Shadow Defender

[CSKfan]

Which version of Shadow Defender do you use and which is the most stable SD build according to you?Please post the reason and Hash Checksum for the Version of SD you use.

[sdmod]

I have used most 32 bit versions of Shadow Defender right back to the early ones and was in contact with Tony from then, (even before there was a Shadow Defender forum).
I use Shadow Defender 32 bit 1.1.0.325 on XP sp3. I've not had a problem with it on this operating system. the checksum is 101CDC867F7771FAAE6810483EF16439

I have not used the 64 bit version

I use it because I believe that this is the version that Tony intended for release initially and changes to later version were made only because of a conversation that I had with Tony about major problems that I was having with my system (Windows 2000 at the time) (rolling beta testing, all versions were not released) that turned out to be unrelated to Shadow Defender, (so any changes to the initial release were unneccesary).
When I had discovered that I was reporting a bug, that was not a bug and in effect I had just a problem with my own system and/or other software I notified Tony but he had already released/re-released the second 1.1.0.325

I would not use earlier versions than 1.1.0.325 because they had some bugs and also conflicts with other software (Daemon Tools, Alcohol 120 and others and had problems like lost icons, lost software settings etc, programs going to default settings).
The 1.1.0325 version has had everything other than the kitchen sink thrown at it in terms of rootkits, viruss tests etc and has been shown to be secure in that respect and was (I believe the only software of it's type) not effected by the state of the art dog viruss and others, boot sector malware, mbr etc at the time.
Version 1.1.0.326 that followed did not pass all tests regarding these new viruss and that is why people stopped using it and reverted to the stable and secure 1.1.0325 (whatever the version).

Over the development of Shadow Defender there were certain bugs etc but like most software not every person had problems, different system configurations, different software being used, some people would have a particular problem which exposed a bug whilst others did not.

Although this software never achieved what many people wanted (and that Tony attempted to do) which was to make it capable of installing software (that required a reboot) in Shadow Mode, it is still the best of it's kind.
I think that one major problem was that Tony had given an indication that he would achieve this within some months (at the time) and users were waiting with bated breath and baying at his door for it's implementation but he couldn't do it in that timeframe and then disappeared not long after.
If you look back at the forum posts at the time you can see that critics were saying" Shadow Defender is really great but I wish I could test software that requires a reboot"
I only have a laymens/users perspective on the software itself and am an ordinary Shadow Defender user in every respect.

This is my "take" on things and I hope that it is of some help.

Patrick (ex Shadow Defender global moderator)

[CSKfan]

Originally Posted by sdmod

I have used most 32 bit versions of Shadow Defender right back to the early ones and was in contact with Tony from then, (even before there was a Shadow Defender forum).
I use Shadow Defender 32 bit 1.1.0.325 on XP sp3. I've not had a problem with it on this operating system. the checksum is 101CDC867F7771FAAE6810483EF16439

I have not used the 64 bit version

I use it because I believe that this is the version that Tony intended for release initially and changes to later version were made only because of a conversation that I had with Tony about major problems that I was having with my system (Windows 2000 at the time) (rolling beta testing, all versions were not released) that turned out to be unrelated to Shadow Defender, (so any changes to the initial release were unneccesary).
When I had discovered that I was reporting a bug, that was not a bug and in effect I had just a problem with my own system and/or other software I notified Tony but he had already released/re-released the second 1.1.0.325

I would not use earlier versions than 1.1.0.325 because they had some bugs and also conflicts with other software (Daemon Tools, Alcohol 120 and others and had problems like lost icons, lost software settings etc, programs going to default settings).
The 1.1.0325 version has had eveything other than the kitchen sink thrown at it in terms of rootkits, viruss tests etc and has been shown to be secure in that respect and was (I believe the only software of it's type) not effected by the state of the art dog viruss and others, boot sector malware, mbr etc at the time.
Version 1.1.0.326 that followed did not pass all tests regarding these new viruss and that is why people stopped using it and reverted to the stable and secure 1.1.0325 (whatever the version).

Over the development of Shadow Defender there were certain bugs etc but like most software not every person had problems, different system configurations, different software being used, some people would have a particular problem which exposed a bug whilst others did not.

Although this software never achieved what many people wanted (and that Tony attempted to do) which was to make it capable of installing software (that required a reboot) in Shadow Mode, it is still the best of it's kind.
I think that one major problem was that Tony had given an indication that he would achieve this with some months (at the time) and users were waiting with bated breath and baying at his door for it's implementation but he couldn't do it in that timeframe and then disappeared not long after.
If you look back at the forum posts at the time you can see that critics were saying" Shadow Defender is really great but I wish I could test software that requires a reboot"
I only have a laymens/users perspective on the software itself and am an ordinary Shadow Defender user in every respect.

This is my "take" on things and I hope that it is of some help.

Patrick (ex Shadow Defender global moderator)

Can I get the download link for the first version of 1.1.0.325 that you use?By the way I am using W7 32 bit.SD should work well isn't it?

[Dark Shadow]

I use 1.1.0.325 No problems here and the MD5 Hash Is

[CSKfan]

Originally Posted by djohn

I use 1.1.0.325 No problems here and the MD5 Hash Is

Do you use 32 bit or 64 bit installer?

