Is TDS-4 a high priority for you?

Discussion in 'Trojan Defence Suite' started by richrf, Jun 4, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Infinity

    Infinity Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    2,651
  2. tuatara

    tuatara Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Posts:
    777
    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
     
  3. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    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
     
  4. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    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.
     
  5. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    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
     
  6. dallen

    dallen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2003
    Posts:
    825
    Location:
    United States
    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. ;)
     
  7. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,934
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    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
     
  8. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    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.

    https://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
     
  9. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    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)
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  10. worldcitizen

    worldcitizen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Posts:
    530
    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
     
  11. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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 :)

    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.
     
  12. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    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.

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

    Would it?

    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.
     
  13. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    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.
     
  14. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  15. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    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.

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

    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!

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


    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.

    $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?

    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?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 2, 2005
  16. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  17. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

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

    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...


    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.
     
  18. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    "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.
     
  19. worldcitizen

    worldcitizen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2003
    Posts:
    530
    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
     
  20. Starrob

    Starrob Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2004
    Posts:
    493
    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
     
  21. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    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
     
  22. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    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.

    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!

    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.

    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 . 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.
     
  23. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Pollmaster,


    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:

    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?
     
  24. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Pollmster,

    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.
     
  25. dog

    dog Guest

    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
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.