Is TDS-4 a high priority for you?

[richrf]

Hi all,

Since I am a licensed user of all of DiamondCS's products, I was thinking about how I would prioritize future product development, so here it goes:

1) WormGuard: My gut feel is that there are holes in my script/worm defense, and since I am big on shutting down malware before they can start to do anything, I think there is probably lots that can be done to firm up WormGuard into a more modern product with updates that reflext today's OS/Browser vulnerabilities.

2) ProcessGuard: There have been some enhancements requested, such as restricting child processes that I think would be really good additions to the product. File monitoring would also be nice, but not a high priority for me. What I woudl really like, is a nice User Manual that digests all that we have learned on this forum to help newbies through the initial installation process, and Learning MOde.

3) TDS-4: Frankly, I feel I am covered with KAV 4.5 and upcoming 6.0 and really am not that interested in TDS-4. I think that pouring more money into a trojan detection is probably going to yield less overall incremental improvement for the dollar spent, than further research in pro-active prevention projects and staying on top of closing operating system holes.

4) ProcessGuard: Seems to be doing everything I need at the moment, so low priority.

Well, that's my take on things. Any other comments?

Rich

[Starrob]

It will be interesting to see how KAV 6.0 compares to many of the upcoming versions of AT software. It will be interesting to see if there will be added value in any of the future AT products over KAV 6.0.

I do believe Wormguard will provide added value as there are fewer solutions on the market to providing protections against scripts or worms.

Just as a aside...it appears to me that most security companies are trying to be a all in one solution. Firewalls are adding anti-virus solutions....anti-virus adding firewalls....AS adding trojans....AT adding spyware and everyone jumping on the heuristic/ids bandwagon.

I do hope that some security companies remain specialized because as time goes on, I see more and more conflicts between different security programs all trying to do the same thing....become one huge suite.

I think I will probably stick with companies that emphasize doing one thing extremely well instead of becoming the all in one solution.



Starrob
-{ Quote: "Hi all,

Since I am a licensed user of all of DiamondCS's products, I was thinking about how I would prioritize future product development, so here it goes:

1) WormGuard: My gut feel is that there are holes in my script/worm defense, and since I am big on shutting down malware before they can start to do anything, I think there is probably lots that can be done to firm up WormGuard into a more modern product with updates that reflext today's OS/Browser vulnerabilities.

2) ProcessGuard: There have been some enhancements requested, such as restricting child processes that I think would be really good additions to the product. File monitoring would also be nice, but not a high priority for me. What I woudl really like, is a nice User Manual that digests all that we have learned on this forum to help newbies through the initial installation process, and Learning MOde.

3) TDS-4: Frankly, I feel I am covered with KAV 4.5 and upcoming 6.0 and really am not that interested in TDS-4. I think that pouring more money into a trojan detection is probably going to yield less overall incremental improvement for the dollar spent, than further research in pro-active prevention projects and staying on top of closing operating system holes.

4) ProcessGuard: Seems to be doing everything I need at the moment, so low priority.

Well, that's my take on things. Any other comments?

Rich" }-

[richrf]

Hi Starrob,

Yes, I agree. The challenge that all AT developers have, such as DiamondCS, is how to provide added value, over and above what AVs are delivering nowadays. Kasperksy is very solid in all departments and getting better. Other AVs are also adding very strong AT protection.

While the AT vendors, can position themselves as the "backup AT" to the AV, this is a precarious marketing position. DiamondCS has to figure out how to make TDS-4 a "must have" piece of software. In the past, TDS-3, has had unsurpassed detection and cleaning capabilities, but this is becoming less and less of a differentiator as other ATs (e.g. Ewido) close the gap and AVs take over as the primary detection mechanism.

The DiamondCS group is a very smart group and hopefully they can come up with more "must have" products that add a new level of security such as ProcessGuard and hopefully an upgraded WormGuard. I am sure there is much that can be done to increase the usability and security in their pro-active security line of products. But another good AT? I dunno. Seems like a might crowded marketspace at this time.

Cya,
Rich

[-.-.-.-.-]

"TDS-4: Frankly, I feel I am covered with KAV 4.5 and upcoming 6.0 and really am not that interested in TDS-4."

I do not how you come to this conclusion. Currently, it seems that KAV offers almost zero protection against many trojans ( http://scheinsicherheit.sc.funpic.de/example.htm ). What's the purpose of detecting tenthousands of trojans if it frequently takes less than a second to make them undetected?

Even scanners with good heuristics like NOD32 can be relatively easily bypassed and, moreover, the proactive detection in respect of trojans leaves something to be desired: as you can see from the recent AV Comparatives report ( http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/report06.pdf -- the online report is buggy and cannot be correctly viewed with certain browers like Opera) only 28% (550 of 1.976) of the new trojans could be detected.

This does not necessarily indicate that TDS-4 will be better. But perhaps it will feature certain proactive features like an IDS (as attempted by Emsisoft) or at least a comprehensive memory scanner in combination with relatively safe signatures (as attempted by Ewido).

[Vikorr]

I'm wondering if they will go somewhere along the lines of what Giant did, before MS bought it's AS product...that is, make a AT that prevents Trojans installing in the first place...well....one that will compliment PG in any case.

Also wondering if they'll extend this to make it an AT/AS...considering they are similar sorts of threats.

I figure this would position it well, as the AS market is quite a big market, and an AT/AS would be much better equiped to prevent & clean trojans/spyware than an AV would be.

[Pollmaster]

-{ Quote: "Hi all,

1) WormGuard: My gut feel is that there are holes in my script/worm defense, and since I am big on shutting down malware before they can start to do anything, I think there is probably lots that can be done to firm up WormGuard into a more modern product with updates that reflext today's OS/Browser vulnerabilities.
" }-

My view is that this is probably a dying product. This is an area fully covered by most AV products and several freeware standalone products. The technology is pretty low tech compared to the other products, so it's easily duplicated.

I doubt Diamond CS would want to put more work into this.

Probably the least successful of all products in the stable.

-{ Quote: "
2) ProcessGuard: There have been some enhancements requested, such as restricting child processes that I think would be really good additions to the product. File monitoring would also be nice, but not a high priority for me. What I woudl really like, is a nice User Manual that digests all that we have learned on this forum to help newbies through the initial installation process, and Learning MOde.
" }-

This is a technically superior product , that is as yet unmatched in terms of protecting processes from modification, though competing products are on the horizon. PG does have the advantage of being first to the market

On the other hand, PG is unlikely to appeal to anyone except for the hardcore computer security hobbyist market, as it's extremely specialised compared to other all in one solutions like anti-hook,safe n sec, antimalware ,SSM, etc which cover more areas (including registry monitoring)

I do agree that within it's specific area, PG is pretty complete. Extending, execution protection to cover more like proper handling of parent-child processes is something that can be done pretty easily, but that I think it probably the only thing technically wise that PG might improve on.

Other areas, are similar , mainly minor tweaks on the interface, better display of information, allows more fine tuned rules etc. Doable, but not too expensive to implement.

The future of this product depends on whether Diamond wants to focus on the niche market or on trying to capture a wider market.

The later would mean that they should resist attempts from their hardcore niche crowd to make them add geekier and geekier features. As it is, PG is already a pretty daunting product.

-{ Quote: "
3) TDS-4: Frankly, I feel I am covered with KAV 4.5 and upcoming 6.0 and really am not that interested in TDS-4. I think that pouring more money into a trojan detection is probably going to yield less overall incremental improvement for the dollar spent, than further research in pro-active prevention projects and staying on top of closing operating system holes.
" }-

I'm interested to see what TDS-4 will be like. Personally, I think TDS currently occupies the same position in the AT market as KAV in the AV market., Like KAV they have the most complete signatures and rely heavily on signatures.

Other ATs like Ewido feature superior memory scanning.

-{ Quote: "
4) ProcessGuard: Seems to be doing everything I need at the moment, so low priority.
" }-

Listed already.
Well, that's my take on things. Any other comments?

[worldcitizen]

Glad to see this topic here because I was wondering too, with KAV 5 Pro, whether I really need any more backup. So far I have not had the need ever to use any DCS programs because my AV has taken care of everything. I bought them as back up but have never had to use them so I can't say that they are 'must have's'.

True guys, unless TDS 4 becomes a 'must have' then most will stick with their AV's. AV's like Kaspersky and NOD32 are squeezing these kind of products out of the market unless they can come up with some definite realtime use for them. As a backup it's good to have them on the shelf but so far I can honestly say I've hardly ever had to use them. So I wouldn't miss them if they disappeared. There's just too much protection available on the market already for users to choose from and most of it is excellent.

Dave

[richrf]

Hi Dave,

I have similar experiences. With KAV approaching 99% detection rate - even for trojans, there doesn't seem much room for anti-trojan specific products. It makes sense for AVs to cover all of this territory, since they stand at the front-line and are intercepting all of the files in any case.

I do see a on-going need for "system sentry" products such as WormGuard, ProcessGuard, and RegDefend. A well packaged product can guard against zero-hour attacks which the AVs aren't able to detect with 100% assurance - even with heuristics. The best heuristics (NOD32) can only do about 70% now and I think it will be a long time before heuristics can approach 99% (which is the gold standard). So there is room for a "fail-safe" product line that will guard against all types of intrusions but guarding all major entry points as far upstream as possible.

I think the market for stacking downstream detection tools one on top of the other (e.g. multiple anti-trojans, spyware, buffer-overflow detection, etc.) will rapidly diminish over time.

Rich

[worldcitizen]

Hi Rich,

I belive that over time, because of the massive cost to industry of downtime due to infections, the internet will be 'screened' through a special portal before being passed onto the end user. The ISP will take over spam and AV as well as virus and bug detections and put every security product out of business except those who provide their products to the ISP's. We're looking at the next generation here.

[richrf]

Hi worldcitizen,

What you say makes the most sense, since putting security into these "choke areas", would be most advantageous. I can see it happening over ten years, if the large commercial institutions see it to their benefit. A "secure" network would certainly be a way to differentiate product offerings.

Rich

[Starrob]

-{ Quote: "

I think the market for stacking downstream detection tools one on top of the other (e.g. multiple anti-trojans, spyware, buffer-overflow detection, etc.) will rapidly diminish over time.

Rich" }-

It is already diminishing for me. I am starting to find out that putting too many detection tools on top of each other only slows my computer down while providing maybe only a extremely small protection benefit.

