Is SSM Dead?

[nameless]

I've been wondering for awhile if SSM has been abandoned. As has been pointed out in the SSM forum itself (https://www.syssafety.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=4583), no beta has been posted since April 18, 2007. Two SSM staffers who used to post daily each stopped posting on the same day in March, 2007. (I checked that date myself--it's true.)

It's kind of hard to believe that they're just "really, really hard at work behind the scenes."

[WilliamP]

There is some discussion of this on the SSM forum. I certainly hope they don't fold like Diamond CS did. The death of PG is what sent me to SSM. Now I have two lifetime subscriptions to SSM. Maybe I shouldn't pay for subscriptions to anything. They have a great program and it would be a shame for it to dry up.

[Rasheed187]

Yes it would be a shame, I do hope that they will be able to sell the app to some other company. But if I´m correct they are working on a new version at the moment. However, even old versions of SSM are still very useful against malware attacks.

[WilliamP]

I think that one of the problems they have is the misconception that it is a complicated program. It can be used by anyone. The average user may be intimidated by it and it could be made a little more user friendly for the masses.

[Thankful]

Posted by vitk at SSM Forum:

-{ Quote: "Actually SSM is not dead though the development team was significantly shortened for financial reasons. However it's still alive. I will let you know if this finally happen - I promise . Nobody is going to sell unsupported software. If we stop support we will make it freeware. " }-

[Chuck57]

I wonder if a lot of potential buyers aren't going for the supposedly easier to use virtualization products such as Sandboxie and others instead of the somewhat intimidating (to a newbie) SSM.

Everything collected in a sandbox or secure folder - no rules to make or try to learn, and just empty the folder at the end of a session. This is what your average computer user wants, and even that's too much for some people.

[WilliamP]

I also believe in the sandbox, virtualization programs but I don't use them all the time because of the amount of updates and changes to the system.

[herbalist]

I talked to Vitk about a month ago. They've got a lot of work making SSM compatible with Vista.
Rick

[Fuzzfas]

-{ Quote: "I also believe in the sandbox, virtualization programs but I don't use them all the time because of the amount of updates and changes to the system." }-

Exactly the main weakness of virtualization.Otherwise,when people don't change often programs,something simple like Power Shadow ,with a second partition to save the things you want,is the simplest way for an average Joe.I have both SSM free and Pro,but i prefer PS,because i avoid the hassle of replying to pop ups or having slowdown due to hooks etc.Also installing a new application with SSM on,requires either learning mode or clicking "allow" half a dozen times.The the other day the SSM gui had disappeared for no apparent reason.

While you can use PS,reboot once a day for installing programs and updating the antivirus and you are done.And oddly enough,browsing seems faster with PS!

Oh yeah,a malware can bypass PS through low level access.And a meteorite may hit me on the head just as soon as i leave my doorstep. ;D

[nameless]

-{ Quote: "I talked to Vitk about a month ago. They've got a lot of work making SSM compatible with Vista." }-
It seems "they" is now "he". And I don't see why SSM's outlook would improve from this point on, given that as time goes on, the competition only gets harder and harder (i.e. KIS 7, NOD32 Security Suite, etc.).

[WilliamP]

The truth of the matter is probably a majority of people buy a computer with an AV installed ,never pay to keep it up to date and drive off into the sunset.

[nameless]

-{ Quote: "The truth of the matter is probably a majority of people buy a computer with an AV installed ,never pay to keep it up to date and drive off into the sunset." }-
Yeah, you're right ("What's this 'McAfee' thing I see all the time?"), but even more-advanced users have more choices as time goes on, which doesn't seem to be doing SSM any favors.

SSM may not be "dead" yet, but from where I sit, it seems to be on life support and fading fast.

[herbalist]

Even if SSM did go under as a company, that wouldn't make their software any less effective. I'll keep using it either way, both on my PC and on those I maintain for others.

