How good is SpyShelter on Win 7 64bit?

Same with 32bit as well really. Where's the independent test reports (for the 32bit version) against real malware in the wild? Hell, I'd probably even settle for it being tested against Matousec's synthetic tests....but it's not a firewall so doesn't classify!

 

But matousec's test tool are best when used agains HIPS, which spyshelter provide.
Never test it my self, but I always see spyshelter as HIPS that also protect keylogging. Not the other way around

 

This is the best way. Do your own test and decide your own decision.

SS is tested from little independent test publisher. Because number of independent test publisher is little. This is the same for other programs.
I tested SS many time and published the results of tests on forum. These tests are open and repeatability. I give you the links again.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1898844&postcount=4
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1739385&postcount=1
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=268676


SS doesn't worry because of losing tests. Program developers see it as a chance to develop program. And they fix it on new version. New verison of program is issued in weekly parts. It is faster HIPS and antilogger software to develop.

But SS developers defend that metedology of test must be kosher.
MRG and SS have conflict with each other. Because of MRG'S test methology. Before that a lot of argument and comment was done about this topic. So i will not explain again, because everything is clear. You can read old messages.

Please dont wait "independent tester", it isnt necessary.
Every reader can confirm with piece of malware or real keylogger spyshelter effeciency under x32 or x64
See how wild made them post you make about keyloggers blocked under x64


And about alerts all I explained in this post;
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1885507&postcount=35


SS is first and best x64 anti-logging software, and it is getting better every version. No need speculation. Just test yourself.

 

From change-log Spyshelter 5.00 Beta

"Replaced 'Allow signed mode' with 'Autoallow - Medium security level'
Did it because this feature is not usefull because I know signed keyloggers.
User may select at install stage between 'Autoallow - Medium security level' and
'Autoallow - High security level'

Autoallow - High security level mode works via WhiteList
Autoallow - Medium security level works via BlackList (it works in similar Zemana's behaviour)

Of course Medium security level will have leaks but we give User choice to make Spyshelter work as Zemana
For some files this level is better than Zemana because have more extended blacklist

Added to black list signers of keyloggers, installers, Zemana(because have signed Keylogger)
Autoallow - Medium security level improve also hooks accept.

In this mode dll hook accepted if exe is signed.
It allows accept Winpatrol hook installation.

I think we should test this mode carefully and search for fake signers."

 

Actually it is necessary if you want an unbiased expert opinion before you part with your hard earned cash.

Says who? You??! Marketing 'spin' like that makes it sound like you work for them. The fact is, Spyshelter does not take part in the only ongoing published tests available that could establish (or not) its credibility.

Maybe I'm the exception and everybody else is happy to just purchase unproven untested applications!

 

I dont work for anybody. But i can say easly it.
There are 2 well known antilogging software and we know SS released x64 version earlier than zemana. And Zemana x64 version is not fully featured as x86. can you read zemana blog? They already said that.

SS release new version within 1-2 weeks and their release history not fake.

Anyway, I tested zemana and SS and many other hips. I can say which is the best for me. I dont need independent tester and i dont know who is really independent

For example;
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=292260
A programmer produced a keylogger which has certification. SS gived keylogger alert. Zemana could not pass the test. Because SS was on default value. Despite software has digital certification, it did white list controlling.

Sometimes it causes more alert. But it is more faithful way. İn these time number of that kind of malwares have digital certificate increase. But if you want you can allow that kind of programmes have digital sertificate with support of black list

 

I agree with you Scoobs! We need to know what the trade-offs are between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of these programs, and MRG is providing us with that type of information now. Their recent banking test revealed a deficiency in the 64-bit version of Prevx Safe Online that I would not have known about otherwise. End-users should not have to conduct their own malware testing to discover the potential shortcomings of a security program.

 

The situation is a little similar to the tests of Matousec...in the past when they have tested firewalls, they also took into account behavioral blockers...and now when they are testing proactive protection they have in results Look'n'Stop what make no sense.
And this means that these programs are worthless?...NO! And one more thing...many AV's don't take apart in some known published tests...and still are very good and useful.

 

You have the ComodoLeakTest, the SS test, the Zemana tests... SS pass all of them on x86/x64 (on CLT only the HIPS part)

The pdf of the second test is not available in the forum and in the website only appears the last one.

Is very common to see a vendor unhappy with MRG, nothing new btw it's a fail according to MRG "standard".

Of course it counts to test SS or any HIPS against specific malware if you know the behavior or against a leak test, what do you think that Matousec is? btw matousec is the only "independent" HIPS tester.

 

Like I said, these synthetic tests don't really count. Especially a test you develop yourself!!!!

Very common or just those vendors that fail the test criteria? SS and Comodo for example.

Spyshelter should really patch up their differences with MRG and get tested the same as their competitors. After all, MRG specialise in banking malware and SS is specifically aimed at that.