Starrob

[richrf]

Hi Starrob,

Yes, That is also my conclusion. If Kaspersky, for example, is truly providing 99% protection against all malware, then there is very little incremental value in adding other layers of software that are essentially trying to do the same thing. For me, the big incremental benefit is attempting to build a defense against zero-hour attacks (where there are no signatures available yet), or "cloaked malware", that is not on anyone's radar screen yet and can even avoid heuristic detection. Thus, my interest is elsewhere in the "system sentry" camp - e.g. Wormguard and ProcessGuard.

Rich

[Jooske]

Starrob, you can have as many prevention, detection and scanning tools on your system as you like, but you should not try to run them all together permanently.
The DiamondCS tools form a very nice layered security with most of the elements covered.
Now add an AV, a firewall, extra spy/adware scanners, RegDefend, etc.
You might like to set one of your tools for permanent protection like in NOD32 or KAV, whatever. If you configure that tool to not blocking all access to files alarmed on you give other scanners also a fair chance to detect anything and give their opinion.

I think if we look at the evolvements in the tools released lately we can expect detection and protection from all possible aspects and all sides.
If this gives special inspiration for the wishlist please post it there. 8)
I like guarding and scanning and other detection with the many network tools and plugins and all the goodies for safe communication, scripting etc., and the bunches of other possibilities which might like toys to play with but can really add to security, especially the scripting.
Of course we can expect next generation detection.
But fortunately TDS-3 is still on top of everything (if the whole system is configured well and TDS-3 given a fair chance to access every place) and has a daily growing detection database.

Add to that the very nice support everywhere, so worth having all those diamondgoodies on our systems.

[Starrob]

For me, I like Process guard and Regdefend the best because they do what they do without slowing down my computer at any level that I can notice..

What good is it to run so many security apps that your computer runs like a snail? KAV is ok but KAV alone is too much for some computers and won't let most people run a lot of additional programs so anyone using KAV (unless they have a very fast computer and lots of memory) can not run a lot of other things in addition to KAV.

I have a interest in wormguard because I am interested in script protection and it does not take up a bunch of memory or slow a computer down (At least from what I heard) but I'll wait on wormguard 4. If Wormguard provides a benefit without making my computer like a snail then I'll use it.

As for TDS.....I am waiting for TDS-4. TDS-3 does not solve my real-time memory scanner needs. I will have to see if TDS-4 provides a better real-time memory solution or IDS solution (without slowing my computer down) than some of the other solutions out there.

The key for me is optimum protection without killing my computer speed.


Starrob


-{ Quote: "Starrob, you can have as many prevention, detection and scanning tools on your system as you like, but you should not try to run them all together permanently.
The DiamondCS tools form a very nice layered security with most of the elements covered.
Now add an AV, a firewall, extra spy/adware scanners, RegDefend, etc.
You might like to set one of your tools for permanent protection like in NOD32 or KAV, whatever. If you configure that tool to not blocking all access to files alarmed on you give other scanners also a fair chance to detect anything and give their opinion.

I think if we look at the evolvements in the tools released lately we can expect detection and protection from all possible aspects and all sides.
If this gives special inspiration for the wishlist please post it there. 8)
I like guarding and scanning and other detection with the many network tools and plugins and all the goodies for safe communication, scripting etc., and the bunches of other possibilities which might like toys to play with but can really add to security, especially the scripting.
Of course we can expect next generation detection.
But fortunately TDS-3 is still on top of everything (if the whole system is configured well and TDS-3 given a fair chance to access every place) and has a daily growing detection database.

Add to that the very nice support everywhere, so worth having all those diamondgoodies on our systems." }-

[Jooske]

The first part is prevention, so you're good starting with ProcessGuard and RegDefend.
WormGuard will help with the scripts, the exec protection in TDS-3 will block malware from executing and installing on your system.
Those two function more like a hook so not taking resources till they are coming into action.
No need to wait for version 4, as you do know registered users are upgraded for free.
I use Port Explorer all time.
BTW: you do know you can try out all programs for free for quite some time and get all the free products from the site?

Lot of optimizum for the computer settings can help for speed 8)
There are many tips and sites mentioned in the forums here.

[tuatara]

Building a layered defence, by selecting anti malware products yourself,
will soon the end of an era.
This is getting too complicated for the avarage user.
And even for the insiders it gets more difficult, because it is almost
impossible to buy a firewall-only firewall or a AV-only Anti Virus.
So stacking the products yourself creates an overlap, that costs
System performance and may create conflicts in lots of situations.
And is more expensive.

So it is logical that the larger Anti Malware companies are building Secuity Suites that prevent you against all kind of malware (spyware/spam/virii/trojans etc..
So you don't have to ivent the wheel yourself.
And they are getting better and better.
So i do think that at THIS MOMENT an Specific AntiMalware product,
has no extra value anymore.

Ewido is (and A2) no Anti Trojan product ONLY, it is an:
Anti Trojan,Anti Dialer,Anti Worm,Anti Hijacker,Anti Spyware,Anti Keylogger etc.

Tiny Personal Firewall 2005 Pro is not a Firewall-ONLY
A firewall,Process protection,Dll-Protection,Registry Protection etc. etc.

Kaspersky (and NO32) not a AV-only, but detects more Trojans, then the Anti-Trojan-Specific tools do and faster because you find them BEFORE you use a on-demand scan in most cases
And what is a Trojan or what is Spyware? in the old days,
the diff. where easy now those are getting more and more overlap.

The problem of the last years was that there were no good complete suites,
but this is changing rapidly.

And i think that you can expect that people are going to buy
these complete Suites, because stacking Security Products is not their job or Hobby.

And Microsoft has of course seen, now (after years of wakeup calls from specialists) in the field that System Secuity is a Serious Item!
(see XP2) and they are buying all kinds of knowledge and companies to work
on that.
So perhaps, they will come with a lot of built in solutions in the Next Windows
version (Longhorn 2007?)
That will make a lot of Specific Anti-Malware solutions obsolete.

[richrf]

Hi,

I think that DiamondCS has an opportunity to build t "System Sentry" suite of products, that would not only augment products like KAV, NOD32, etc., but could potentilally be positioned as a "must have" suite of products to guard against new types of zero-hour attacks. It is difficult to get excited about TDS-4, if it is going to be another anti-trojan package, even if it is best in its class. KAV is already approach 99%, and since it sits higher on the totem poll, it will be the more "must have" product when it comes to AT protection.

Rich

[JRCATES]

I remember growing up as a kid in the late 70's, the prevailing thought was that the United States was going to convert to the "metric system", and that temperature would soon be measured in celsius as opposed to fahrenheit. Never happened.

I'm not saying that "the trend" of which tuatara speaks might not continue to evolve, but I doubt that it will eventually become a "suites only" approach leaving consumers with no other or little choice. From a costs standpoint, that would likely become too expensive for many consumers, who would then look to turn to less expensive alternatives. And there are always freeware products that many will use as an alternative to the higher priced "suites". People will always look for "specific apps", and avoid packages which contains items and products that they do not want.

I agree that it is becoming far too technically advanced for most average PC users and novices, and that is where simplicity should play a major factor. Sometimes, I think software vendors get a little too "geeked up" to impress people.....including their competition....with their superior knowledge of the business. While that probably impresses the more technically advanced and savvy PC users, it alienates a lot of "average" users. Programs that are not only effective at what they do, but that come in an easy to use and easy to understand format are what many will want to turn to. And those type of apps can be found as freeware in many cases, and in turn, a lot of users might opt for "free" as opposed to "advanced". And I shouldn't really knock the freebie items out there, because many, many that are just as (if not more so) effective and reliable as their pay counterparts.

[Starrob]

Yeah, I think the days of combining many products will soon be over. I think things will more and more start to become a either this suite or that suite type of thing simply because even if the different suites don't conflict with each other, it will start to become too much to run many of them at the same time which will slow down the system to a standstill.

So...what I am looking for is the best of breed products....there are a few that I think might hang around for awhile and the rest will fade away.

I think that is why the whose products are best discussions have become so contentious. Both the developers and some end users of some products don't want to be the odd man out when the security industry begins to consolidate.....some don't want to see their favorite products fade away.

As for me, I don't care so much for all the propoganda....I am simply looking for best of breed....that is why I sample a lot of products and learn to seperate fact from fiction.....I really don't care who fades away because I simply want to be left with the best of breed.....





Starrob

[Vikorr]

Talking of suites...probably won't ever happen in the near future, but could you imagine if PG/RD was integrated into an AT/AS ? TDS-5 ??

[beethoven]

-{ Quote: " could you imagine if PG/RD was integrated into an AT/AS ?" }-

and how about this integrated into the OS ? :o :o but then we are talking MS ;)

[richrf]

Forget it. That would keep MS from doing its own funny business. ;)

Rich

[Jooske]

No, years ago it was decided already there will be no Waynedows.
Working on the DiamondCS Security Suite is enough for the moment.

[worldcitizen]

Hi Jooske,

Is there a way I can get TDS 3 to start up when I boot without going through all the tests so I can have the protection running automatically when my PC starts? I don't want to have to start it up manually everytime and I don't want other users on my PC manually starting it. I just want the protection to start up for both me and especially other users without any intervention. Is that at all possible? What is your suggestion Jooske regardning how to set this up if it's possible? I'm running PG, WG and PE and have TDS 3 installed.

Regards

Dave

[richrf]

Hi Dave,

The options you are looking for are listed under the Configuration button. Just click on that button, uncheck all of the boxes on Startup Scanning, and check the Yes box for Run at Windows Startup.

Rich

[worldcitizen]

Thanks Rich,

I'll give it a try.

Dave

[Carver]

I don't like the idea of suites, in a suite you might have a good AV; mediocre Firewall; very poor spam protection. The idea in building your own suite is to have the best of the best for your needs.

[Jooske]

I do like the TDS (Trojan Defence Suite) very much! Lots of very nice tools for our system, network, ports, communication, and lots of other handy tools.

[Golem]

I want TDS-4 to be developed as the best in its class. The problem with a lot of suites is they are too complicated, expensive, eat up resources, and slow down the computer to a point where the infection (i.e. popups) is almost preferable.

I think a top-notch product which does the job virtually 100% which has a very easy to use interface, guides the novice/unsophisticated user through the processes of protection and elimination, doesn't cost a lot, and is efficient with resources, and, most importantly, has timely and effective support, will always have a good to excellent market.