Once an app like SSM matures and the bugs are fixed, it doesn't need regular updating, except for keeping it compatible with new operating systems. I have to wonder why some people think a company has to release a new version every few months to protect a 6 year old operating system like XP. That's the wrong criteria for evaluating an app or its vendor.

The fact that SSM is not a combined security suite and that it requires interaction and at least some knowlege from the user limits their potential market. Most users don't want and can't deal with that level of control. There's a lot of competing apps targeting the small percentage of users that do like choosing their own components. Unfortunately, quality and performance are not always the deciding factors that determine who survives. More often, it's the depth of their pockets and income from other already developed products that decide that.

I should pick up copies of all their apps, just in case I ever do get a different version of Windows. I still have a beta tester license I've never used.
Rick

[bellgamin]

My SSM license is up for renewal in a few weeks. IF I switch, I will likely move to Safe'N'Secure (http://www.safensoft.com/security.phtml?c=102).

Based on CastleCop's comparison of HIPS (http://wiki.castlecops.com/HIPS/IDP_programs/services), SnS seems to be the most equal to SSM, in terms of capabilities.

[wat0114]

Their latest beta, 618, is excellent. It would be disappointing especially as a paid subscriber to see the product abandoned, but there was another post in the forum indicating they are still working on the final release due by the end of July, with at least one more beta before then. Maybe reducing staff was the only way to keep afloat. After all, it is a tough product to sell, and with such fierce competition combined with an overall lack of recogniton and understanding toward a HIPS utility, the market is restricted to only a niche following.

-{ Quote: " I'll keep using it either way, " }-

As will I.

[nameless]

-{ Quote: "Once an app like SSM matures and the bugs are fixed, it doesn't need regular updating, except for keeping it compatible with new operating systems." }-
It hasn't really matured; the current version is in beta, with quite a "to-do" list in place.

-{ Quote: "I have to wonder why some people think a company has to release a new version every few months to protect a 6 year old operating system like XP. That's the wrong criteria for evaluating an app or its vendor." }-
While XP may be old, new exploits that work on XP do continue to appear, and new bugs and limitations in SSM do as well. For example, there are at least a couple leak tests that the latest version of SSM fails.

[lu_chin]

You may want to download the trial version of SNS and run it with your existing security applications first. I bought both SSM and SNS and I would say that SSM was way more compatible with my other security applications than SNS.

-{ Quote: "My SSM license is up for renewal in a few weeks. IF I switch, I will likely move to Safe'N'Secure (http://www.safensoft.com/security.phtml?c=102).

Based on CastleCop's comparison of HIPS (http://wiki.castlecops.com/HIPS/IDP_programs/services), SnS seems to be the most equal to SSM, in terms of capabilities." }-

[LoneWolf]

How would ProSecurity compair to SSM?
Accordind to the chart of Bellgamin's link
http://wiki.castlecops.com/HIPS/IDP_programs/services
it looks like it may even provide more protecton.
http://www.proactive-hips.com/

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "How would ProSecurity compair to SSM?
Accordind to the chart of Bellgamin's link it looks like it may even provide more protecton." }-
ProSecurity is pretty good, but here again it's a 1-man operation. The app hasn't been updated since version 1.3 March 2007. The forum has become dormant, & the developer hasn't posted there for >2 months.

-{ Quote: "For example, there are at least a couple leak tests that the latest version of SSM fails." }-If you are referring to Matousek's latest leak tests (http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/leak-tests-results.php), here is a partial quote of his descri[ption of those tests...

-{ Quote: "Each firewall was tested twice against 26 leak tests - once with its default, out-of-the-box settings, and once with its highest security settings. Each firewall was then awarded an overall score derived from its pass/fail result against each test. The higher the score, the better the firewall performed against the range of leak tests." }-SSM was included in this test even though it is a HIPS, NOT a firewall. All of the apps tested by Matousec were either firewalls, or else (like OnlineArmor) they had a specific module clearly designated as a firewall. SSM was the only non-firewall included in Matousec's tests.

