keylogger tests done with over 13 anti-spyware programs.

I would just like to add that I will be doing new keylogger tests with XP soon and will include some of the other programs mentioned here like Snoopfree, Ewido, TDS-3, Trojan Hunter ect....as long as the mods don't object to it. Otherwise i'll just post it at some other site that i'll post a link to from here.

As far as my tests including other products besides dedicated anti-keyloggers, was to let people know who perhaps thought programs like NAV were protecting them against keyloggers, that they aren't doing much and they would be wise to use a good anti-keylogger program if they would like to effectively protect themselves against keyloggers.

I agree keyloggers are one very sneaky and underhanded form of malware and really have very little legitimate use. Hopefully these test will help some to wake up to the very real threat of their use and find new ways to defend against them.

 

Yes, I want to see more tests from time to time.

Something along the line of listing all those products like what X-man did.

You should also list down the hardware/software you use to test them.

So if one feels that one's finding is not representative or rigorous enough then one should present own findings to reject them.

So the more tests the better.

 

Yes. As a consumer of their product I certainly expect them to make every attempt to cover keyloggers. I am very certain a newbie or someone shopping for a product who is not as interested in security as much as we are would expect this. keylogging is a spy at it's worst.
BoClean covers them according to their updates!

 

I tested Security Task Manager and it protects well, but it doesn't use any rules. In my case I had full protection on, but I was unable to start some programs that are started using a function key shortcut, so I'm forced to turn it off to make use of these programs, which defeats the purpose of Securty Task Manager.

Useless program.

 

Very odd comments. Are you sure you were using Security Task Manager?
1. "I tested Security Task Manager and it protects well".
It doesn't 'protect' at all. All it does is tell you whats running, and how risky they could be.

2. "I had full protection on".
It doesn't have a 'full protection' setting? You start it and it runs, there are no fancy settings like normal/advanced.

3. "it doesn't use any rules".
It doesn't have rules because it is a task manager. All it does is look at running processes and tells you about them. Also gives them a risk rating.

4. "I was unable to start some programs that are started using a function key shortcut".
I can't see how STM could stop your function keys from operating. As i said in number 3 - All it does is look at running processes and tells you about them.

The more i look at your post, the more i suspect you were using another application. It makes no sense at all. And finishing off with 'useless' program just carries nothing constructive. It looks like you are trying discredit it. Are you absolutely sure that everything you said is from trying Security Task Manager, or are you talking about something similar in name like System Safety Monitor?

muf

 

Hey guys

I recently tested one of the keyloggers mentioned by Luv2bsecure- Spytech Spyagent. What a nasty keylogger that one is. First it disabled nearly every one of my security programs and wouldn't allow me to open them including Ad-aware, Bazooka, Keylogger killer, Pest Patrol, SpyBot, Spycop, SpySweeper, X-Cleaner, Giant antispyware, and even Hijackthis!!!

It also seemed to slow my computer down and was more noticeable that many of the other keyloggers. But when i did get to it, most of the anti-spy programs I have (more than most other tests) detected it right away. So be careful with this one if you choose to test it.

I would recommend you have a good program like True Image or something like Goback before you mess around with any of these keyloggers anyway, preferably both. That way you can completely erase all traces of them after any tests you may do or if you have any problems.

Does anyone know if Process Guard would prevent this kind of keylogger (Spyagent) from disabling all your security apps like in my test? Thanks.

see ya.

 

Hmm Looks like this is the old "Should AVs detect trojans?" recast in another form.

Does this mean we will need seperate scanners for

1) Keyloggers
2) Adware
3) Trojans
4) viruses
5) Rootkits
6) Worms

etc...

 

Greets to all.

The more layers of protection there be, seems to me that more conflicts
occur on Windows systems.

Was windows really designed for multiple layers of protections ?

Was windows ever designed for so many low level programs fighting at different "layers" of protection on the same PC or server ?

I think not. I think one or two or 3 programs that together do "everything" should be the goal on Windows. I expect so many different programs run together,may crash even a 3GB RAM machine<g>.

Disclaimer : Ofcourse this is just my unscientific, biased, personal, untested, unprofessional opinion which I am sure is easy to flame away.

Offered in spirit of discussion only - on wilders security "forums" - for viewing by one and all - gurus or not,and possibly for ensuing "discussions" or
death by stony silence.

SKA

 

SKA,

It's obvious who you are talking about since I am the one who has questioned anonymous posters posting full-blown tests and evaluations of software. Please, I feel I am being made to be the villian here for opposing that. Everyone here has an opinion - and that's as it should be, I don't know anybody here who would suggest otherwise. It appears that my voicing an opinion seems to be the problem.