[Triple Helix]

No I feel it's not!! If it is not finished or they push it out to soon Because some Complain where is it, where is it >:( ?? I feel TDS-3 is Great as is, I still want to see A Bigger, Badder TDS-4 for the Future to come! But only when it is ready not before!!:P


Cheers,;D

[Carver]

-{ Quote: "I do like the TDS (Trojan Defence Suite) very much! Lots of very nice tools for our system, network, ports, communication, and lots of other handy tools." }-

The Suite of utilities of TDS-3 revolve around Trojans & communication, I bought TDS-3..2 days ago :). I was holding out for TDS-4, but I don't think it is coming out soon :(

[worldcitizen]

Not a high priority for me. I almost never ever have had the need to use TDS 3 although I have it installed, so I can do without TDS 4 and it's no priority for me. Even when I have TDS 3 installed I never have to use it. I bought it because everyone said it's the best but never ever needed to use it so TDS 4 is certainly not a high priority for me because there simply is no urgency. It is not a program that one must have to live on the internet. The amount of time it's taken so far to release it has shown me that I don't need it and that life goes on without TDS 4 as usual and I'm not getting infected without it so it's not missed whatsoever.

TDS 4 can take as long as it wants as it makes absolutely no difference to me having the program or not. I only bought it because people said it was the best and I wanted to have the best but so far I've found very little use for TDS 3 and for sure TDS 4 will be the same so it's not a priority for me at all.

Dave

[carver]

One of the checks TDS-3 runs when you start up is traces, I found that I was loaded with Trojans. I have done online scans for trojans before(several places), and have found I was clean. I don't think I would have found them with another Anti-Trojan.

[Notok]

I do look forward to TDS-4, especially a leaner and meaner real-time component, but I wouldn't call it a priority at this point. It'll come when it comes, I guess, but do wish we could at least get an idea of where things are at so as to actually be able to prioritize :) I've always hated comparing, but I thought jv16's development blog was a fantastic idea in this regard, it pretty much killed the nagging. Otherwise, though, I try not to think about it much, and just enjoy their other apps.

[Jooske]

Carver, talking about traces, did you look at this thread http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=29034 and if needed please open a new thread to discuss your problem?

For people discussing the suite-concept:
The current TDS is a suite already as we're using it since years of it's existence. Remember Wayne said there will be separate programs we can use stand alone and integrated. We can expect the several items to use the same databases and install the items of our need/liking.
We want all the protection and as light in resources as possible.
So a resident hook like the exec protection idea, but do we like a resident scanner (those are consumers!) or an on demand scanner, i definitely like the scripting option to be able to add to our needs, i like the network tools, plugins, i just like TDS as it is but maybe more actual technologies build-in if there are. Maybe a radius4.

[Tuggboat]

I'm not sure Its a real priority for me for several reasons.
1st, I don't know what it is so how can I know if I need it.

2nd The main reason I was waiting for it is as soon as something flakey starts happening I think I have some new invisible malware, some demon rootkit or the equivilant. I got rootkit revealer and that put my mind at ease.

3rd, My main problem is configuring all these tools so they don't kill each other while I'm trying to protect them. Thats my highest priority and no new magicware is gonna fix that dilemma. Just figuring out which forum is the right one to post questions at is a mystery to me. is it a PG wg firewall or triple redundency on component checking (hmm, perhaps I do need it all put together :))

And I guess the last reason I don't put TDS$ high on my priority list is that I don't think its smart to put a real advanced engine out there until its needed. If an advanced engine is released the race will be on to beat it and new trojans will be developed to meet the challenge. I say keep it under wraps till tds3 can't handle something. and spend the time rewriting the helpfiles for the other products to the high tds3 standard.

[Vikorr]

Umm....I'm all for releasing advanced engines as soon as they work properly. Spyware makers aren't going to stop making their products sneakier and sneakier just because you don't advance your technology..

[worldcitizen]

The TDS 4 Scanner will always be a top priority because it is the best trojan scanner around and I hope too that they make the scanning layout with better fonts but the priority of a real-time hook depends on how pro-active the hook is. Will it take over from the Anti-Virus or will it not intervene unless the AV misses something which may not be often if at all? The priority of a TDS 4 Guard for me depends very much on how pro-active it is compared to my AV. I would prefer TDS 4 Guard to intercept trojans than my AV but will that be possible or an option?

Dave

[tuatara]

-{ Quote: "3rd, My main problem is configuring all these tools so they don't kill each other while I'm trying to protect them. Thats my highest priority and no new magicware is gonna fix that dilemma." }-

True, but ...this will not only be your main problem, but one of the largest problems for the DCS developers.

TDS-3 is not really a resident protection (ok it has execution protection),
but if you run it with Kaspersky, you'll see that in (by far) the most cases
Kaspersky will intercept the Trojan before TDS-3, because you have not
run the TDS-3 on-demand scan yet.

If TDS-4 will improve in catching virusses even without the on-demand scan
(like BOCLEAN does) the risc of getting conflicts between those 2 will
only increase. (KAV <-> TDS-4)

The same problem occurs now, if your TDS-3 on-demand scan finds a trojan,
and your AV does at the same time.
The file(s) gets locked (that ain't easy for a lot of users) and disable your virusscanner or Anti-trojan is not somenthing everybody like to do.

So, yes i think this is a serious problem.

Of course now DCS has the technology of PG, this will be implemented
and it will prevent a lot of malware.

But the problem with PG is that it doesn't say WHAT is malware
and what is not.

And this was just the thing most users liked about the AV AT AS software,
you install a lot of programs and those tools will say what is junk and what is not!.

With PG this is not the case, of course for the insiders this is not a problem,
and they will buy PG or TPF2005, Prevx or SSM etc. etc.

And .. it would be nice if TDS-4 was an antimalware product instead of
a anti-trojan. It is almost impossible to say what is an Trojan or Virus
today, those things get mixed up and you get something like a
trojan-virus or a spyware-trojan etc.

And all the products like Kaspersky are no Anti Virus-only products anymore
but are also anti-trojan,anti-dailer etc. etc.

So you soon get an overlap in stacking those products.

Thus, TDS-4 must become a complete antimalware product,
it certainly had enough time to develop something like this.
(see A2 and Ewido etc.)

Of course this is my personal opinion and i'll be happy if others
don't agree on this ;)

[beetlejuice69]

Well I`m just glad I found out my wife can use my licence to update if I drop dead before TDS-4 is out...takes a lot of worry off my shoulders. :)

[tuatara]

-{ Quote: "Well I`m just glad I found out my wife can use my licence to update if I drop dead before TDS-4 is out...takes a lot of worry off my shoulders" }-

Don't you have kids or grandchildren etc. so they can hand it over to the next generations, i got the license because of the fact that my grandpa's
grandpa's father died back in ...

i've heard they found a cave in Australia where they found
a flint or stone carved with TDS-3 Beta 1 on it..

;D

[beetlejuice69]

Hey now why doesn`t that surprise me? :)

...and no, no kids. :)

[quack(s)]

Well I have it on good authority that it will 'bake a cake' too! And i luv cake :D

[dallen]

I'm willing to wager that beetlejuice69 has children before TDS-4 is released. Shoot, I'd almost be willing to bet that I stumble across a woman that is actually willing to marry me before it's finished... ??? Maybe I'll actually have children first. ;)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above caption is just a joke...of course the odds of me coming across a woman that desperate are so infinitesimally small that anything is more likely.
Also, I'm still playing with, and enjoying, Port Explorer now that I figured out how to get it to work.

[Jooske]

-{ Quote: "i've heard they found a cave in Australia where they found
a flint or stone carved with TDS-3 Beta 1 on it.." }-
A diamond mine. They're so much ahead of all the world, those Aussies.

[tuatara]

-{ Quote: "They're so much ahead of all the world, those Aussies. " }-

I asume you don't mean this regarding the TDS-4 release date

;D

[worldcitizen]

Tuatara, actually I'm afraid you're wrong there & Jooske is absolutely right.

By the time TDS 4 is released we (Aussies) will be ahead of all the world for the longest time it's ever taken to release a software update! LOL.

[Snook]

Yes, it's high priority but I've been playing with the new version of Autoruns v8.0 from Sysinternals. It's nice, really nice.

[beads]

Well theres some really interesting thoughts here on the direction and vision for DCS, et. al.

Heres my 2 cents.

First thing that appears to be certain is that there needs to be more true intergration. Until reading these posts I really treated all these products as stand alone.

Second thing. I don't care which suite, stand alone or quasi-mixture of products out there your using some one is going to find something the others didn't. Case and point. Unistalled Norton 2004 last night without a hitch. Subscription had run out, last week and I was ready for a change to PC-cillian (in this case a Trend freebie for attending a lunch). PC-cillian immediately finds an old version of the blaster worm that Norton missed. Everyone has a story like this. Its very common. No big deal.

None of the commercial or shareware/freeware products find every instance of malware out there forcing admins to use more than one scanner and for some of us (*ahem*) more than one suite. What Tarantula mentioned earlier is one of my pet peeves of the industry. Software that doesn't play well with one another. Heres the catch to the whole thing. Perhaps more attention could be placed on testing less competitively than say complimentary ways. Ensuring that two suites could be used at the same time without stepping on each other.

I know this sounds absolutely insane on its own surface merits but don't rule out admins and tech-heads altogether yet. If done well, you could easily cross sell for compatibility to other vendor suites. If say PE/RG with a Norton, Trend, Panda - whatever. Works and plays well may sound a bit like the old "Runs on Novell" campaign but it still sold a great deal of software without meaning that you could only run WordPerfect off the server.

Always the small business guy - LOL!

- beads

[beads]

Oooops!

So, sorry Tuatara for the spelling error!

- beds (sp)

[tuatara]

-{ Quote: "Oooops! So, sorry Tuatara for the spelling error!" }-

That is funny !

-{ Quote: " Perhaps more attention could be placed on testing less competitively than say complimentary ways. Ensuring that two suites could be used at the same time without stepping on each other." }-

agree on that, everybody is talking about a layered security stack.
The larger companies are building those themself (Symantec/Kaspersky etc.)

Is TDS-4 a high priority for you?

That depends how it works with Kaspersky etc. and what the extra's
are. TDS-3 has besides the Anti-Trojan part a lot of nice network-features etc.