SSM has a "network" module, but it only controls outbound connections and is turned off by default. It will not afford control over protocol, ports, or local/remote hosts. In other words, SSM is NOT a firewall nor is it designed to be such. Even though it is a non-Firewall, SSM scored higher in Matousec's tests than several apps that ARE designed as full-time firewalls.

FOOTNOTE- Only one other HIPS-type program (Dynamic Security Agent - DSA) was included in Matousec's tests. However, DSA is designed to include all the capabilities of its parent firewall (Private Firewall) except for configurability as such. That is the reason why I use DSA in lieu of a firewall.

[nameless]

-{ Quote: "If you are referring to Matousek's latest leak tests (http://www.matousec.com/projects/windows-personal-firewall-analysis/leak-tests-results.php), here is a partial quote of his descri[ption of those tests...

SSM was included in this test even though it is a HIPS, NOT a firewall. All of the apps tested by Matousec were either firewalls, or else (like OnlineArmor) they had a specific module clearly designated as a firewall. SSM was the only non-firewall included in Matousec's tests.

SSM has a "network" module, but it only controls outbound connections and is turned off by default. It will not afford control over protocol, ports, or local/remote hosts. In other words, SSM is NOT a firewall nor is it designed to be such. Even though it is a non-Firewall, SSM scored higher in Matousec's tests than several apps that ARE designed as full-time firewalls." }-
I know all about SSM's features. When the "Network" feature was added, they referred to it as a "Basic Network Firewall". The owner of SSM still refers to it as a "firewall module (https://www.syssafety.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=963)". I understand that it's not designed to be a complete firewall solution. This is obvious. But it is designed to be capable of catching outbound connections, and there are some it fails to stop. (In fact, in the past, I've used some simple programs that it failed to stop.) That was part of my point.

There are also rootkits that SSM fails to intercept. I am not mentioning this to incite a "YOU CALLED MY KID UGLY!" response. My point is that it does matter if SSM development stops or continues. This was my previous point; I'm just clarifying.

So please, don't misunderstand me: I know that SSM is excellent. I know it isn't designed to be a complete firewall. I am simply saying that it's not so perfect that it doesn't matter if it becomes abandonware at this point.

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "I know that SSM is excellent. I know it isn't designed to be a complete firewall. I am simply saying that it's not so perfect that it doesn't matter if it becomes abandonware at this point." }-I agree totally. It would be a real shame if SSM can't remain current & viable in this increasingly competitive market for security apps that are not blacklist-based.

Quickie Off-Topic: Just took a look at Antihook as a possible SSM replacement. It requires dot net 2.0 --- gooooood grief!

[nameless]

-{ Quote: "Quickie Off-Topic: Just took a look at Antihook as a possible SSM replacement. It requires dot net 2.0 --- gooooood grief!" }-
That's kind of funny to me, since I just popped back on at this unholy hour (3:50 AM) because for some reason, I became curious to know if AntiHook was still being developed. (I am a vampire by nature anyway, FWIW.)

[aigle]

It,s really sad and disappointing. PG died, SSM seems so. AD and NG might remain in beta for good. EQSecure might go the same way, PS is stagnant as well.
I think next MS windows( after Vista) will erase the HIPS altogether. Really bad feeling.

[bellgamin]

SSM still has the owner & chief programmer working there. He CAN do the job. There are several 1-man software outfits who are doing okay - DW, Ges, Ps, etc. The big guys (NAV, McAfee, KAV etc) will have the mainstream, of course -- but as long as the little outfits like SSM realize that they are "niche software" -- and place their main efforts on satisfying the folks who occupy their particulr niche -- they can & will prosper.

I am a niche person. I have firmly decided to renew my license with SSM.

Please forgive me for getting into the pulpit for a moment. I would like to briefly sermonize as follows: Namely, a thread entitled "Is SSM dead?" is likely to function as a *self-fulfilling prophecy*. It's sort of like asking Joe Blow, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" That sort of question leads people to believe that Joe Blow HAS been beating his wife, even if he hasn't been doing so.

