crazy!

[SystemJunkie]

-{ Quote: "I have bought the beta version. I am disappointed with the long development time for the ready version. Something like that is not serious!
" }-

Hm, I understand this disappointment, the beta is not fully reliable and then paying money is double frustrating.

Ghost Security can also be leaked by malware, the problem doubles or tripples if you use more other security apps with more hooks, in the end system speed slows down and you lose overview.

SSM is a precise things but costs a lot configuration time.

[xwray]

There is absolutely no reason why Jason can't take 5 minutes to tell us he is still alive and actively working on GSS along with a ballpark schedule of his future intentions regarding GSS. If he does not have the time to do at least that much I can only conclude that he has taken up other pursuits and is no longer supporting the product but is keeping quiet lest nobody else would purchase it in it's current state.

That is not too much to ask.

[farmerlee]

-{ Quote: "Administration simplicity does carry a lot of weight in providing a complex security perimeter. I would love to see GSS completed. I would be willing to pay decent $$$ for a tool could provide me real control over security and that also has longevity built into it. Unfortunately Microsoft is trying hard to kill such applications while refusing to integrate the functionality built into the OS. (See patch KB914784) that killed GSS in X64. Besides this is something that should be built in any O.S. sold to consumers. Imagine buying a house without doors or locks? Yet we let them sell us computers containing sensitive info without "US" having full control over how things are secured... crazy!" }-
I agree, windows should have a lot more control built into it. The only problem is more control usually makes things more complicated.

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "I agree, windows should have a lot more control built into it. The only problem is more control usually makes things more complicated." }-

More complicated than having your identity stolen or perhaps on a lesser note having to re-load your O.S. several times a year because one gets hit by "Preventable" viruses and spyware. Tally in the actual costs of such + or - the time it takes and the aggravations it causes and you suddenly have a darn good reason to accept some complexity...

Besides computers where never intended for the lowest denominator... mind its actual use and the fact most businesses have system administrators. Home users complexity impacts becomes actually relatively irrelevant in the greater equation.:dry:

As an example maybe I should mention that my clients are always moaning because they have to pay me to clean up infections and fix the "Non Existing" security built into their O.S's They are always asking how come? I simply point the finger @ the culprit... It is not complexity but the fact "they" don't want secured O.S's in the hands of the general public... Or should I say an OS "We" can secure even against them...

The proof might be found when looking at the 2 year prison sentences offered those who refuse to provide the authorities the keys to personal data that is encrypted for example...

They are blindly scared of anything they dont have a back door to. It's as simple as that!

[berng]

-{ Quote: "There is absolutely no reason why Jason can't take 5 minutes to tell us he is still alive and actively working on GSS along with a ballpark schedule of his future intentions regarding GSS. If he does not have the time to do at least that much I can only conclude that he has taken up other pursuits and is no longer supporting the product but is keeping quiet lest nobody else would purchase it in it's current state.

That is not too much to ask." }-

We've go through this every three months, for over a year. Jason disappears, we post and wonder why, Jason shows up for a few days and then again .....

We asked him over and over in these forums posts to let us know every couple of weeks. How long can that take? 5 minutes. But he doesn't.

What saves him is that Wilders being a easy going group continues his forums even though Jason shows such an absolute lack of interest.

Too bad. An excellent product and a good forum being ignored.

[[suave]]

-{ Quote: "We've go through this every three months, for over a year. Jason disappears, we post and wonder why, Jason shows up for a few days and then again .....

We asked him over and over in these forums posts to let us know every couple of weeks. How long can that take? 5 minutes. But he doesn't.

What saves him is that Wilders being a easy going group continues his forums even though Jason shows such an absolute lack of interest.

Too bad. An excellent product and a good forum being ignored." }-
I agree. I love AppDefend, and I think it has great potential.

But what am I supposed to do when the developer ignores the forum, and doesn't seem to be working on the program anymore?

I was forced to look elsewhere and now use SSM. I'd probably go back to appdefend if Jason becomes active again. But I can't wait forever.

It's too bad, because like I said, AppDefend has great potential and it a shame to see it being ignored. Jason is a good developer too, and I trust his software. I'd really like to hear from him and get some updates... but I just can't wait forever. :(

[farmerlee]

-{ Quote: "More complicated than having your identity stolen or perhaps on a lesser note having to re-load your O.S. several times a year because one gets hit by "Preventable" viruses and spyware. Tally in the actual costs of such + or - the time it takes and the aggravations it causes and you suddenly have a darn good reason to accept some complexity...

Besides computers where never intended for the lowest denominator... mind its actual use and the fact most businesses have system administrators. Home users complexity impacts becomes actually relatively irrelevant in the greater equation.:dry:

As an example maybe I should mention that my clients are always moaning because they have to pay me to clean up infections and fix the "Non Existing" security built into their O.S's They are always asking how come? I simply point the finger @ the culprit... It is not complexity but the fact "they" don't want secured O.S's in the hands of the general public... Or should I say an OS "We" can secure even against them...

The proof might be found when looking at the 2 year prison sentences offered those who refuse to provide the authorities the keys to personal data that is encrypted for example...

They are blindly scared of anything they dont have a back door to. It's as simple as that!" }-
Well i am speaking from a regular users point of view. Most people i know have enough trouble using windows as it is. I don't know how it would all work but we definitely need more built in security in windows but without making it unusable for the average user. Behaviour based hips apps would probably be the best option once they mature a bit.