If TDS-4 is something like BOCLEAN (the opposite of on-demand AT and nothing else) it has little prio for me.
I hope (expect) it will be a TDS-3 plus, but faster! and extra features.

But it would be nice if there was a website or so, where you could see,
which security progs can work together and which not.
Or which are covering the same security layer(s) (overlap)

How else are you going to built your layered security defense system?

Another problem is, if one of your products decides to add a new layer,
you still can have a problem.

And there are little security specialists that have the knowledge/experience
with a lot of brands software that work in the same layer-level and about other parts of the stack.
With other words, or they know a lot about Anti Virus progs,
but little regarding spyware etc.
or they know all the products of one brand,
and think those all are the best in the field.

BTW
A Tuatara is a species of it's own, like a living dinosaur,
it looks like a lizard, but in fact is not.
A Tarantula is an insect, Tuatara's eat insects
;)

[musicman]

DiamondCS's products are well known and respected in their field. This is a very interesting thread due to the direction and concentration of antivirus softwares on trojan,worm and malware detection. Over the last 6 months major software's in the area have enhanced and have improved their detection capabilities in this area...... I have tried TDS out for example and its second to none.......but the way the trend is going and development of multi-functional antivirus software's where does it leave Trojan software application to go?? Just a quick example.....VirusChaser antivirus software which is somewhat a unknow software from Korea....has a enormous trojan/malware database, its scan engine is from Dr.Web. Their software is updated 5 times per day. My point being they are one of many moving in the drection I mentioned above.

[tuatara]

The only thing i am really waiting for, is that the Open Source Community
will start it's own Anti Malware program.

Then thing will really go fast! End better for the end user!

;D

[Jooske]

Don't worry, TDS still has the largest database and lots of detection added before the malware is even released, the DiamondCS team is all on top.
Did you notice the over 100 PRIMARIES a day added?
Further they created a series of separate tools, and more energy is put into prevention.
Install those with the JavaCool and GhostSecurity tools besides the DiamondCS tools (and i mean complete with all the freeware too!) and you have a wonderful series of protection.

[Notok]

-{ Quote: "First thing that appears to be certain is that there needs to be more true intergration. Until reading these posts I really treated all these products as stand alone." }-I made a request for a unified interface for all the DCS apps some time ago, and it was stated that this is already planned. I can't wait! I'd put that on a higher priority than TDS-4 alone, personally. Hopefully TDS-4 can gain a rep for eliminating the nastiest of the spyware that uses trojan/rootkit tricks as well as just trojans.. that would give it a higher priority in my book as well.

[Jooske]

Notok, integration of all the products and a quicklaunch in the systray, voice commanded if we like, while we can install them separate as stand alone at wish.

[Notok]

Sounds perfect, Jooske :)

[Jame Taylor]

-{ Quote: "Notok, integration of all the products and a quicklaunch in the systray, voice commanded if we like, while we can install them separate as stand alone at wish." }-

I don't like the idea of a security suite. A bit too dangerous since everything might be taken down at one shot. And bloated.

[Jooske]

Nope. Please read again.

[Peter2150]

Interesting thread, just read thru it. One comment. I believe it was Starrob(forgive me if wrong) who commented he was interested in Wormguard but waiting for Wormguard 4. Don't. Also someone commented they thought Wormguard was obsolete. I was also coming to that conclusion. We were/are wrong.

On one of the forums someone posted a site that gives you a good test of your E-Mail defenses,and how good your ISP is at catching nasties. They test for 10 different nasties. I tested all three of my ISP's and found they all caught about half of them. Look at my signature, and guess what caught the rest. It was WORMGUARD. It isn't obsolete, and don't wait for version 4. It's workinig for you right now!!!

Pete

[Vikorr]

I think this was the thread you are talking about ?

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=82125

[Peter2150]

Hi Vikorr

You are right. Changed my view of Wormguard.

Pete

[tuatara]

I agree on that Wormguard is a nice product,

What i don't understand is, that is, if you order more DCS products
you'll get for every next product a greater discount.

EXCEPT for Wormguard, which is not available in the members-area that way.

I am very curious why that is the case.
And why DCS doesn't offer Wormguard as a product to sell via their resellers.

Perhaps they under estimate this product themselves?
Or perhaps, Wormguard is included in the next version of TDS next year?

But i can still recommend Wormguard, it doesn't use a lot of system resources, and does what is must do.

[Starrob]

Because of the lenght of time to put this product out half of me has lost interest and is looking at other solutions but the other half of me realizes that there seems to be a awful amount of time being expended of developing features and that perhaps some of the features that are being worked on might provide additional benefit above and beyond what is already on the marketplace.

Right now, everything is guess work until it comes out. It is possible that those that are not interested now will have a big interest once they hear/see about the features when it is released and just as likely it could be a big disappointment for all that have waited anxiously for so long. Flip a coin.



Starrob

[Rainwalker]

-{ Quote: "Not a high priority for me. I almost never ever have had the need to use TDS 3 although I have it installed, so I can do without TDS 4 and it's no priority for me. Even when I have TDS 3 installed I never have to use it. I bought it because everyone said it's the best but never ever needed to use it so TDS 4 is certainly not a high priority for me because there simply is no urgency. It is not a program that one must have to live on the internet. The amount of time it's taken so far to release it has shown me that I don't need it and that life goes on without TDS 4 as usual and I'm not getting infected without it so it's not missed whatsoever.

TDS 4 can take as long as it wants as it makes absolutely no difference to me having the program or not. I only bought it because people said it was the best and I wanted to have the best but so far I've found very little use for TDS 3 and for sure TDS 4 will be the same so it's not a priority for me at all.

Dave" }-

Yep, my story also..............sure not holding my breath for TDS 4 ...although Once upon a time i was.......

[bigc73542]

When tds4 comes out it should be nice. But like they have said when it is here it's here ;)

[worldcitizen]

I think the question asked that is TDS a priority for you, exposes some issues and dilmmas for the programmers. Firstly TDS 3 and TDS 4 are not programs that one must have as many agree here that having it is only an additional layer but not a 'must have' so that raises the question of just how much a priority it is to have TDS 4 or TDS 3. While it's a nice prgram to have as an added layer there's no urgency or desperation for a program like this as a good AV will block most trojans.

People will lose interest in TDS 4 until it comes out then everyone will be raving about it but god help it if it comes out full of bugs because of the time we have all been waiting for it to arrive. I think the amount of time waiting for the initial release has killed off a lot of it's being a priority but if it does come out eventually I do hope we don't have to go through 6 months of upgrades before it works properly like PG because we've waited so long for this already.

The main priority for me now with TDS 4 is this. Take your time but for god's sake bring out a version which works and don't keep us waiting another 6 months for updates before it works properly. In other words test it thoroughly and make sure it works on machines with 1 and many accounts and then release it but whatever don't release it full of bugs which will only make us have to wait longer before we can really use it. The priority is getting it right 1st time.

Dave

[dallen]

Everyone that reads these forums on even a semi-regular basis has probably stumbled across one of my comments. Usually I'm berating Diamond CS about the release of TDS-4, but I've officially changed my position. After reconsidering the necessity of the software (due in part to a phone conversation with a prominent member of this forum), I've determined that I don't need Trojan Defense Suite. I want it. This being said, I wish that I had come to this realization prior to purchasing it. Frankly, the software is another layer of security, but it is a non-essential layer. Most of us are here because we have an abnormal fascination with computer security.
As worldcitizen reiterated -{ Quote: "...a good AV will block most trojans" }-I would extend that comment to include most worms and strengthen it to say "A good AV will adequately protect most users from trojans." Most of the computers I run across are lucky to have an AV, let alone an updated AV. The real threat seems to be spyware.

The bottom line, if I were to choose 2 pieces of software to protect my system (which I would say most users don't protect their systems with much more than), I would choose a firewall and an AV. If I were to extend that, I would include 2 or 3 anti-spyware programs. Beyond that is overkill, but then I may step into Process Guard. TDS is not in what I would consider an important layer of security.

[tuatara]

-{ Quote: "DALLEN WROTE: I would extend that comment to include most worms and strengthen it to say "A good AV will adequately protect most users from trojans." Most of the computers I run across are lucky to have an AV, let alone an updated AV. The real threat seems to be spyware." }-

I agree with that Dallen.

There was a time long ago, when AV's did not want to protect you against
Trojans. This made the market for the AT.

But then people where starting to build there own layered defence,
which is (as told before) not user friendly and too difficult.

So i think that it is a good improvement, that AV's protect you against
Trojans and Dialers etc (better: other malware) as well.

I am not interrested if it is a Trojan or AV, if it is malware i don't want it on my computer.

After years of flaming from customers that have their computers
with problems, of undetected malware, almost all AV's have picked this up.
Of course, otherwise people will soon choose an AV that does.

This makes the market for a specific AT almost impossible.

Perhaps for some Security Specialist, or others who collect Anti Malware progs for their hobby.

With tools like Processguard or Tiny Personal Firewall 2005 Pro (has the same
features and more) and SSM, Regrun Gold it becomes even more difficult.

I think that is the main reason why the release of the product has taken this long, it must have more features too make it interresting.

For us who have payed for it, (we bought a license of TDS-3 SEVERAL YEARS ago with an FREE upgrade to TDS-4) ...

We would like to see, what TDS-4 will be, it looks as if last year back in 2004
the planned release date was the same year end December.

But for some reason, the project has changed in a gigantic way, since
there is (after AGAIN more then a half year) no sign of life from it.

So TDS-4 was a high priority for me when AV's did not catch Trojans,
but since Kaspersky and others find trojans faster then TDS-3 on my system
in only want TDS-4 because i payed for it, and for the other features
(built-in networktools etc)

So if TDS-4 is only less on-demand and more then BOCLEAN i will be hyper-dissapointed.