In my OPINION, the answer to the thread's question can be very much affected by how we react to it. If we all react by bailing out on SSM -- which I admit was my initial gut reaction -- then SSM very likely WILL be dead. On the other hand, it doesn't take all that many niche customers to keep SSM going as a 1-man operation.

I just tried Safe'n'Secure. Doing that made me realize again just how superb SSM is for those who like high configurability and strong (but complex) protection. SnS lacks many of SSM's features, such as readily configurable parent-child controls & start-up management. Its application & process controls seem equal to SSM's, but a blocked process was NOT blocked by it, its GUI HAS to have the screen set to high resolution or you can't view the control buttons, it slows my computer down whereas SSM does not, & the help file for setting rules says to look at "the following examples" whereas there are no such examples. In fact, the remainder of the page is blank. Finally, SnS was unstable for me -- as it has been for other posters here at Wilders. SSM is rock-steady.

I no longer want to place my main trust on blacklist-based security. Thus, I will continue to keep my eyes open for new & better HIPS. As of this moment, my money (cold, hard cash, that is) remains on SSM.

End of half-baked sermon (And everybody said... ?)

[WilliamP]

Bellgamin,I agree with you 100%. I just recently purchased two lifetime licensees for SSM. DefenseWall is another great 1 man operation. You can't beat the support that Ilya provides. I certainly hope that SSM sticks in there.

[ccsito]

-{ Quote: "It,s really sad and disappointing. PG died, SSM seems so. AD and NG might remain in beta for good. EQSecure might go the same way, PS is stagnant as well.
I think next MS windows( after Vista) will erase the HIPS altogether. Really bad feeling." }-

That is because MS keeps changing the OS landscape forcing others to adapt or fade away. As Bill Gates said earlier, in the future there will be no need for a PC. So everything present today may be gone just like the Wang word processor. ;D

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "So everything present today may be gone just like the Wang word processor. ;D" }-I still have MY Wang!

As for forums -- I would rather the SSM programmer give priority to business. And so he is.

[nameless]

-{ Quote: "SSM still has the owner & chief programmer working there. He CAN do the job." }-
Well, I see many posts in the SSM forum (some of which are my own) going unanswered for days and days, and sometimes never being answered at all, so I utterly disagree that "He CAN do the job". If he could do it solo as well as it needs to be done, he never would have had those extra staff members around in the first place.

I feel no obligation whatsoever to help save what fully seems to me to be a sinking ship.

P.S. Is GSS out of beta yet?

[ccsito]

-{ Quote: "I still have MY Wang!

As for forums -- I would rather the SSM programmer give priority to business. And so he is." }-

Can I give you my 8 inch diskettes? ;)

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "Can I give you my 8 inch diskettes? ;)" }-:D :D ;) ;D

[cp4eva]

-{ Quote: "P.S. Is GSS out of beta yet?" }-

lol :D

[egghead]

-{ Quote: "

In my OPINION, the answer to the thread's question can be very much affected by how we react to it. If we all react by bailing out on SSM -- which I admit was my initial gut reaction -- then SSM very likely WILL be dead.
" }-

Very wise words indeed (could have been mine ::) ), and so true.

I'm sure it is not meant this way, but with this kind of thread title things will only grow worse for SSM. You will get what you think.

SSM is the best HIPS around, no other hippie is standing in its shadow.
Reading about the ever growing number and the sophisticated nature of threats SSM is almost a must on a pc.

I'm 100% sure that when Vitk stays persistent in developing this gem it will pay off.

"An optimist sees an opportunity in every calamity; a pessimist sees a calamity in every opportunity"

Winston Churchill

[Kenjin]

-{ Quote: "I no longer want to place my main trust on blacklist-based security. Thus, I will continue to keep my eyes open for new & better HIPS." }-
I suggest you should soon take another close look at ProSecurity. Current version 1.30 is already better than SSM, but the new upcoming 1.40 will add more features and consolidate the competitive edge. The author said he might release a public beta of 1.40 in the near future.