[Dark Shadow]

Sorry! windows 7 32bit.

[CSKfan]

Which one of 1.1.0.325 version are you using i.e.first one or bug fixed second one (as it is supposed to be called)?

[Dark Shadow]

I have no clue to be honest as the installer was a link given by The shadow back in this thread.http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showt...hadow+defender Post count # 680 Page 28

[CSKfan]

Originally Posted by djohn

I have no clue to be honest as the installer was a link given by The shadow back in this thread.http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showt...hadow+defender Post count # 680 Page 28

Which hash tool did you use?

[Dark Shadow]

System explorer muti tool.

[CSKfan]

Originally Posted by djohn

System explorer muti tool.

I just downloaded the setup from the link The Shadow posted but see this one from Hashtab for 32 bit installer of 1.1.0.325

CRC32: ABA48C3F
MD5: 4ED0F50233680FFC37FBE5CF8057C634
SHA-1: 8EB543949016EEF31B2F93798CF096A2E09754ED

comparing this one with yours, i am in doubt which is the original SD installer?

[CGuard]

It appears that there are 3 "versions" of SD .325, as i, too, discovered, about a week ago.

1. 101CDC867F7771FAAE6810483EF16439 - First seen by VT: 23-2-2010 (supposedly to be the "original version")
2. 4ED0F50233680FFC37FBE5CF8057C634 - First seen by VT: 24-2-2010 (supposedly to be the "silent update")
3. 2EF0A3D43002B9F56C395738991F3BAA -

[Dark Shadow]

Originally Posted by CSKfan

I just downloaded the setup from the link The Shadow posted but see this one from Hashtab for 32 bit installer of 1.1.0.325

CRC32: ABA48C3F
MD5: 4ED0F50233680FFC37FBE5CF8057C634
SHA-1: 8EB543949016EEF31B2F93798CF096A2E09754ED

comparing this one with yours, i am in doubt which is the original SD installer?

Well my system explorer says different.In accuracy somewhere but unless I am doing it wrong,here it what I got.

[sdmod]

CSKfan email pm sent

[The Shadow]

I am currently using both 32-bit and 64-bit v1.1.0.325 (as I posted a few months back) on WinXP x86 and Win7 x64, respectively.

I might add that as I always like to use the latest (released) versions of software I had been using v1.1.0.331 (from the new SD website operator) for several months without any issues whatsoever, but all of the negative remarks that have been posted about the new website operator left me uneasy (although Hitman, MBAM and Panda Cloud couldn't find any problems with build 331)!

I will also say that I can't tell any functional difference between the 325 and 331 builds; afaic their 'look and feel' are identical!

TS

[CGuard]

Originally Posted by Dark Shadow

Well my system explorer says different.In accuracy somewhere but unless I am doing it wrong,here it what I got.

That's the MD5 of Daemon.exe. So there is no 3rd version of SD .325 setup file. Mystery solved.

[Dark Shadow]

Originally Posted by CGuard

That's the MD5 of Daemon.exe. So there is no 3rd version of SD .325 setup file. Mystery solved.

Okie dokie.

[Peter 123]

Originally Posted by sdmod

I would not use earlier versions than 1.1.0.325 because they had some bugs and also conflicts with other software (Daemon Tools, Alcohol 120 and others and had problems like lost icons, lost software settings etc, programs going to default settings).

Would you say that - apart from these problems you mentioned - the earlier versions (especially 1.1.0.320 *) are equal to 1.1.0.325 concerning the security of the program? Or do you think that earlier versions than 1.1.0.325 are also less secure?

_____________
*) I use 1.1.0.320 because of some (former) problems with 1.1.0.325 (freezing of the computer under Windows XP). Fortunately the only (small) bug I experience with version 1.1.0.320 is the missing of the icon which shows me if I am in Shadow Mode or not. I always have to activate the icon manually.

[sdmod]

I think that people are still using various versions and some prefer particular versions of Shadow Defender over others and I haven't heard of any major shocks as such. Having said that, the program was still in development up until 1.1.0.326 and did have the bugs that I described earlier (which were being ironed out as they were discovered) but 1.1.0.325 seems to have been fairly heavily tested in terms of security, stability and attack by advanced malware. I get the feeling that, other than prior to any any point where Tony may have addressed the problems of those new super malwares, most versions (apart from the bugs mentioned previously) are secure enough for current use providing that the version that you settle on does not conflict with your system or software and you are happy with it's performance. That is only my layman's opinion and I am no expert. I have used 1.1.0.325 since I moved from Windows 2000 to Windows XP sp2-sp3 and I am very happy with it. I'm sorry that I cannot give you a definitive answer to your question but just my thoughts on the matter.

Patrick

Originally Posted by Peter 123

Would you say that - apart from these problems you mentioned - the earlier versions (especially 1.1.0.320 *) are equal to 1.1.0.325 concerning the security of the program? Or do you think that earlier versions than 1.1.0.325 are also less secure?

_____________
*) I use 1.1.0.320 because of some (former) problems with 1.1.0.325 (freezing of the computer under Windows XP). Fortunately the only (small) bug I experience with version 1.1.0.320 is the missing of the icon which shows me if I am in Shadow Mode or not. I always have to activate the icon manually.

[Cudni]

for further questions please see
www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=293075