[Infinity]

yeah, at least we can express ourselves here :D but one thing I must say too: they always were miles ahead of the rest...always. it won't be any different ;)
it just takes a bit time probably cause tds will have more features indeed and don't forget it comes with different kind of packages.

we will be enjoying it soon :)...I hope ;)

[dallen]

-{ Quote: "...and don't forget it comes with different kind of packages." }-
Of course this is speculation, albeit speculation that has been somewhat supported by those that should know. The interesting thing is that I was totally sold on Diamond CS. I've purchased everything they offer except CryptoSuite (which I believe is now a Ghost Security product). Had these different kinds of packages been released sooner, I would have bought any additional "package" they offered. However, I now realize that these softwares aren't necessary. Case in point:
I recently evaluated RegDefend by Ghost Security. I thought I needed a real good registry protection system and RegDefend is arguably one of the best on the market. The forums that cover that particular software are littered with people that are confused about .ghst files (which seem to enhance the protection). It dawned on my after reading the forums that people are running a higher risk of causing system problems by protecting the registry than they would face under normal system usage with an unprotected registry. ***Of course that assumes that the user has what I consider to be the most necessary pieces of software (mentioned above) protecting their system.***
My point is that Infinity is correct in saying that [Diamond CS] is miles ahead of the rest, but are they miles ahead in an area of computer security that computer users need? Why should TDS-4 be a high priority?

[richrf]

Hi Dallen,

I agree that registry protection is not a must have, and if it is too confusing then should be avoided. However, I believe most users of RegDefend have accustomed themselves to registry alerts that they may receive. It is usually when an alert comes out of no where (e.g. when there is no update in effect) that attention has to be given to an alert. So far, in my experiences, RegDefend has not caught anything that may have gotten past Kaspersky AV and ProcessGuard, but I use it as an extra shield just in case some malware does get the opportunity to instantiate itself in the registry.

I judge the chances of this to be probably less than 1 in a 1000 malware encounters and since nowadays I encounter malware maybe 6 times a year (all of which seem to be caught by KAV), then the chances of RegDefend actually blocking something is probably not going to happen in my lifetime. :) Then again, the chances that I will have a fire in my home has probably the same level of probability, yet I still carry insurance. It is a matter of whether a "nice to have" is worth it to a particular individual.

Rich

[Infinity]

Excellent post Rich. my feelings exactly. but to be honest and slightly off topic:

there must be some special software these days for me spending any more money on it...

[Pollmaster]

-{ Quote: "Excellent post Rich. my feelings exactly. but to be honest and slightly off topic:

there must be some special software these days for me spending any more money on it..." }-

You sure about that? :)

[richrf]

-{ Quote: "Excellent post Rich. my feelings exactly. but to be honest and slightly off topic:

there must be some special software these days for me spending any more money on it..." }-

Hi Infinity,

lol. :D Life is very peaceful nowadays. I think I am set for the time being. Just kicking back and enjoying using my computer when I need to. Mostly ordering some good books from Amazon or Half.com. Steve Martin writes some funny - and really odd - books.

Cya around,
Rich

[Infinity]

lol :D

[tuatara]

-{ Quote: "yeah, at least we can express ourselves here but one thing I must say too: they always were miles ahead of the rest...always. it won't be any different
" }-

Yes, i think it is very positive that the Pro's and Contra's can be discussed on this forum.

And yes, they always were miles ahead, but i am afraid, that at this moment,
this is not longer so..

At the release of TDS-3 they were without a shadow of a doubt ..

but now, with a Anti-Trojan (specific) i am afraid they are not.
PG has a lot of compatition in the field that can do the same or more.

Wormguard ?

Crypto Suite is at Ghost Security

But Port Explorer is absolutely still the best in the field !

But it is time that the will release something, that will bring them in the Anti Malware race again.

As they did in the past, i still trust them to make that happen.

I am very curious what the new TDS versions will be like,
and/or if there is another product release (spin-off) at the same time

:>)

We'll soon know (within a few years)

Sorry , for the last line, this goes automaticly .... ;D

[richrf]

-{ Quote: "
PG has a lot of compatition in the field that can do the same or more.
" }-

Hi,

I've been looking at most of the competitive products. Of the ones I have looked at, I would say that System Safety Monitor can probably provide comparable and more capabilities to ProcessGuard but there are several aspects of ProcessGuard that do offset some of the additional capabilities that SSM has (for one, SSM is still in beta and it is not clear where development is headed).

Other products offer similar capabilities to ProcessGuard but have less capabilities in some areas but more in others. As you suggest, this is a very competitive area, but I am satisfied right now that PG has some unique features which continue to make it highly competitive and desirable, and combined with RegDefend provide a great deal of security coverage with very strong support and reliability. But I agree - DiamondCS will need to continue to upgrade this product in order to maintain a leadership position. Other competitors have similar challenges.

Rich

[Pollmaster]

-{ Quote: "Hi,

I've been looking at most of the competitive products. Of the ones I have looked at, I would say that System Safety Monitor can probably provide comparable and more capabilities to ProcessGuard but there are several aspects of ProcessGuard that do offset some of the additional capabilities that SSM has (for one, SSM is still in beta and it is not clear where development is headed).

Other products offer similar capabilities to ProcessGuard but have less capabilities in some areas but more in others. As you suggest, this is a very competitive area, but I am satisfied right now that PG has some unique features which continue to make it highly competitive and desirable, and combined with RegDefend provide a great deal of security coverage with very strong support and reliability.

Rich" }-

I think the main advantage PG has over its rival it's it maturity, as a result it's more rock stable than most other products.

In terms of functionality, there are a lot of products that have began to match it.

For example, the recently released Antihook 2.5, seems to do everything PG does, on top of monitoring dlls.

On the minus side , Proccessguard itself is limited to protecting processes but doesn't handle the registry or file areas (BHO,Hosts,windows area etc), so it isn't a complete HIP/IDS/IDP whatever you call it solution

The trend seems to be for all-in-one combos that combine the functionality of PG,Prevx,Regdefend to protect the proccesses, the registry and file areas.

Promising ones appear to be safensec, online armour http://www.trustware.com/ not to mention a lot of others reviewed http://kareldjag.over-blog.com

It's seem hard to justify paying for 2 products, if safensec for example can replace both. I'm talking about normal people, not security freaks of course.

[richrf]

I believe that the extensibility of RegDefend is very useful. The stability of both products are a strong positive. Not to mention, ProcessGuard and RegDefend have been put through the wringer (well tested) and have excellent support on this forum. It is well worth it to me to pay an extra few bucks to get products that work and are well supported.

SafeNSecure is a good case in point. I installed it and right away, ProcessGuard reports that ZoneAlarm (and another security software that I had installed) had "changed". I didn't understand why this occurred so I posted a message asking for the reason. I never received an answer. So I reverted to an image copy because I do not know the nature of this problem. Features are one thing. Actual real-life experiences are another. SSM is another product that continually blew up my system. Ditto Prevx Pro. Totally unusable for me. I know that others have more positive experiences with these products than I do, but there is more to choosing software than checking off a list. Getting it installed, running, and getting good support are most important, because a product that is not running is no good to me.

At this point, I would not trade-in (and have not traded in) PG+RegDefend for any of the other products, and price is not a factor. I am simply looking for products that work and I can trust. This of course can change, and I am quite willing to change when the time is appropriate. For me, security is paramount and I choose my products very carefully.

Rich

[dallen]

-{ Quote: "For me, security is paramount..." }-richrf,
Please don't take offense to this, but what is it you do that requires such "protection?" The reason I ask is that I see many of my friends' computers and they their systems run great with a firewall, AV, and 2-3 of the best Anti-Spyware programs. I'm just not convinced that PG, RD, WG, and TDS are needed. Don't get me wrong, I own all of them but RD. I almost bought RD, until I reconsidered and decided that it is simply not necessary. These programs only cost $30-40 each (approximately), but that adds up when you consider that you're talking about 3-4, or more, programs. Not to mention the opportunity cost that you are foregoing. Let's face it, one could earn returns on that money and when you compound those returns over time it can be significant. ;)

[bigc73542]

Dallen let me answer that question from my point of view. I do not run a white box computer that cost two or three hundred dollars. I am running an expensive performance computer that actually cost a lot of money. If these thirty or fourty dollar programs can help keep this machine healthy and extend it's life by helping keep malware and other nasties from possibly damaging something, then it was a bargain. and I can't see why anyone would wonder why I would want to have these programs onboard. It seems very obvious to me.

bigc

[richrf]

-{ Quote: "richrf,
Please don't take offense to this, but what is it you do that requires such "protection?" The reason I ask is that I see many of my friends' computers and they their systems run great with a firewall, AV, and 2-3 of the best Anti-Spyware programs. " }-

Hi dallen,

Just the usual web surfing and financial transaction. While your friends have chosen to use anti-spyware, I consider this approach to porous and hit-and-miss for my needs. Exactly how many different AS do I need. I don't know, given all of the possible vulnerabilities once a program begins to execute. So I am using programs that monitor behavior and protection against certain system actions (e.g. unauthorized program execution, driver/service installation, registry updates - which are pro-active and therefore before the fact).

Here is a thread which concerns SafeNSecure (offers similar protection to ProcessGuard and RegDefend) which illustrates how these type of programs provide very good backup defense.

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=87210

For me, the few dollars is a very cheap insurance policy. It is nothing compared the problems that an intrusion can cause - in both time and money. If it is a choice between a good anti-malware program and a good night out, I'll skip one night out. :-) For me, this is commonsense. I guess for others it is overkill. Depends upon one's point of view and the way one fashions one's life.

Rich

[Vikorr]

I run 6 realtime security programs on my computer

Firewall
AV
AT
PrevX Pro
PG
ShadowUser

This isn't too dissimilar to richrf's. If rich is anything like me, he uses PG/RD (where I use PrevX/PG) to stop installation of spyware....if you use an AS, then you have the AS for the same reason I use PrevX/PG...only PrevX/PG works better....why use an AS that detects (sometimes) spyware after installation ?

That said, I still use AS for the occasional scan, but they never find anything (same with the AT).

Also, if you do internet banking, why would you purely rely on an AS, when, given their unreliable detection rate, you may get compromised, when a few extra dollars could prevent it ?

As for safe-n-sec the last (and only) test I ever saw of it, gave it somewhere between a 2/3 and 3/4 prevention rate...that's somewhere near Panda's Truprevent prevention rate. Anti-malware looks very promising, but it caused my computer to freeze.

edit : I would certainly like a single program that provided the coverage of PrevX/PG/RD... that would be an awesome program...it's possible that a future version of PrevX may do just that, but who knows. Certainly I would hope that TDS-4 becomes a program that can not just detect, but prevent installation of malware (while hopefully being light on resources)

[worldcitizen]

I agree with you Tuatara and Dallen.

It must be very frustrating for DCS to come up with a product that is basically a dying race because most good AV's are more than capable of looking after a PC as far as trojans and even worms go so what use is a TDS 4 going to be to anyone?