-{ Quote: "SSM is the best HIPS around, no other hippie is standing in its shadow." }-
While SSM is indeed one of the best HIPS, it is no longer THE best IMO. ProSecurity e.g. has made much progress in the last 9 months and has surpassed SSM in terms of power and protection at the latest with version 1.30.

I actually have used both SSM and ProSecurity for a long time and would hate to see SSM die, however if that should really happen it is good to know there is a powerful alternative which constantly gets better and better.

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "I suggest you should soon take another close look at ProSecurity. Current version 1.30 is already better than SSM, but the new upcoming 1.40 will add more features and consolidate the competitive edge. The author said he might release a public beta of 1.40 in the near future." }-And Vista was originally announced to be released in 2004. ;D

But all kidding aside, I sincerely wish the best for ProSecurity. The author thereof hasn't been heard from or issued an update in a MUCH long period of time than is the case with SSM. I am pleased to hear that you have been in contact with him, and that he is working on the next release of PS.

It's kind of strange that users of PS would find more information about PS updates here at Wilders than they can find in their own forum. I suggest that this good news also be posted in Pro-Security's own forum, where there has been no word of PS plans or actions for nearly 4 months.

I have nothing but good things to say about Pro-Security. I am very happy that there will continue to be at least TWO good choices (SSM & Pro-Security) for those of us who do not wish to use the less powerful HIPS that are designed for mass market, "set-it & forget-it" users.

I look forward to version 1.40 and certainly intend to give it a trial when it arrives.

[Kees1958]

Bellgamin,

The ProSecurity fan/addict/admin of the PS site seemed to have vanished into thin air (I remember you having some different opinions) ;D

My appreciation for PS has risen (after all it withstood some test other HIPS failed).

Regards Kees

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "My appreciation for PS has risen (after all it withstood some test other HIPS failed).

Regards Kees" }-As for those tests you mention, are they still online? If so, where? I'd like to read them.

I am also interested in any tests you know of that included Winpooch. I have been following that app ever since I read some positive comments you & Easter had to say about that app.

Thank goodness, the "classical HIPS" market niche is still very much alive and living in Wilders estates.

[Ilya Rabinovich]

Well, first of all, I'd like to say that "classical HIPS" niche will be always alive, but not really great. That is the reason, I suspect, PG died and problems of core SSM team. Such the niche generate issues with advertisement and PR (I mean, low ROI).

[eniqmah]

-{ Quote: "Even if SSM did go under as a company, that wouldn't make their software any less effective. I'll keep using it either way, both on my PC and on those I maintain for others.

Once an app like SSM matures and the bugs are fixed, it doesn't need regular updating, except for keeping it compatible with new operating systems. I have to wonder why some people think a company has to release a new version every few months to protect a 6 year old operating system like XP. That's the wrong criteria for evaluating an app or its vendor.

The fact that SSM is not a combined security suite and that it requires interaction and at least some knowlege from the user limits their potential market. Most users don't want and can't deal with that level of control. There's a lot of competing apps targeting the small percentage of users that do like choosing their own components. Unfortunately, quality and performance are not always the deciding factors that determine who survives. More often, it's the depth of their pockets and income from other already developed products that decide that.

I should pick up copies of all their apps, just in case I ever do get a different version of Windows. I still have a beta tester license I've never used.
Rick" }-

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "more secure" feature of MS Vista is that it implements something akin to SSM ? Does not Vista bug the tish out of you everytime you execute something which requires admin privilege? UAC for every one? Wouldn't THAT be the SSM killer ? What does Joe Shmuck want to do: NOT bother using UAC or NOT buy something more complicated to use like SSM ??

