The unofficial Shadow Defender Support Thread.

Yes, I understand. Just trying to understand start on boot. Whether Prevent all viruses and malwares includes unspoken stipulation... start on boot. Whether start on boot may pose an ever so slight risk to the MBR. I mean if Shadow corrupts a bookmark no biggy. If Shadow corrupts the MBR...well. Long term shadow cycling....there has to be a modicum of glitch risk bumping back to base over n' over n' over. Perhaps at much glitch risk as normal boot.
Thinking out loud....

 

For the record, I've just installed Shadow Defender .578 on Windows 10 Pro build 10074 (32 bit), and it works perfectly well. It is even snappier than on my Win 8 machine...

 

Yes, .578 on Windows 8.1.3 x64 running fine, been testing it since 10 days ago.

 

Pete I do roll back a disk image every 15 days. But what you are doing is, precisely, restoring the MBR, not protecting it against infection in the first place.
I'm concerned to get MBR infected say, day 1 after restoring my disk image and being ill 14 days without notice before I do next restore.

 

In this case I'll have to rely on my security setup as well, specially on SD as my last line of defense.

 

An MBR infection should spread beyond the MBR and generate some clues about something going wrong, or should be detected by another security software. If the infection occurred while in shadow mode, it should be cleared after a reboot. As for Shadow Defender causing MBR corruption, AFAIK there is no any evidence supporting this assumption.

 

Thanks. Afaik SD is pretty good against MBR infections and any other malware activity by undoing changes. So I believe you are right an MBR infection could be detected by AppGuard, I hope so.

 

Hi!!!

1.- Why the lastest SD wants to connect to a remote computer?

2.- Why so much controversy @ Virus total about if the SD1.4.0.578_Setup.exe? file is safe to use or not? (The file is a malware known as "CRDF.Malware-Generic.3039361633". Report on this threat: -hxxp://threatcenter.crdf.fr/?More&ID=456856 - 456856 -)

3.- Who's Yang Ping, Tony real name?

4.- So in your opinion the SD1.4.0.578_Setup.exe? file is clean?

5.- What is the SHA1 and MD5 of the SD1.4.0.578_Setup.exe file ?



Thanks for answering my questions
Came

 

Thanks Peter2150, but I still have more questions...

Someone?

Thanks
Came

 

Source File:
sd1.4.0.578_setup.exe
File Thumbprint - SHA:
5d01b8ce800366f3d989f5801e4ae0b360a981ce04fac2b4b16048c5723e2b97
File Thumbprint - MD5:
51b212f20880ebdee821bcad0be80703

Thumbprint source: Norton File Insight

 

Thanks bjm_ for that hashes!!

Question 4 and 5 answered it!!

Thanks
Came

 

Hi Camelia,

1) Recent Shadow Defender wants to connect to remote computer for updates by default but you can uncheck a tickbox in administration.

2) Shadow Defender often used to warn of a virus but it is a false positive. Tony told me this many years ago.

I think SD1.4.0.578_Setup.exe is clean. Scanned with Avast Pro 14 May 2015 clean.

4) I think SD1.4.0.578_Setup.exe is clean if downloaded from Shadow Defender site.

5) MD5 checksum 51B212F20880EBDEE821BCAD0BE80703

SHA1 checksum 367F4432F44E96717874BD81C13FC8A854445562


Checked from the setup file that I have with NoVirusThanks MD5 checksum tool v3.2.

Patrick

 

1 out of many is pointless.

 

As the vendor/developer. How would you check version n' license status...?

 

Well as much as it has been just peachy all along for me, today I installed the .578 ver so hopes everything stays the same. This is been a true jewel.

BTW, this is on a GPT Windows 8.0 64 bits unit. SD Rocks!!!

 

I have been using .578 since it was released without any problems. Hopefully it will be the same experience for you.

 

I think you will find different hashes for that file. I think at one time Tony released a 64bit installer, and then combined the installer to cover 64bit & 32bit. I have the following file hashes for 1.4.0.578. I think this installer is for 32bit, and 64bit.

MD5: 51b212f20880ebdee821bcad0be80703
SHA-1: 367f4432f44e96717874bd81c13fc8a854445562

 

I have the same hashes as well.

 

Same here. So these hashes must be the good ones.

 

Again an affirmative on the latest version here using Hash Check

 

Yeah, you're showing SHA-1
Norton uses SHA-256
https://community.norton.com/en/blo...n-performance-improvement-without-sacrificing