I think DCS will have to come up with some revolutionary changes to TDS 4 to make it marketable. For instance, if there were a TDS 4 emailing program where I could send and receive emails checked by TDS 4 then I would be interested because although my AV does the job I would much more prefer a specialist client to scan my email but it would have to be near perfect.
I think TDS 4 MUST be a service orientated program to succeed. By that I mean that it must be something that users will make use of daily in their computer environment. I only used TDS 3 ever once in about 3 years to ever scan for a trojan. Apart from that it just sat on the shelf gathering dust.

However, I regularly have the need to send confidential emails but neither TDS 3 nor Wormguard nor any other DCS program is really of much use to me so why don't they start addressing privacy issues which are just as important as security concerns matter of fact they overlap. It's just as important for my email to reach my contacts unread as it is for me not to get infected by a trojan but my AV alrteady takes care of that so I do have needs that DCS doesn't address because they still are trying to compete with the AV's and they aren't going to win just with that alone. They will need new and revolutionary innovations if they don't want to get left behind.

I would love it if DCS made a firewall or anda secure email client. They could make the very best but I don't know if they're into that yet but these things are NEEDS and they have to come where the business is because specialising in a field that is basically being taken over by AV's is risky for them. They need to enter mainstream competition and make their programs NEEDED by PC users.

Dave

[Pollmaster]

-{ Quote: "I believe that the extensibility of RegDefend is very useful. The stability of both products are a strong positive. Not to mention, ProcessGuard and RegDefend have been put through the wringer (well tested) and have excellent support on this forum. It is well worth it to me to pay an extra few bucks to get products that work and are well supported. " }-

As I said , only security freaks will think that way. Extensibility by the way exists in products like SafenSecurity.Besides for most people, that's not even a plus.

I see only the noobies playing with extended gst files and I see them running into all sorts of problems. Extensibility might not be a plus.

-{ Quote: "
SafeNSecure is a good case in point. I installed it and right away, ProcessGuard reports that ZoneAlarm (and another security software that I had installed) had "changed".
" }-

You ran PG and SafeNSecure TOGETHER?? Didn't even turn PG off? You kidding me right? I know you have backups, but that's not the best way to judge a product.

-{ Quote: "I didn't understand why this occurred so I posted a message asking for the reason. I never received an answer. " }-

Er, shouldn't you be asking Diamond , what is happening, since it's their product that is displaying the message? In any case, you certainly don't expect the SafeNsecure service reps to know why a competitor's product is displaying a weird message. I doubt anyone knows for sure, due to the interractions.

I suppose they should have sent you a message saying so, and advising you not to mix products. So one mark against them. BTW did you ask the same question in the PG forums? I suspect being a PG pundit as you are you might possibly get a better response then some annoymous user of another product.

-{ Quote: "
Actual real-life experiences are another. SSM is another product that continually blew up my system. Ditto Prevx Pro. Totally unusable for me. I know that others have more positive experiences with these products than I do, but there is more to choosing software than checking off a list.
" }-

Indeed. But given that you can never be sure what works unless you try, the feature list is the very first thing you look at. Other factors like stability, service can only be assessed with time.

Appealing to another's experience as you point out is useless, since everyone's computer setup is different. I've personally having problems with Regdefend stalling randomly, when I'm working the groups, but it seems I'm the only one with this problem.

-{ Quote: "
Getting it installed, running, and getting good support are most important, because a product that is not running is no good to me.
" }-

The implication here is that the support you get from Diamond CS is superior to all other companies. I'm not sure if that's the 100% truth. The main thing I guess is that you are a well known supporter of Diamond CS products, you single handedly earn Diamond a couple of sales each month, you are known by a first name basis to the people there. Obviously you are going to get faster support.

If you start getting the attention of the people of <insert product x> , perhaps by working in the name of <product x> in every post you make, I'm sure you will suddenly start getting first rate support on all sort of weird technical problems :)

-{ Quote: "
At this point, I would not trade-in (and have not traded in) PG+RegDefend for any of the other products, and price is not a factor. I am simply looking for products that work and I can trust. This of course can change, and I am quite willing to change when the time is appropriate. For me, security is paramount and I choose my products very carefully.

Rich" }-

Personally, given the amount of energy and time you invested with these products, I would say you should stay with them, even if another product is objectively slightly superior.

[Pollmaster]

-{ Quote: "I run 6 realtime security programs on my computer

Firewall
AV
AT
PrevX Pro
PG
ShadowUser

This isn't too dissimilar to richrf's. If rich is anything like me, he uses PG/RD (where I use PrevX/PG) to stop installation of spyware....if you use an AS, then you have the AS for the same reason I use PrevX/PG...only PrevX/PG works better....why use an AS that detects (sometimes) spyware after installation ?

" }-

I don't think you can say AS is worse than PrevX/PG in detecting spyware. They are clearly different tools, with different functions.

If you are going to hold this line of reasoning, there is no point running AVs either :) Granted most AS (I refer to the signature scanner portion), appear to be better at detection after installation then prior to installation, but that's still a necessary evil.

For many people, after securing their browsers, the threat of Spyware comes from malware they install themselves. As discussed many times, this is something PG (to a lesser extent PrevX) will be of limited use.

-{ Quote: "
That said, I still use AS for the occasional scan, but they never find anything (same with the AT).
" }-

If you don't run PrevX or processguard, I bet the same scans will result?

-{ Quote: "
Also, if you do internet banking, why would you purely rely on an AS, when, given their unreliable detection rate, you may get compromised, when a few extra dollars could prevent it ?
" }-

Would it?

-{ Quote: "
edit : I would certainly like a single program that provided the coverage of PrevX/PG/RD... that would be an awesome program...it's possible that a future version of PrevX may do just that, but who knows. Certainly I would hope that TDS-4 becomes a program that can not just detect, but prevent installation of malware (while hopefully being light on resources)" }-

TDS is a anti-trojan isn't it? I certainly don't want it changed into a competitor of antimalware. There's a place for scanners.

[Pollmaster]

Hey Dallen

I'm not sure why you even try. The reason why we run PG,Regdefend,WG,PrevX and more is something that cannot be justified rationally really.

It's just a hobby.

Behind all the rationales and talk about value of their security, that's all there is to it. Financial transactions? Heck just check your credit card statements. Get a bank with good fraud insurance etc...

Besides by any reasonable (or unreasonable) standard, the people here run extremely tight defenses and yet that doesn't stop them from continually spending hours trying to tweak for what might be (doubtfully) better security.

Endless hours trying to figure out which AV is best, try to make an unruly system of "kernel based" programs run together, configuring firewalls and security products, trying to read up on theortical exploits and ways hackers might overcome your defenses...

If you want to really count the cost of these security precautions, you don't have to just add the monetary cost, but the time cost as well.

Any rational cost , benefit ratio would say to "hell with it" after doing all the normal precautions (AV,firewall,AS and maybe IDS). Maybe read these forums once a month or week to see if there's anything new.

Yet you see the people here daily, on their quest for the perfect defense as if their lives depended on it.

Why? Because it's a hobby! It's fun!

Richrf makes a joke about "Just kicking back and enjoying using my computer when I need to. Mostly ordering some good books from Amazon or Half.com. "

But can we doubt that he will continue to ply these forums and more looking for better products to try for the additional 1% protection against theortical attacks? Heck, I don't do anything any more on my computer , besides play with security tools these days, I bet it's the same for many people.

Infinity jokes about a product having to be something special before he will pay for it.

Can we doubt, that the next time some cool toy comes along , our credit cards are going to feel the crunch again?

Personally I don't think it's a problem, it's my money and time after all. The problem begins when you lose sight of this and insist everyone else in the world, start playing the same game.

[Vikorr]

Hi Pollmaster

Prior to becoming interested in security (and knowing virtually nothing about it), I did indeed get hit by spyware fairly often. I don't now.

It was getting hit by a CWS trojan/spyware (and some other issues) that caused me to start reading for other ways to deal with spyware.

Admittedly now, I have changed all my IE settings, added a hosts file, added IE-SPYAD etc etc, but my surfing habits haven't changed noticably (I know I could use firefox, but so far this setup is working for me, so I don't as yet see any need to change it).

I realise that AS's and PG/PrevX Pro are different products, and I also know PG/PX have a weakness when installing programs - hence I still do the occasional scan with AS's, but I don't use their real-time functions, rather I rely on PG/PrevXPro for that.

I see no reason why TDS-4 can't be an anti-malware, instead of purely an anti-trojan. Certainly spyware and trojans share a lot in common.

"Behind all the rationales and talk about value of their security, that's all there is to it. Financial transactions? Heck just check your credit card statements. Get a bank with good fraud insurance etc..." interesting...I've seen numerous news articles of people who've lost their life savings to such thefts...then articles of people who've had their identity stolen, then credit cards issued in their name, then their credit rating ruined, with debt collectors chasing them...and one thing both things have in common...those people having to prove it wasnt them? This is definitely NOT something you want to have to deal with after the fact.

Another somewhat similar thing...I know a person who had his wireless bandwith stolen...unfortunately he was with an ISP that charges for going over your download limit...left him with a $125 bill.

I see nothing wrong with spending some extra on security over and above the standard AV/firewall. I do agree that they give only incremental protection, but if the 'increment' is say 98% to 99.5% that is still a 4 times increase in protection.

[Pollmaster]

-{ Quote: "Hi Pollmaster

Prior to becoming interested in security (and knowing virtually nothing about it), I did indeed get hit by spyware fairly often. I don't now.

It was getting hit by a CWS trojan/spyware (and some other issues) that caused me to start reading for other ways to deal with spyware.
" }-

I've being playing this game (the security dance game) longer than you have I guess probably that's why I've always avoided being infected by spyware. Being a early adopter of Mozilla + Proxomitron for IE helped too.

Maybe that's why I see security as a hobby, while you guys of the "I got hit by malware and now I think the world is full of superhackers out to get me" gang are so intense.

-{ Quote: "
Admittedly now, I have changed all my IE settings, added a hosts file, added IE-SPYAD etc etc, but my surfing habits haven't changed noticably (I know I could use firefox, but so far this setup is working for me, so I don't as yet see any need to change it)." }-

Perhaps that alone would be sufficient to prevent CWS hacks?
But of course now you are after bigger fish....

