RollBack Rx & Shadow Defender

[ellison64]

Originally Posted by twl845

What it says. I am tracing what happens through the procedure. Am I correct?

I dont know..i was joking and am useless at conundrums.

[twl845]

Originally Posted by ellison64

I dont know..i was joking and am useless at conundrums.

LOL

[aladdin]

Originally Posted by bgoodman4

Without going back to your post I am not sure exactly what the procedure was you were outlining. However it does not matter since even though Rx is taking and retaining a snap during the SM session it is not picking up what is happening inside the SM session. I suspect it is capturing the state of the drive outside the virtual PC, that is the underlying real drive. This frankly is a relief as it indicates that SD really does add an extra layer of security.

In addition and apart from the degree of security either program offers SD is able to restore the pre virtual state of the drive without a reboot. A simple shut down will suffice. With Rx you need to go through the rollback and boot procedure,,,,then, if you are done for the day, you can shut down the PC. So now, instead of having to rollback I can enter SM at the end of the day and check (for example) suspicious but possibly legit e-mails and then simply exit SM by shutting down the system. Not a big deal but it is more convenient than having to wait for the rollback process to take place.

Dear BGoodMan4,

You just proved that Rollback Rx cannot protect one from either sophisticated or non sophisticated malware/viruses.

Best regards,

KOR!

[TheMozart]

Originally Posted by King of Rapture

Dear BGoodMan4,

You just proved that Rollback Rx cannot protect one from either sophisticated or non sophisticated malware/viruses.

Best regards,

KOR!

Where do Rollback claim it does?

But if you do get infected you can ROLLBACK to a clean system, so that way, Rollback does protect a person from malware.

OR do you have evidence that a malware can infect all the Rollback snapshots?

[bgoodman4]

Originally Posted by King of Rapture

Dear BGoodMan4,

You just proved that Rollback Rx cannot protect one from either sophisticated or non sophisticated malware/viruses.

Best regards,

KOR!

Really, in what way?

and by the way, my name is Barry Goodman so there is no overt or subtle suggestion as to being a good, or otherwise man contained in my screen name..

[The Shadow]

Originally Posted by TheMozart

Where do Rollback claim it does?

Here.

DAY-ZERO PROTECTION
RollBack Rx is designed to protect both the user and PC from accidental user errors and day-zero attacks.

Originally Posted by TheMozart

...do you have evidence that a malware can infect all the Rollback snapshots?

For starters, this may be of interest.

[2YsUR]

Originally Posted by TheMozart

...But if you do get infected you can ROLLBACK to a clean system, so that way, Rollback does protect a person from malware....

Even on the Rollback Rx forums they freely admit that RBrx cannot protect the MBR. So although it is great for rolling back mistakes, failed installations and many infections it cannot rollback the most serious infections.

I use it with an AV and imaging software.

[aladdin]

It is a super duper "Restore Point" program. If the snapshots (restore points) contain viruses and/or malware, then like restore points it is useless.

[bgoodman4]

I still do not see how the SD Rx test I did proves Rx is junk.

AND

Of course if a snapshot contains a virus and you roll back to it you will have an infected machine. This no more makes Rx junk than it would any and all imaging programs. If you made a disk image with whatever program you choose to use and the image contains a virus, then restoring using the image will result in an infected PC.

You are not suggesting I hope that all rollback programs and all imaging/back-up programs are junk are you?

[aladdin]

Originally Posted by bgoodman4

I still do not see how the SD Rx test I did proves Rx is junk.

AND

Of course if a snapshot contains a virus and you roll back to it you will have an infected machine. This no more makes Rx junk than it would any and all imaging programs. If you made a disk image with whatever program you choose to use and the image contains a virus, then restoring using the image will result in an infected PC.

You are not suggesting I hope that all rollback programs and all imaging/back-up programs are junk are you?

Hi Barry,

I don't think imaging programs prides themselves as being protection against viruses and/or malware.

Returnil which is a light virtualization program, includes AV engine in their Returnil System Safe. And, then tops it off with snapshots/system restore technology.

Thus, Returnil System Safe has three components, which compliment each other:

1. Light Virtualization.
2. AV Engine, with daily updates to the Virus Definitions.
3. Snapshots/System Restore Technology.

Best regards,

KOR!

P.S. The rest is Marketing Hype!

[bgoodman4]

Originally Posted by King of Rapture

Hi Barry,

I don't think imaging programs prides themselves as being protection against viruses and/or malware.

Returnil which is a light virtualization program, includes AV engine in their Returnil System Safe. And, then tops it off with snapshots/system restore technology.