The "forums" in quotes show a misunderstanding of this entire thread. I have no idea who "gurus" are and are not, but I know I will still take a principled stand for opposition to postings by anonymous posters that include what someone here called, "kitchen table" test results. I had no idea that would cause such a problem and it would cause some to believe that "opinions" are not welcome. That is simply untrue - opinions are very different than posting tests and results as an anonymous poster. Some of the greatest posters on this board are guests, but I would guess most of them would feel that before they go to the point of posting tests and results - they would join our community.

For any hurt feelings over my personal position on this - I am sorry.

 

John(aka luv2bsecure).

I think if you re-read your original posts you will see that you were a little overzealous with your viewpoint. You have left a feeling(certainly with me) that none tech savy people should not be posting any recommendations or tests. I'm not tech savy - I have used many application's and have my own personal experience of problems, remedies or knowledge. After reading your posts, it appears that people like me are not welcome to post here even if i feel that i could actively contribute to a particular thread. I'm sorry but your posts gave me the impression that you are a bit of a snob. I really don't want to offend, but your comments just seemed to suggest that you feel that you are better than everyone else. You weren't encouraging, and you basically said stay away if you're either not registered or are not qualified to post. If you really want this forum to be full of the tech savy, then i'm sure it will become a very dull place as there would be no-one with problems as you would be able to answer them yourselves.

As to the subject of this thread. Well as pointed out by x-man, there are no professional anti-keylogger tests. So who does them? If the tech savy don't do them, who does? Someone stepped forward and tried to fill a void and got villified for it. I found it kind of sad, and missing the community spirit that forums are known for. Don't think i'm targeting you purposely, it's just i really think you could do with a long hard look in the mirror and understand we are not all as experienced and knowledgeable as you. Don't scare us all away, as the reason forums like this survive is because there are plenty of none tech savy users getting thier pc's into a mess.

 

John

You give me too much credit. My post was about multiple layers of protection referred to in post preceding mine, not about you or your comments about anonymous posters, etc. Maybe you should read my message again<grin>.

Re: Multilayered protection:
I rightfully "feared" many may jump upon me for passing such comment which has nothing to do with you or what you said in this thread --- my point was different altogether.

My putting forums in quotes was meant for ALL on this forum, again not aimed at you. Nothing in my post was aimed at you, but I put my disclaimer
as I have seen in the past whenever any one comments against popular opinions at wilders there are always fireworks (maybe I am too sensitive, but hurt personally ? By what you said ? Nah! )

So to come back to my post, what do you think ? Can Windows really support so many layers of protections ?

SKA

 

So maybe sandboxes are the way to go.

 

Meltdown,

You mean like Tiny, SurfingGuard ? Are there any effective/stable ones for windows ? Why are they not popular ? I think Windows is designed by MS
to keep such products "ineffective" or "unstable". We may never see a
stable working 3rd party sandbox for Windows until MS launches its
own anti-spyware-Av-trojan-cum--you fill in blanks... which one hears is actively being developed.

SKA

 

Hi All,

On re-read my ownposts it seems they hijack this thread which is for keylogger tests , so they are offtopic, so I beg pardon of ALL for hijacking this thread with my offtopic comments, & so I better stop to post anymore.

SKA

 

I would like to hear from developers on the subject of this thread so i sent off a few emails and got one positive response so far from SpyCop founder, Grey McKenzie. He said he really likes the forums here and has informed his techs. of my request so hopefully someone from SpyCop as well as some of the others i sent will join in here in the discussions.



snowbound

 

To those who "oppose" luv2bsecure/John's opionion/position,

Some of you guys are missing his point. He is not trying to play the expert and censor discussion. He is pointing out that any kind of legitimate testing requires a sound methodology, otherwise the results can be misleading.

Furthermore, posting as a guest only excerbates the situation.
Whether 'experts' have carried out tests that others want info on to fill a void, should not compromise the necessity for rigourous testing. That IMO, is the bottom-line. While the tests by x-man appear to offer some useful results, they should not be considered as a basis for proving the (in)effectiveness of the software tested. And nor the basis of selecting a security prog.

John is highlighting the need for standards in testing, otherwise, we could get also sorts of spurious results, which in the long run would actually compromise our own security - believing a security program is doing the job when it isn't. Even with progs that have been rigourously tested, flaws are constantly found, and in that way improvements are constantly made. But if the tests are flawed in the first place, the flaws may not be so easily known or ever discovered.