[LoneWolf]

-{ Quote: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "more secure" feature of MS Vista is that it implements something akin to SSM ? Does not Vista bug the tish out of you everytime you execute something which requires admin privilege? UAC for every one? Wouldn't THAT be the SSM killer ? What does Joe Shmuck want to do: NOT bother using UAC or NOT buy something more complicated to use like SSM ??" }-

But what about the one or two people that still do not have vista? ::)
Maybe they would like something like SSM. :thumb:

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "more secure" feature of MS Vista is that it implements something akin to SSM ?" }-As a toy poodle is to a rottweiler, so is Vista uac* to HIPS. :D

Hasta la Vista-- hither (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6156733.html), thither (http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/05/30/vista.security.vs.xp/), yon (http://www.crn.com/software/199701019), here (http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Microsoft-partner-Vista-less-secure-than-XP/0,130061733,339274261,00.htm), there (http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=39926), &mebbe s'moa (http://www.dmxzone.com/ShowDetail.asp?NewsId=12186)
~~~~~~~~~
*uac = User Account Control

[herbalist]

-{ Quote: "Originally Posted by eniqmah
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "more secure" feature of MS Vista is that it implements something akin to SSM ?" }-
I haven't used Vista so It's hard to draw a comparison using anything more than what I've read. It seems to me that there are major differences on a fundamental level. An app like SSM gives the user the control. Microsofts system leaves them in control. One controls the activities of the software and OS components. The other controls the user, preventing them from controlling system components. There may be some overlap in function, the controlling of malicious processes, but their primary purposes are in opposition. I expect that this is the real reason M$ is making it difficult for HIPS, especially when it's been demonstrated that Vista can be compromised in spite of their built in security.

There will always be those of us who will not use an OS that we can't control, who will refuse to use Vista or anything else M$ comes up with that continues their present practices. For these users, HIPS remains a viable solution. Whether their vendors survive depends on how many users tell M$ what they can do with Vista. That puts it in our hands.
Rick

[zcv]

-{ Quote: "Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "more secure" feature of MS Vista is that it implements something akin to SSM ? Does not Vista bug the tish out of you everytime you execute something which requires admin privilege? UAC for every one? Wouldn't THAT be the SSM killer ? What does Joe Shmuck want to do: NOT bother using UAC or NOT buy something more complicated to use like SSM ??" }-
The concept of UAC is, like SSM, a white list process control. The problem is it doesn't learn, that's why "Does not Vista bug the tish out of you everytime you execute something".

Worse, it bugs the hell out of you when running any process whether you've run it a thousand time or running the first time.

I have yet to see anyone personally or in forums keep UAC enabled for long.

I hope MS revisits UAC in their promised SP.

zcv

[Kees1958]

-{ Quote: "As for those tests you mention, are they still online? If so, where? I'd like to read them.

I am also interested in any tests you know of that included Winpooch. I have been following that app ever since I read some positive comments you & Easter had to say about that app.

Thank goodness, the "classical HIPS" market niche is still very much alive and living in Wilders estates." }-

As for the tests I do not know anymore, but I can recall that Pro Security came out best in two out of three new test. In one test only Rick Herbalist prooved that his Windows98 Gladiator set up could survive (but then again Rick applied some double twisted security belts which most users will not apply, me included, after all his implimentation of SSM is one of years experience). What I remember was that Anti Executable and the new On-line Armour withstood all three test (this were seperate blogs/posts). I tested EQSecurity and it failed one of those 3 tests. I thought the test were initially posted/mentioned by Aigle, NicM and I thought by a guy named Liam in the DefenseWall forum.

Due to the fact that my son has a more powerful PC and we have an old version of Regustry Mechanic we are using CyberHawk Pro in stead of EQSecurity on his machine (he justed likes the fact that CyberHawk always prompts and some more clues on the risk gives than EQS when installing new software).