 

So according to you matousec and MRG does not count since are synthetic tests.
And what about real malware? this does not count either?

You missed some of them.

The problem is that SS protects against banking malware, they don't need any test from anybody since you can download zeus and try at home in a vm and you will see the antinetworkspy module working. The MRG baking test is nothing special is just a simulator using the method of an specific type malware, you can download the real malware for free.

You are all the time saying that they don't protect against baking malware that they are a bad HIPS on x64... do you really have any proof?
Do you know any leak test or any malware or anything able to bypass SS? If you have it, report it please, and will be fixed in the next version.

 

IMHO spyshelter serves the purpose which is providing the industry leading technology and without any question the best protection to its customers from keyloggers and also provides HIPS module.
Doesnt really matter what MRG is going to say about something which actually works.. so MRG or no MRG spyshelter works and hopefully will continue to.. MRG specialises in banking malware? according to who? who is certifying them for being special in banking malware lol?

 

Have you not read this thread at all? The point is that testing against real malware is the most important thing, and SS has no such published track record.

Such as?

....which is a bit like testing an AV against one virus and saying that it will give you perfect protection.

 

Could you tell which HIPS has been tested against real malware?
Since this is the point, do what I did, you can easily do your own testing like I did but is very important to know what the malware does, using tools like BSA or CAMAS

Use the search function, I don't want to go off topic.

As far as I can see you don't even know what is the MRG baking test about, read the report at least to understand what the MRG simulator is trying to do.

 

it is very good program

 

Oh you're back to your usual strategy of when you're losing the debate you start slurring others with false accusations. As you well know, I had to educate you, yes you guest, about the MRG tests and the nature of banking malware in a previous thread. Or have you forgotten that? You know, the bit where you didn't know about the concept of form-grabbing or how Zeus, Spyeye and Carberp worked. The parts where it was clear that you hadn't read or understood the report. And the bit about where you argued about Keyscrambler. And if you can't remember, use the search function yourself. End of thread for me, I'm not going to get dragged down to your level.

 

Of course you didn't understood my discussion about KS too "technical" for you.
I just said that there is no need to test a product like KS when you already know that is going to fail since it only protect you against real time capture keyboard , since the baking malware does not use real time capture keyboard KS will fail.
Sveta told me that KS claim to protect against Zeus on their website, I said OK.

Since the different variants of banking malware use almost the same method to do it, test an HIPS against banking malware is not like testing an AV against virus like you said, if you don't see the difference I'm so sorry.
Do you think that the MRG simulator is using 1000k samples of baking malware? no?, so is not like testing an av.

 

MRG f.m.t using synthetic test which one programmed by themselves. Like SS, Zemana, Comodo and other leak tests.

Test criteria must be fair. The test can be easily manipulated. We talked about million times.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1704243&postcount=273

Try to explan all of us sens of such methodology see risk level and see if, thinking like in that methodology user should click deny because it’s high risk and user cannot recognize good or malware moreover it was corbitek setup the same which was tested in that test

Istead of tons of emotional “anti spyshelter” arguments
Give one simple test with malware sample to download where zemana pass and spyshelter not
Do some dangerous financial malware testing and prove it has failed which everyone we can test
Comment reasonably this post
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1704243&postcount=273

Do you want independent test on real malware?
Take a look at this thread and read carefully all
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=294160&highlight=spyshelter 5.11
Tested on real malware all blocked only one left remain in memory (suspended) little confusion, 100% blocked dangerous actions but one part ocuppied memory,
Which is later in next releases even improved by adding killing child processes....

There are many links about doubt MRG reputation
Comodo well known also is in conflict wihth MRG is that mean that Comodo is poor?

 

Look, I know you're a huge SS fanboy and you feel very passionate about the product. Myself and many others aren't interested in running our own tests against SS to prove whether it's effective. It's SS job to effectively market their product and part of that, imo, is taking part in independent testing, so we, their prospective customers, can see how good their product is. It's SS' job (and indeed promoters of the product such as yourself and guest if you take it upon yourself) to prove how good their product is, not for me to prove that it is poor/doesn't provide protection etc.

But they don't take part in tests. So, the mass of consumers can't evaluate the effectiveness of their product without resorting to the means you're suggesting. I make it a rule that I don't part with my hard-earned cash without making sure that what I'm spending it on is worth the money and will do the job I expect of it. I can't do that with SS. But I can with DW, I can with Zemana, I can with Rapport, I can with Prevx SOL.

So, until SS stop chucking their dummy out about failing the last MRG test they took part in, my opinion remains that SS is an unproven purchase for consumers. If they wished they could even commission a reputable testing agency to evaluate their product. But they haven't, so as a consumer I pass on SS and file it under "unproven".

 

@Scoobs
"if there is not something in google it means that there is not"
I am sure you will find the analogy.