I'm all for folks doing home testing (we can learn loads), but that's what they are. Their validity is only within the terms of specific conditions they were carried out, and often not documented properly or entirely knowable. Any generalizing beyond a home test is not valid and potentially misleading. The rigour of any scientific testing is both in terms of validity (accuracy of findings) and reliablity (reproducibility of findings). Furthermore, the use of such tests are their generalizability. Unless you can establish universal conditions for that test to be valid for - eg. that's why specifiying what OS is crucial - then the general validity of the test is severely limited and questionable.

All what I've said is fairly basic scientific methodolgy, which John was echoing in his responses.
(This isn't to say that such scientific methodologies aren't flawed, but that's another debate!)

kind regards
jag

 

C'mon dude, I'm not some stupid newbie ok. The product is called Security Task Manager and part of it is Spyprotector and that's what supposed to protect against keyloggers. Spyprotector is not sold seperately, so instead of wasting your time on quoting everything I said you might consider to do your homework first.

Learn to read. I clearly said:

Again... do your homework.

 

Whazzup MUF? Can't believe you posted that diatribe against love2bsecure about sounding haughty and failing to encourage when you wrote that total slam againt WINGS. My dictionary calls that hypocricy. I also didn't find love2bsecure's posts the way you described. But I sure found YOUR post to WINGS to be just as you described. Not to mention WINGS was right about the software despite your making him feel like an idiot. Lighten up.

 

Everyone lighten up, and get back on topic please.

wings, there are no stupid newbies here, or anywhere else for that matter.

No offense intended.




snowbound

 

Wings,

Spyprotector is an add-on program that is bundled with Security Task Manager(STM). It's not integrated into STM, it runs seperately. I've never used Spyprotector so had no idea that was what you were referring to. Looking at your post again, and with that in mind, i can see where you got your reference from. It was actually Spyprotector that you had problems with. I'm sorry if you feel my comments were offensive, but i must also say that i said i suspected you were referring to another application. Spyprotector, although it comes bundled with STM, is another application entirely. So my comments were in fact correct.

Anyway, this thread has turned into a "you said this", "you said that", so i say we let bygones be bygones. Lifes too short. If anyone still wishes to post anything regarding these 'off-topic' comments, then lets do it with a private message.

Love2bsecure,
I'm sorry for being a self righteous fool.

whazzup,
I'll do my best to lighten up.

muf

 

Hi all,

To put things back on track, I guess the question is which is better:

1) No information at all about anti-keylogger protection (this is the situation I found myself in prior to x-man posting his results)

or

2) Some pretty good and interesting information from a new forum member who had done some testing for his own personal information and graciously decided to share it with other forum members.

While I thoroughly understand the need to put some astericks on the tests: e.g., the software configuraton, the keyloggers that were tested, etc. so that forum members can comment on the test, I also believe that the tests have opened up a series of discussions that will greatly benefit users by shining a bright light on the issue. There is lots of good information on this tread for anyone who is looking for protection against keyloggers.

Thanks to everyone on this thread for helping me better understand the issues. Right now I am trying out Anti-Keylogger and Process Guard 2.5 Free on my system and both seem to behave very well. Process Guard is stopping everything which is very conforting, however, Anti-Keylogger provides me with very specific warns concerning specific potential keyloggers. I only wish that Anti-Keylogger was so expensive. It is difficult to justify the extra $59 for something directly only at keyloggers.

Any thoughts?

Rich

 

I trialled Anti-keylogger over a year ago. It seemed very good and i was tempted to purchase it. I also trialled Spycop which seems highly regarded. If memory serves me correctly, Anti-keylogger uses a form of heuristics to detect keylogger type activity, where as Spycop uses an actual database of definition's. As Spycop is updated fairly regular, i felt there would be less chance of false positives with spycop, and any new keyloggers would be added to it's database quickly anyhow. I opted for Spycop for these reasons and it is also cheaper which helped sway my decision.

As for Anti-keylogger. If you are using XP/2000/NT then you may look at PrivacyKeyboard from the same vendor as Anti-Keylogger - Raytown Corp. It is supposed to be the only anti keylogger capable of protecting against hardware keyloggers as well as softeware ones. It is also the same price as Anti-Keylogger. Unfortunately i currently use the tremendous(sarcasm) Windows ME which it is not compatible with.
http://www.anti-keylogger.com/products.html

muf

 

You don't get it. The original poster was in his test referring to Security Task Manager. I know he should have been more precise, but for the clarity of this thread I referred to the same program. You're the one who making things more confusing now. Like I said, it's not a separate product, read; "It's not sold separately".

So what's next? You're going to tell us that Windows XP can't play MP3s?

 

Thats not very nice, He's just offering his help.

some free advice:

Good manners are one of the last free things, and will get you far.

 

That's it. Any more off topic comments and this thread will be closed.

Please people, let's act like adults here.

EDIT-Last post by muf removed. TOS violation.


snowbound