-{ Quote: "
I realise that AS's and PG/PrevX Pro are different products, and I also know PG/PX have a weakness when installing programs - hence I still do the occasional scan with AS's, but I don't use their real-time functions, rather I rely on PG/PrevXPro for that.
" }-

I suppose that is fair enough, for most part the realtime monitors of AS (leaving aside the process scanning portion)
are basically covered by PrevX. Ideally, if you use Counterspy or MSAS, you should research which areas are not covered by PrevX and keep them , which turning the rest of.

That's fun!

-{ Quote: "
I see no reason why TDS-4 can't be an anti-malware, instead of purely an anti-trojan. Certainly spyware and trojans share a lot in common." }-

That's not the point. What I mean is to remain basically a scanner. Rather than morphing into PrevX.


-{ Quote: " interesting...I've seen numerous news articles of people who've lost their life savings to such thefts...then articles of people who've had their identity stolen, then credit cards issued in their name, then their credit rating ruined, with debt collectors chasing them...and one thing both things have in common...those people having to prove it wasnt them? This is definitely NOT something you want to have to deal with after the fact." }-

Sure, I'm not saying that you shouldn't do anything to protect yourself. We don't know anything about these people, what precautions they have, maybe they had none that's why they got into trouble.

The point is, are you going to tell me, that installing X,Y,Z is going to protect you from all that? Do you have any shred of evidence that doing X,Y,Z is going to make the difference? Or are you simply praying that it will? Maybe throw enough software at the problem and you will be safe?


The fact is if you are trying to justify doing X, by appealing to an infinite downside (losing everything!!), you can justify doing anything. Heck why not engage someone to do penetration hacking into your system? Why not design your own OS from ground up....

I'm sure you see the folly of such thinking.

-{ Quote: "
Another somewhat similar thing...I know a person who had his wireless bandwith stolen...unfortunately he was with an ISP that charges for going over your download limit...left him with a $125 bill.
" }-

$125 bill! The sky is falling! How much does PG+Regdefend+PrevXPro cost? Wait a sec, will those prevent wireless bandwidth thieft? :)

I find it telling that the only case you can tell me that you know personally of, is a relatively minor case, while those whose lives were destroyed are merely newstories.
Perhaps that tells you something?

-{ Quote: "
I see nothing wrong with spending some extra on security over and above the standard AV/firewall. I do agree that they give only incremental protection, but if the 'increment' is say 98% to 99.5% that is still a 4 times increase in protection." }-

Of course, you are now pulling figures out of the air.
Are we certain that extra security over the standard AV/firewall will even give us that?

Or perhaps the cases you cite in the newsreport, are merely people without standard AV/firewall types?

[Vikorr]

Heh, actually, you mistake me... despite getting hit by a nasty spyware I don't think the world is full of superhackers, nor am I'm paranoid..I know there is no one out to get me (and I know a number of people who think this is the case)...yet I would simply like to be able to surf the web without worrying about malware.

From that point of view security has indeed become a bit of a hobby for me, but there is also a serious side of it also....certainly I don't claim to be an expert on security, but what I have now is working much better than my old setup (and yes, the IE hardenned setting alone, I'm sure have prevented much just by themselves).

As for TDS becoming PrevX, I didn't mean it that way at all. You answered this question yourself earlier "if you use Counterspy or MSAS, you should research which areas are not covered by PrevX and keep them , which turning the rest of" <sorry, don't know how to do the running quot thingy> Counterspy/MSAS monitor areas where spyware downloads to 'prevent' them installing in the firstplace...I see no reason why TDS can't do this (which admittedly would give it lots of PrevX like functions), and still retain it's scanning engine.

Who said anything about PG/RD etc preventing wireless bandwith theft ? That is simply a further example that a little bit of security (whichever security would be applicable) can save a good deal of stress...that download was only 1.5gb (in about 2 hours) while the person was at work...it could certainly have been a lot worse.

I'm quite sorry if you don't think 'newstories' aren't of real people...going by that reasoning, seeing as I don't personally know of anyone in Iraq...that isn't real either.

edit : sorry about the edits, bad posting habit.
edit 2 : yes, I was pulling figures out of the air, just to give an example of 'incremental' protection.

[Pollmaster]

-{ Quote: "Heh, actually, you mistake me... despite getting hit by a nasty spyware I don't think the world is full of superhackers, nor am I'm paranoid..I know there is no one out to get me (and I know a number of people who think this is the case)...yet I would simply like to be able to surf the web without worrying about malware." }-

Which I'm sure you think you achieved this already. So why are you still here, researching worms and bufferoverflows? :)

-{ Quote: "
I see no reason why TDS can't do this (which admittedly would give it lots of PrevX like functions), and still retain it's scanning engine.
" }-

I don't like the way things are going with regards to this. Nowdays it seems that every security software has to add this kind of extra real time monitoring on top of process scanning.

It's just bloat, even if you can turn that off (don't set me off talking about those that can't be turnt off). You want to be a scanner, be a scanner. Don't pretend to be some HIPS solution.

I suppose AS started this trend, because of their inability to accruately detect antispyware , but I don't see why every product as to have that.

It's not even that hard to add.

So nowdays , with every product (AV,AT,AS)pretending to act like a HIPS product, you get noobies running around wondering about conflicts. For those of us searching for the ultimate solution, we got spend hours looking at what each solution is actually watching ,and configure them so there isn't too much overlap.

Sigh...


-{ Quote: "
edit : sorry about the edits, I'm bad for that." }-

No problem, I do it too.

Edit 1 : Of course people reported in the news are real. The problem with newspapers and media, is that by highlighting extreme unlikely cases, it creates an illusion that these things are more common then they seem. The reason why they are reported is because they are extreme after all!

PS you should really learn how to do the quote thing. You pasted the art of using PG, quoting shouldnt be hard.

[Vikorr]

"Which I'm sure you think you achieved this already. So why are you still here, researching worms and bufferoverflows?"

In relation to the first sentence...aren't you arguing that I've already achieved this with system hardenning and an AV/AS/Firewall? < I could be wrong here - just what it seems to me>

But then you also say AS's don't have the best detection rate...

You also say that AS's added things similar to PrevX because of their detection rate...I added PrevX before I knew any AS's had anything like that...and seeing they use less resources than a realtime AS, I choose that road instead.

In relation to the second sentence, because as I said, it's become a bit of a hobby. If it wasn't, I wouldn't still be reading wilders, unless I had another security issue.

Fair enough that you want a scanner to be purely a scanner. I suppose that, as there is so much competition in the field, that each product is looking for ways to differentiate itself, and sell itself.

[worldcitizen]

Pollmaster,

Hats off to you mate for stating the obvious that a lot of security freaks go into overkill not accepting reality that it's all basically a hobby to them and that most people can and do survive with the basics. It's usually people who are at the other end of the security paradigm who get hit, those who completely neglect having even the basics and keeping their OS updated with patches as well as updating their AV regularly.

There's nothing wrong at all if people feel it's fine to have 99 layers of protection if it eases their paranoia and calms their hysteria but realistically it's just not needed. I see a place for TDS 4 and TDS 3 as a specialist scanner - when something goes awefully wrong and you need to check immediately for trojans - it's the best for that. But in 5 years surfing I only got infected with a trojan once as well as a couple of viruses which got through my AV but what has always caused me more problems than anything is spyware.

Spyware scanners are ok but they don't always get rid of spyware. The trick is not to let it on in the 1st place so I do fully endorse things like Process Guard & Port Explorer which can detect these things. As far as real time monitors this is where it gets a bit sticky. I don't think you need any realtime protection except an AV, a firewall and either an AS or Process Guard. I run an AV alongside PG and a firewall and I never get infected but although I see people here with sometimes 6 layers or more I don't endorse such practices as I have personally found them to just waste resources. If I can exist nicely with running 3 programs and not get infected why run 10??

But with people here it's a hobby because they are so security conscious that they would very rarely if ever get infiltrated so they just hang around waiting to fiddle with the next 'innovation'. But having said that the malware distributers are advancing their aims and things like root-kits and stealth malware are the new malware around the corner. Because the malware industry is scientifically advancing - the prevention industry has to advance to keep abreast of it so it's a catch 22 situation.

Maybe in the past programs like PG were not needed but now and in the near future they will come into their own. The sophistication of malware nowadays is such that specialist tools will never go out of fashion if they account for future developments in the malware industry.

I'm not a security freak and usually knock those who get carried away with it all but I must agree that programs like Process Guard really are needed as they address this new sophistication found in the latest malware and this makes it an indispensable program for me personally.

After I saw what happened to my sister's new PC a few months ago I realised the need. She bought a new PC and I told her to patch the OS and install an AV and she ignored me and then all mayhem broke lose. I went to her place twice with the very best AS but couldn't remove the malware and we had to re-install the OS which freaked her out. Now she hasTrend Micro Security suite and she hasn't been infected since so I understand that to be safe you need the basics. IF you want to go to red-light districts then you'll need more because you'll get attacked more & in more sophisticated ways so you need to make sure you have the programs to deal with it. I am reckless where I go so I have PG, TDS 3 on standby and Port Explorer in case I notice my connection being used inadvertantly and I do find all these programs so far very useful to have whether on standby or on the job.

The issue here is you don't HAVE to have 10 layers and we can't say that only DCS programs work and others are no good. There are many good programs out there but personally I have found DCS programs to be very specialised as well as very professional and they do a very good job which is why I bought them. I don't use them because I'm a security freak but because I am an internet freak and it wasn't until I tried these products that I was able to keep things under tight control but I don't go overboard because I tried that and I had trouble using my PC because it was so protected. For people so paranoid better not to use a PC at all.

Dave

[Starrob]

Who cares whether other people are purchasing software as a hobby or because they have a real need? When it gets down to it, my major concern is my own computer. Why people should become so concerned about the motivations of why someone uses this or that software is beyond me.

I was going to describe my exact situation on why I require more security than most and why I use certain software but I decided not to because I don't really want my exact profile on the internet for many reasons.

I for one do not know why people run the set-ups that they do on their computers. The reason why I don't know is because I don't personally know anyone on this board. While I occasionally speculate about things, I try to limit my speculations to the software or the security procedures involved.

I look at the title of this thread. It says, "Is TDS-4 a priority for you?" It does not state is "Do you think TDS-4 should be a priority for other people?"

For me.....I personally don't know if it will be a priority for me because it has not been released yet so I don't know the features and even if I did know the features I don't know if I will need those features or not at the point in time in the future when it arrives.