Thus, Returnil System Safe has three components, which compliment each other:

1. Light Virtualization.
2. AV Engine, with daily updates to the Virus Definitions.
3. Snapshots/System Restore Technology.

Best regards,

KOR!

P.S. The rest is Marketing Hype!

Yes, but that has no bearing on the value of Rx. You are comparing apples to oranges.

[aladdin]

Originally Posted by bgoodman4

Yes, but that has no bearing on the value of Rx. You are comparing apples to oranges.

Dear Barry,

I didn't compare at all. You are the one, who compared imaging programs to rollback rx. I simply responded to your comparison.

Best regards,

KOR!

[twl845]

Originally Posted by King of Rapture

It is a super duper "Restore Point" program. If the snapshots (restore points) contain viruses and/or malware, then like restore points it is useless.

To keep it simple, if yesterdays snapshot is clean and you get a virus on todays snapshot, you can roll back to yesterdays snapshot and delete todays snapshot and you should be good unless the virus penetrated the hardware somehow. IMO That's why it's called RollBack.

[aladdin]

Originally Posted by twl845

To keep it simple, if yesterdays snapshot is clean and you get a virus on todays snapshot, you can roll back to yesterdays snapshot and delete todays snapshot and you should be good unless the virus penetrated the hardware somehow. IMO That's why it's called RollBack.

How you know yesterday's snapshot is clean?

It takes a while to discover a virus, once discovered one cannot even be sure that the baseline might contain virus, let alone yesterday's snapshot.

[twl845]

Originally Posted by King of Rapture

How you know yesterday's snapshot is clean?

It takes a while to discover a virus, once discovered one cannot even be sure that the baseline might contain virus, let alone yesterday's snapshot.

Good point. Lets use one that's a week old. Although I think that my AV or MBAM would have picked it up before then.

[bgoodman4]

Originally Posted by King of Rapture

Dear Barry,

I didn't compare at all. You are the one, who compared imaging programs to rollback rx. I simply responded to your comparison.

Best regards,

KOR!

NO, you said Rx was junk because if you rolled back to an infected snapshot your PC would still be compromised. If you make this statement about Rx then you should, to be logically consistent, make the same claim about imaging programs. If this is not a problem for you with imaging programs then, again logically, it should not be a problem for you with Rx. In both cases you need to restore to a clean image/snap in order to regain a problem free machine. I was just pointing this out and asking you if you felt that all imaging programs were junk based on your comments.

In addition, you have in no way explained why you feel my test of Rx and SD proves

that Rollback Rx cannot protect one from either sophisticated or non sophisticated malware/viruses

. This is a very strong claim and I do not agree with it at all so clarification on your part would be appreciated. In fact, given the result of the test, I would say that both programs are working as you would hope and expect. In Rxs case a snap was taken of the real hard drive during the SM session, which is what Rx is designed, and set up, to do. In SDs case a virtual PC was created (in effect) and as expected there was no retention of anything that happened on the virtual drive upon exit of SM.

To me this test was a success. If the Rx snap had captured what was written to the virtual drive then protection would be potentially compromised (since if you rolled back to a state captured during the SM session that included malware your real drive would be comprimised). The fact that Rx could not capture the state of the virtual drive means that the integrity of the real machine is/was maintained.

A slight aside here.

You say that SD is perfect (or closer to perfect anyway) relative to Rx, which you have said is pretty much useless. One of the things I use Rx for is to test new programs. If I do not like the program I simply roll back and all evidence of the program is gone. You cannot do this with SD since in many cases newly installed programs often require a reboot in order for them to work. Of course you can use a drive image created before the test (preferably just before the test) and you can use this image to recover,,,but the time required to both create the image and then restore the PC is substantially greater relative to manually taking a snap and rebooting to that snap with Rx.

The same applies to updates and upgrades. SD will be useless in terms of protection for both these frequent jobs.

As I have said a number of times Rx has its place. For some it will be a worthwhile purchase (it def is for me,,,,I would not dream of running a PC without it,,,,but thats me) for other its not something they see as having value. By all means point out whatever shortcoming you have found with the program. Doing this makes it possible for those using the program to take the shortcomings into account and then they can do whatever is nec to overcome (or protect against) these shortcomings. This is a valuable service to us all. But please, don't say that a program that works very well for a great many users, and which, if complaints and requests for help on the Rx and on Wilders forums is any indication, has rather few issues of any real consequence (the reinstall/activation issue is a nuisance, not a major issue). No program performs perfectly on every possible machine configuration. IMHO Rx is a simple to use, stable, and reliable program.