I am very impressed with WinPooch, it's registry, network initialization control (to replace software FW when behind a hardware FW) and file protection control works flawless. Only the execution kill protection (it failed the test Aigle had posted) and self protection are not strong.

A friend of mine has a powerfull PC, he runs SSM free to surpress the nag screens of Antivir and Appdefend. Sitting after a hardware FW with SSM free (nagscreen kills, all other protection disabled) Appdefend 2.0 beta and WinPooch (only registry and data protection) he has a fine and solid freeware set (he always asked me to test something when his previous set up failed, he has not asked me to check whether our setup fails also in a long time).

For the developers of SSM and PS I hope EQSecurity will never develop english help files or/and become payware soon. EQS is an incredible application, powefull, fast with a small memory foothold and free.

Regards K

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "I am very impressed with WinPooch" }-Sadly, Winpooch's developer (Benoit Blanchon) clearly states that he will no longer work on this splendid app. He issued an open invitation to others, for them to take over upgrading of Winpooch. To my knowledge, no one has done so.:-\

-{ Quote: "A friend of mine has a powerfull PC, he runs SSM free to surpress the nag screens of Antivir and Appdefend ...(nagscreen kills, all other protection disabled)" }-The process detection module of Dynamic Security Agent can do the same function. It's free & really quite splendid.

-{ Quote: "For the developers of SSM and PS I hope EQSecurity will never develop english help files or/and become payware soon." }-I hope EQS DOES become payware. Otherwise, no rice in the programmer's rice bowl.

No rice, No dice o:)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By the way have you had a look at the greatly expanded HIPS-type settings that are now available on OnlineArmor2 IF & ONLY IF you click on "advanced user"?

Unless you choose to click on "advanced user", OA2 remains just as user-friendly as ever for those who want "set it & forget it" protection. A superb blend of simplicity and power!

I renewed & cherish my OA license. Even so, Vitali is working on SSM's next update. On 7/16, I will renew that license as well -- BTGLW.

[Kees1958]

Bellgamin,

Why Online Armour and SSM? Is it on different PC's? What is the gain of running both on 1 PC?

Regards Kees

[bellgamin]

Not 2 PCs. 1 PC, 2 different images.

[LUSHER]

-{ Quote: "Sadly, Winpooch's developer (Benoit Blanchon) clearly states that he will no longer work on this splendid app. He issued an open invitation to others, for them to take over upgrading of Winpooch. To my knowledge, no one has done so.:-\
" }-


If I believe what i read here. ProSecurity - Dead. SSM - Dead. Winpooch - Dead. Antivirus - Dead.

Except if you are a beta-tester of course, then you have insider information on how the latest coming beta will blow your socks off. :P

[Antarctica]

-{ Quote: "If I believe what i read here. SSM - Dead." }-

Can you please point out where you read that SSM was dead.

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "If I believe what i read here. ProSecurity - Dead. SSM - Dead. Winpooch - Dead. Antivirus - Dead.

Except if you are a beta-tester of course, then you have insider information on how the latest coming beta will blow your socks off. :P" }-

I think you read it wrong, at least about SSM and Prosecurity. What you read is people speculating that they are dead. Big difference and one of the harmful effects of this type of thread.

Pete

[bellgamin]

-{ Quote: "I think you read it wrong, at least about SSM and Prosecurity. What you read is people speculating that they are dead. Big difference and one of the harmful effects of this type of thread.

Pete" }-Agree with Pete 200%!

As to SSM, its owner (Vitali) is again responding to support requests posted on SSM's forum. He is replying to email support requests. AND he has reported that he is working hard to put the finishing touches on SSM's next update. My current license expires 7/16/07. BTGLW, I SHALL renew.

As to PS, the last post by its developer (back in March) was that he was working on an update. Since then, however, he has not posted in PS's forum. Hopefully he will surface again soon.

As to Neoava, the developer recently started a forum HERE (http://www.smokey-services.eu/forum/index.php?c=16), & has stated that beta 3 will be out "soon" --- RTBS.

Yes, AFAIK Winpooch definitely has no active developer at the moment.:-[