In the future the nature of security threats could make TDS-4 very relevant or the features in TDS-4 may be rendered obsolete due to a variety of factors. The topic of this thread is a sort of flip of the coin thing. Next year, it could be those that say it is not relevant now will be the biggest cheerleaders and vice versa the biggest cheerleaders now could be giving the thumbs down. These possibilities and everything in between exist. Now I leave everyone to the idle speculation that everyone likes to do because it is entertaining.

Tomorrow....I am off to Malaysia....Kuala Lumpur. I want to see the Petronas Towers ( The Petronas Twin Towers were the tallest buildings in the world from April 15th, 1996 until October 17th, 2003 when Taipei 101 (Financial Center) was topped out at 508m (1676ft) http://www.kiat.net/towers/

I have to have a life off of these boards you know. I'll be back on as soon as I get to my hotel in KL. One good thing about Asia is they are starting to get even more wired up than the US. I can get internet connections every where here.....which is part of my danger. I got to be careful when I hook up my computer on so many different networks.



Starrob

[richrf]

Pollmaster,

Besides ProcessGuard and RegDefend, are there any other products that you are advising me that I should remove from my machine to make me safer? And if I am hit, will you pay for the damages? I would like that it writing, because I am game.

As for SafeNSecure, there is zero evidence that is provides more protection than ProcessGuard and RegDefend and there is evidence (on my machine) that it changed ZoneAlarm without authorization (they never responded). BTW, I never install programs (except Windows Updates) without ProcessGuard running. That is pretty basic.

Rich

[Pollmaster]

-{ Quote: "Pollmaster,

Hats off to you mate for stating the obvious that a lot of security freaks go into overkill not accepting reality that it's all basically a hobby to them and that most people can and do survive with the basics. It's usually people who are at the other end of the security paradigm who get hit, those who completely neglect having even the basics and keeping their OS updated with patches as well as updating their AV regularly.

Dave" }-

Exactly. But of course people don't like it that I state the obvious.

Right now, there's one guy asking me if I'm willing to pay him damages if he removes PG and Regdefend :), and another wondering why I'm critising people for not recognising that playing with security tools is a hobby.

-{ Quote: "Besides ProcessGuard and RegDefend, are there any other products that you are advising me that I should remove from my machine to make me safer? And if I am hit, will you pay for the damages? I would like that it writing, because I am game." }-

LOL, and are you willing to pay me for damages if I use these products and I still get hit? I would like that in writing too.

BTW You love to compare security products to fire insurance, but I notice the producers of security products doesn't actually pay me for damages caused by any malware that actually gets around their products :)

Now that is what I would pay for!

-{ Quote: "
As for SafeNSecure, there is zero evidence that is provides more protection than ProcessGuard and RegDefend and there is evidence (on my machine) that it changed ZoneAlarm without authorization (they never responded).
" }-

There is zero evidence PG and Regdefend provide additonal protection. That hasn't stopped you. The only reason why you are defending one rather than other is because you started with one first.

-{ Quote: "Who cares whether other people are purchasing software as a hobby or because they have a real need? " }-

As I stated I don't care if you run a million programs on your computer. I *do* get cheesed out when such people run around telling everyone else less knowledgablethat if they don't run <insert their favourite products>, they are in big trouble.

That clearly is a distortion of the truth. Okay so some people do exhibit higher risk behaviour, but in such situations, throwing software at the problem just delays the problem if at all.

One of the members here PMed me a link here (http://www.vmyths.com/fas/fas1.cfm). Most of you would have seen this one already of course, but it's still relevant.

It talks about "False Authority Syndrome" with regards to viruses, but I think it's can be extended to everything with regards to computer security.

Talk about some newstories about cybercrime, discuss some half understood white paper, and you are all ready to scare someone into buying <insert favourite products>.

Either that, or you 'clean up' (actually you just run a few automated tools) someone's computers, and you then over-react telling them they need to run everything you run to avoid getting hit again.

The 'expert' strikes again.

[richrf]

Pollmaster,


-{ Quote: "There is zero evidence PG and Regdefend provide additonal protection. " }-

So, since there is zero evidence that ProcessGuard has any value, you are recommending to people that they should not purchase or install ProcessGuard? And those who did ... we are all suckers? I could point to you to messages where you did say ProcessGuard provides protection. You seem to be all over the place.

And:

-{ Quote: "Personally, given the amount of energy and time you invested with these products, I would say you should stay with them, even if another product is objectively slightly superior." }-

Evidence? How do you know another product is objectively slightly superior to ProcessGuard when according to you there is no evidence that ProcessGuard has any value at all? And the other product. Which one are you talking about and where is the objective evidence?

[richrf]

Pollmster,

-{ Quote: "I see only the noobies playing with extended gst files and I see them running into all sorts of problems. Extensibility might not be a plus." }-

Did you inform Kent and Tony Klein about this? They have put an enormous amount of time and effort in extending RegDefend with their own ghst files (including replicating RegRun). If they are wasting their time, they might be very appreciative if you inform them. While you are at it, you should give the guys at RegRun a call and let them know that all of their registry protection defintions are a waste of time also.

[dog]

Rich & Pollmaster ... Could we please leave the personal issues aside and stop jabbing at one another. It doesn't serve any purpose really - this barbing has continued from thread to thread and has to stop, we can all agree to disagree and there is no issue with providing facts and thoughts to support your arguments in trying to educate/convert one another, but let us please leave it on the academic level. Wilders' is intended as a friendly place to discuss issues, problems, theories, concepts and the like primarily regarding security issues, but also general issues. We don't want things degenerating down to this level of denigrating, you are both intelligent adults - I'm sure you both won't have a problem keeping everything on the right level.

TIA,

Steve

[Starrob]

-{ Quote: "



As I stated I don't care if you run a million programs on your computer. I *do* get cheesed out when such people run around telling everyone else less knowledgablethat if they don't run <insert their favourite products>, they are in big trouble.

That clearly is a distortion of the truth. Okay so some people do exhibit higher risk behaviour, but in such situations, throwing software at the problem just delays the problem if at all.

One of the members here PMed me a link here (http://www.vmyths.com/fas/fas1.cfm). Most of you would have seen this one already of course, but it's still relevant.

It talks about "False Authority Syndrome" with regards to viruses, but I think it's can be extended to everything with regards to computer security.

Talk about some newstories about cybercrime, discuss some half understood white paper, and you are all ready to scare someone into buying <insert favourite products>.

Either that, or you 'clean up' (actually you just run a few automated tools) someone's computers, and you then over-react telling them they need to run everything you run to avoid getting hit again.

The 'expert' strikes again." }-



Yes, and that is your personal point of view. In my personal life, I have been moving further and further away from the absolute point of view that I am always right. I always try to give my opinions a probability factor that I could be wrong....for I believe in nothing 100% or disbelieve anything 0%.

There may be people that do have the requirement to run a huge amount of security programs on their computer. From the tone of most people writing in this thread everyone seems to be discounting the possibility that the other has a valid point.

Every one's opinion is up to them but realize other people have different opinions and those opinions may hold validity. The point of view that people might need a lot of security software holds validity just the same as the point of view that a person does not need much security software at all.... it simply depends on the person, the time, the place and other factors that are RELATIVE....not ABSOLUT like coming from God on a binge drunk on their own knowledge of the way things are supposed to be

In my own personal world. I have been cutting back on the software that I am interested in because I like my computer to run faster but however, I am targeting certain things that I think or necessary.

Right now, my GF is behind me sleeping. My girlfriend is from Indonesia and the way they operate computers in Indonesia is well......atrocious. You should see some of the internet cafes there. In Indonesia I have been on computers so loaded with spyware and trojans that the computer was virtually unusable.....

Most of the Indonesian people I have personally met are not very security conscious about computers. So, here I have my computer....what I am going to tell my girl that she can't use my computer to chat with her friends? What am I going to do? Read her the riot act about computer security? Well, I could do those things but then I would have other problems.

I need certain security programs on my computer to prevent her from doing something that lacks "common sense". Now, common sense might say to not let her touch my computer but you know I sort of love the girl and like having her around so I don't want the emotional trauma of telling her no.

You know installing PG, turning on "block new and changed applications" and password protecting can stop a extremely high percentage of the bad things she could do on this computer. That is only one example....I don't count on PG for everything.....I hold other cards up my sleeve also.....

Everyone situation is different and I find most people on most forums pre-judge everything by basing things on what they would do and not the situations that others are in. Others can and do make choices different then mine and I must allow them to make those choices.

You and the others can continue to grumble over minor things that in the big scheme of life make little difference.....because it is entertaining. Believe me, I also get entertained by getting up on my high horses over issues sometimes. Over the past few days I entertained myself over "hooks" LOL.... but in the end "hooks" don't matter as much as my precious girlfriend behind me now. Now, if that sounds if it has a double meaning....well, it does....I often have hidden meanings in the things I write and sometimes they pop up in the mind and I have to use my popup blocker :)




Starrob

[Pollmaster]

-{ Quote: "Yes, and that is your personal point of view. In my personal life, I have been moving further and further away from the absolute point of view that I am always right. I always try to give my opinions a probability factor that I could be wrong....for I believe in nothing 100% or disbelieve anything 0%.
" }-

Do you believe in *that* 100%? ;D


-{ Quote: "
Right now, my GF is behind me sleeping. My girlfriend is from Indonesia and the way they operate computers in Indonesia is well......atrocious. You should see some of the internet cafes there. In Indonesia I have been on computers so loaded with spyware and trojans that the computer was virtually unusable....." }-

WOW, do tell us more stories about deep dark Asia... I'm sure most of us will appreciate it, given that only a few of us have being to Asia.

-{ Quote: "
Most of the Indonesian people I have personally met are not very security conscious about computers.
" }-

Are people anywhere?

-{ Quote: "
Everyone situation is different and I find most people on most forums pre-judge everything by basing things on what they would do and not the situations that others are in. Others can and do make choices different then mine and I must allow them to make those choices.
" }-

For someone who believes in this, you sure enjoy critising *other* people for critising *other* people. :o

As for your jokes about hooks and popups, I'm sure a moderator will come along and delete them soon :P

[Detox]

As this topic has gone so far off topic and become rather personal in nature (despite the earlier words of wilders staff [Dog]), I will lock it now and it will either remain so or be unlocked again once the administrators have decided it has been long enough.