[bgoodman4]

Originally Posted by King of Rapture

How you know yesterday's snapshot is clean?

It takes a while to discover a virus, once discovered one cannot even be sure that the baseline might contain virus, let alone yesterday's snapshot.

The exact same statement can be made about any imaging or back-up program. Again, if Rx is useless because of this then so are all imaging and backup programs. So again I ask,,,,Do you feel all backup and imaging programs are useless?

Of course the simple solution to this potential problem is to take snaps AND/OR images frequently. What frequently means to different folks will vary considerably. For some it will be daily (I use Rx to protect on a daily basis) for others it will be weekly (images or snaps) for other perhaps monthly. But in any case the issue is one that can for the most part be be controlled for. Heck, You can buy a brand new PC, load your favourite programs on it, load your data, and then find out 6 months down the road that a file you installed while setting up your PC in the first place was compromised. The potential for this to happen is rare but real and is simply a fact of life. Demanding that Rx (or any other program) protect you from this sort of issue forever and under all circumstances is unreasonable.

[aladdin]

The Title of this thread should have been:

RollBack Rx & RollBack Rx Defender

And, not:

RollBack Rx & Shadow Defender

Best regards,

KOR!

[aladdin]

Originally Posted by twl845

Good point. Lets use one that's a week old. Although I think that my AV or MBAM would have picked it up before then.

LOL. Yes, you need both your AV and MBAM to protect yourself, as you know that Rollback Rx doesn't protect you. You said it!

And need if be, then one would restore by image taken from their imaging program a week or so ago.

You need to image your hard disk on a regular basis, don't you?

If you don't then Rollback Rx again cannot save you from hard disk failure.


As far as about "Saved my bacon" is concerned?

Guess what! Since I have uninstalled Rollback Rx from my three machines last eight months ago, I didn't have "save my bacon" moment in any of them for the last eight months. If I do I can always restore back from my saved images.

However, in two months while Rollback Rx was installed on my three machines, there was times my computer didn't boot. So, I had to rollback with Rollback Rx, and thought it "saved my bacon". But it didn't because the computer didn't boot had to do with Rollback Rx and nothing else.

So, I had a false positive about, "Saved my bacon"!

Best regards,

KOR!

[Brian K]

I used Rollback for a few hours but as I can restore an OS image in two and a half minutes I couldn't see an advantage for me. I like to keep my OS partition lean and mean and even though I have lots of apps installed, I don't store data files in the OS partition.

[aladdin]

Originally Posted by Brian K

I used Rollback for a few hours but as I can restore an OS image in two and a half minutes I couldn't see an advantage for me. I like to keep my OS partition lean and mean and even though I have lots of apps installed, I don't store data files in the OS partition.

Thanks Brian,

I learned from you keeping my data on a different partition.

Best regards,

KOR!

[bgoodman4]

No problem KOR, lets just agree to disagree and call it a day.

[aladdin]

Originally Posted by bgoodman4

No problem KOR, lets just agree to disagree and call it a day.

I fully agree dear Barry.

~ Removed Personal Comments ~

Best regards,

KOR!

[The Shadow]

As many of you know, I'm a 'died in the wool' Shadow Defender user. Well, I've been running the RollBack Rx trial along with SD for the past 2 weeks without any concernable issues. Other than slowing down my bootup by about 10 to 20 seconds I haven't incurred any other slowdown (or other problems) from RollBack Rx.

And I've just realized a very nice benefit from RollBack Rx. Yesterday I was notified of some Windows updates. I installed them as usual, before entering Shadow Mode. After rebooting I wound-up with a BSOD and when I rebooted again I got the BSOD again!
So on my 3rd reboot attempt I hit the Home key as soon as I saw RollBack startup (which preceeds Windows startup) and chose to restore the snapshot of my system just prior to my installing those Windows updates. The snapshot loaded effortlessly and in under a minute my system was working great. I must say that was extremely impressive and as a result of that instance I've decided to become a permanent user of RollBack Rx (along with Shadow Defender of course).

TS

[2YsUR]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

...
So on my 3rd reboot attempt I hit the Home key as soon as I saw RollBack startup (which preceeds Windows startup) and chose to restore the snapshot of my system just prior to my installing those Windows updates. The snapshot loaded effortlessly and in under a minute my system was working great. I must say that was extremely impressive and as a result of that instance I've decided to become a permanent user of RollBack Rx (along with Shadow Defender).

TS

If rollback took a snapshot just before the restore (a default option) or you happen to have a snapshot later than the point of restore you can mount that snap in a virtual drive and recover the latest version of any data files.