On the more positive side, the new version 2 of OnlineArmor now offers several "classical HIPS" capabilities. These are available ONLY if you click on an "advanced" box in OA. Doing so will produce a set of VERY *classical* power options for EACH individual filename, as shown in the screenshot below. {This particular screenshot shows how I set OA so as to protect the Dynamic Security Agent app on my computer.}

However -- for those who are fans of "set it & forget it" -- do NOT press "advanced" and OA will remain one of the easiest-to-use HIPS there is. Moreover, OA has elevated itself several leagues ABOVE the status of a mere HIPS. In addition to HIPS capabilities, "OA-plain" now includes a full-featured firewall, email protection, web protection, & spam filter. "OA+" includes all the power of OA-plain PLUS built-in Kaspersky antivirus.

BOTTOM LINE- There is some shake-out going on in the HIPS arena. Outfits with a weak business model are dwindling, but major players (such as Prevx, OnlineArmor, & DefenseWall) are VERY much alive & thriving. HIPS are still the bleeding front-edge of security apps. *Don't leave home without one.* :thumb:

[wat0114]

-{ Quote: "HIPS are still the bleeding front-edge of security apps. *Don't leave home without one.* :thumb:" }-

bellgamin, you would make a great salesman ;D It must be that invigorating Hawaiian air that keeps you so enthusiastic ;)

Seriously, I have been watching the SSM forum closely of late and posted my concerns in the thread regarding the question of where the company is headed. At least Vitk (Vitali) is responding to member's posts with a few "on the to-do list" responses, suggesting a near-future release is on the horizon.

Clearly there is no need for SSM fans to panic just yet.

[Espresso]

-{ Quote: "
As to PS, the last post by its developer (back in March) was that he was working on an update. Since then, however, he has not posted in PS's forum. Hopefully he will surface again soon." }-


http://www.proactive-hips.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1177545905/6#5

-{ Quote: " Re: It is quiet here at ProSec
Reply #5 - Jun 25th, 2007, 5:58am Hi Atomas31, I'm developing on PS 1.4, the new version will add some new protection such as "Shutdown System", some new conception will be added too, such as user will have an option about how to learn in learning mode. " }-

[LUSHER]

-{ Quote: "I think you read it wrong, at least about SSM and Prosecurity. What you read is people speculating that they are dead. Big difference and one of the harmful effects of this type of thread.

Pete" }-

That's why I said IF I believed .

Besides don't write off this types of threads, they are an opportunity for helpful beta-testers to reveal insider secrets that we normal mortals are not privy to at places like this

For example, if not for such threads, would we have known this? (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1035309#post1035309)

[Peter2150]

-{ Quote: "That's why I said IF I believed .

Besides don't write off this types of threads, they are an opportunity for helpful beta-testers to reveal insider secrets that we normal mortals are not privy to at places like this

For example, if not for such threads, would we have known this? (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1035309#post1035309)" }-

We sure would. All you need to do is go to the prosecurity website, then the forum, and read. Don't even need to log in. Same is true with SSM.

As to beta testers revealing secrets. I would hope not. As a beta tester the only thing I would post here is what is either publicly available, or what the develop said I could post. Secrets, no way.

[TECHWG]

if ssm is now a 1 man show, that does not mean bad things.. the creator of ps has always been a 1 man show, and look at how much he works on ps .. he updates, adds, fixes. so i would expect ssm to pick up .. my guess

[wat0114]

-{ Quote: " so i would expect ssm to pick up .. my guess" }-

Regarding SSM, I hope so. It is good to see the PS developer release a new update. Obviously there have been concerns of a disappearing act with PS, so the update and his recent posts are a definite sign the initiative is alive and well :) Maybe this can be some inspiration for vitk (the lone SSM developer).

[TECHWG]

actually there has been activity on the beta section of the forum knocking ps about getting bugs fixed. the developer dissapeared about a month ago for about 2 or 3 weeks due to personal circimstances i guess. but sure hes working all the time on ps, and if someone has a error or bug hes right on it. So i think for those people who really like ssm, i think the developer will pick up on speed once they get into the swing i would guess.