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "Well i am speaking from a regular users point of view. Most people i know have enough trouble using windows as it is. I don't know how it would all work but we definitely need more built in security in windows but without making it unusable for the average user. Behaviour based hips apps would probably be the best option once they mature a bit." }-

Yes. I am a big fan of open choice. Like having an opt in "Advanced Security" panel which one can use to customize individual process/Service behaviors and access together with an "Idiot Proof" or "lazy Butt" version which would provide (probably mostly useless) automated protection. I say useless because unless 100% of processes are listed in a database and rated prior to inclusion you cant successfully automate a working security. Behavior based scopes don't really work and there are too many software from independent sources out there to control effectively unless the system is locked... Simply put "We" need full control over our desktop and server O.S's...

[docfleetwood]

So, as the old adage goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

It would seem that Jason has followed in the footsteps of his previous employer, DCS, in terms of promises being unfulfilled. Who knows, perhaps it was all a DCS ploy to spawn an offshoot so people would buy a new product. Either way it has followed the same pattern:

"Trust us, we are hard at work developing the greatest thing ever. It will be out shortly. But such a great thing takes time to get right."

it is sad.

On the 'more security in the OS' aspect, I do have some sympathy toward Microsoft. People berate them if they don't put in the security apps and berate them if they do. Words like antitrust and monopoly get thrown around and lawsuits ensue. Geesh, that happened over a FREE browser!

And of course the OS itself should be made more secure - but that will take a completely different approach and likely require a significant new investment in software that will need to be written for the new system since it is in some of the underlying technology/code that the problem exists (the stack, for example).

I'm sure GSS isn't complaining that Microsoft is insecure. After all, it creates a great deal of business for other companies. Unfortunately, Jason seems to have taken the money and run :-(

[Hermescomputers]

My only complaint toward Microsoft is the lack of "Choice" it built into the os regarding security... It "omitted" controls from within the design which is proven to be causative to a rather large number of security problems and the aggravations that ensued... To make matters worst it is still reluctant to integrate innovative ideas and technologies that empower users rather than "Dumming them out". I mean it took until XP SPII to include a Firewal???

They are making progress with a new Antispyware which actually does try to provide some degree of protection and a regular "Malicious tool detection" update. Problem is these are all reactive instead of pro-active. It is rather difficult to forgive Microsoft considering their resources and talent available to them.

Jason on the other hand is someone I feel a bit for... It is hard work to figure out what needs to be done and then develop it... by himself! Wow!
Still he does need to give us more attention or some may jump ship...

[Long View]

-{ Quote: "


Still he does need to give us more attention or some may jump ship..." }-

yes but jump ship to what ? SSM seems to be very popular but based upon my limited trial of SSM I would say that it has as much potential for error as for proving protection.

[berng]

-{ Quote: "My only complaint toward Microsoft is the lack of "Choice" it built into the os regarding security... It "omitted" controls from within the design which is proven to be causative to a rather large number of security problems and the aggravations that ensued... To make matters worst it is still reluctant to integrate innovative ideas and technologies that empower users rather than "Dumming them out". I mean it took until XP SPII to include a Firewal???

They are making progress with a new Antispyware which actually does try to provide some degree of protection and a regular "Malicious tool detection" update. Problem is these are all reactive instead of pro-active. It is rather difficult to forgive Microsoft considering their resources and talent available to them.

Jason on the other hand is someone I feel a bit for... It is hard work to figure out what needs to be done and then develop it... by himself! Wow!
Still he does need to give us more attention or some may jump ship..." }-

What's there to feel for? He's smarter than most and should be able to overcome obstacles. Others do it.

Some may jump ship? It seems most who posted in his forums stopped.

Anyway, we're beating a dead horse. Everyone says and agrees he needs to be active but he's not. Absenting medical or legal issues it is unexcusable.

I'm also wondering why I'm bothering to post in his forums. It doens't gain me anything. I'll stop and wait for real development and support from Jason.

[Hermescomputers]

-{ Quote: "yes but jump ship to what ? SSM seems to be very popular but based upon my limited trial of SSM I would say that it has as much potential for error as for proving protection." }-

Mmmmh...that is a loaded question!
I am not too impressed with SSM either. The interface is scattering functions all over the place making it rather difficult to manage.

Did anyone have a look at ProSecurity http://www.proactive-hips.com/
I might load it up into a VM to check it out sometimes next week...

[Long View]

Just installed ProSecurity 1.24 - seems very straight forward. I also like the fact that the last update was a recent as Dec 03 plus pricing for all home machines is only $39.95.

Has anyone else tried this program ? would you run it in conjunction with any other security ?

[Bubba]

-{ Quote: "Just installed ProSecurity 1.24....

Has anyone else tried this program ? would you run it in conjunction with any other security ?" }-Plenty of ongoing discussion on that product in our other anti-malware software forum (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35) and ask that you visit that forum Please.

To all:

I would ask that We take the discussion of other products to one of our more appropriate forums. This as we all know is the AppDefend product support forum and ask that We keep the discussion contained to that product and\or it's support Please.

Thanks,
Bubba

[Long View]

I'm sorry if I have broken a forum rule. I wasn't intending to discuss other products in isolation. Perhaps I have mis read this thread but I have the impression that there is currently little active development of Apdefend ? and although I liked what I saw thought it best to look for alternatives.

[Bubba]

-{ Quote: "I'm sorry if I have broken a forum rule." }-I can assure you no forum rule was broken and simply requested "To all:" that We take the discussion of other products to one of our more appropriate forums.

-{ Quote: "Perhaps I have mis read this thread but I have the impression that there is currently little active development of Apdefend ?" }-I can not speak for the programmer and what is going on with Ghost Security Suite in regards to it's development status and await like others any forthcoming info concerning this product.

-{ Quote: "thought it best to look for alternatives." }-As you await forthcoming news concerning Ghost Security Suite....have a visit to our other anti-malware software forum (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=35) as mentioned in the above post.

Regards,
Bubba