PG - Is it too complex for the typical home user?

Discussion in 'ProcessGuard' started by Cyborg, Apr 29, 2005.

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

    Jaws Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Posts:
    210
    You first have to define a "typical home user". 99% of typical home users know how to get on the internet and send and receive email, that's it. They are not people that come to Wilders Security Forums, let alone know what ProccessGaurd is. And a clean machine? What typical home user would want to reinstall windows.
     
  2. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

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

    I do not think PG requires a windows re-install. It needs a clean machine. If a home user's machine isn't clean, then all the more reason to clean it and install PG. It's either one or the other.

    1) If it is clean, then install PG.

    2) If it is not clean, then clean it and install PG.

    The end result is exactly the same. :)

    Rich
     
  3. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    I suppose it depends on whether you recognise the voice. Neverthless, are you *really* implying 99.99999999% of computer users in the world (roughly the % not using PG) are as vulnerable as people with no doors?
     
  4. fred22

    fred22 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2004
    Posts:
    229
  5. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    I'm not 100% sure what you are saying here. If you are talking about the use of software to provide more detailed logging , then maybe, but it won't help prevent infection at all.

    But if you are thinking of typical users using PG to prevent infection, and has
    some magic bullet that is going to keep machines clean, I'm afraid you will be sadly disappointed. There are far more easier and effective methods if you want to keep a computer clean, I won't insult your intelligence by pointing them out.

    PG has it place yes, but trying to justify using it would involve threads like
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=78812 where you talk about high level threats. Against the run of the mill adware, virus, PG is way overkill.

    Yes, *you* don't see it as being sufficient because your computer data has among other treasures, details of who really shot kennedy, while mine has the secrets of antigravity and the location of the holy grail:)

    I fully agree with your stance, but nothing in this tells me that PG is the answer. And of course, I won't bore you with cases I know of where users of varying levels from hackerz elite class down to beginners with basic knowledge of safe hex have remained safe (or as safe as my merger abilities are capable of detecting which I guess is at least better than what your family members are expereincing)without using PG.

    And I know of many cases, where people (including some who actually post here!) and some more knowledgable than almost everyone here live happily without the use of either those apps, but that's not the point.

    Right, but not everyone needs to stay ahead, or wants to stay ahead. If everyone tries to stay ahead, none of us will be!



    Once again the question in this thread was:

    You still havent made any convincing point that PG is necessary, other than stating that some people have problems with malware IMHO.
     
  6. G1111

    G1111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2005
    Posts:
    2,294
    Location:
    USA
    I have been using the free version of ProcessGuard and think it is fairly easy to use. I look at it as an added layer of protection for my security software (AV, AS, firewall, IE-SPYAD, Hosts file, etc.) not a standalone defense.
     
  7. rickontheweb

    rickontheweb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    129
    pollmaster said: "your computer data has among other treasures, details of who really shot kennedy, while mine has the secrets of antigravity and the location of the holy grail"

    I thought I deleted those kennedy files ages ago! How'd you know about that? My my, all the more reason to install ProcessGuard! Oh and can you PM me those antigravity secrets? Sounds handy...

    pollmaster said: "You still havent made any convincing point that PG is necessary, other than stating that some people have problems with malware IMHO."

    Hmmm, I'm not trying to, use what ever you like. Much like my "outcaste" family members, it's not my concern what you use.

    Once again the question here was: Is it too complex for the typical home user? Not does the typical home user need it.

    I believe that question has been answered.. by many.

    Start a new thread, maybe I'll pop by and debate you there. Maybe not. :)
     
  8. nisee

    nisee Guest

    * :ninja: I uninstalled PG . I did not have time to configured it right. Way to much for me. I make backups all the time, if anything happens I reinstall windows it takes me two hours, Make PG works right take me four or five weeks ,after that somethings happens anyway. I have TDS-3, Port Explorer, Spy Cleaner Gold, Spyware Doctor, Ad-aware SE Pro, UnHacMe, CounterSpy, RegDefend, WinPatrol, PrivacyKeyboard, SuperAdBlocker, Spybot S&D, NOD 32, ZoneAlarm Pro, RegRun Security Suite, none of these I have never any problems with only PG. I uninstalled a purchased version of PG that I do not know what to do with.
     
  9. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Hi nisee,

    There was an install problem also reported on DSLReports. It is not exactly clear what caused the problem. It could have been a bad download (which is what the user thought) or it could have been some remnants of PG 2 that were left in the registry and file folders. Difficult to say. But he was able to install PG and appeared to be quite pleased with the results. So at some point, you may want to revisit.

    You already have an excellent defense without it, so whether or not you install PG is rather problematic. I also have many licenses to excellent security programs. What I found was that the combination of my AV (KAV in this case), PG, and RegDefend, have made the other products pretty much superfluous and so PG allowed me to simplify my overall approach to security. You may find it worthwhile to try to track down the problem with the install, or you may just decide to leave things as be. From a security point of view, I think you are well protected whichever route you take.

    Rich
     
  10. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    Well didnt you use PG already? Clearly it didnt help :)))

    Sure, it's not your concern, except you make long ranting posts on this forum about them :)

    You must really point me to those threads.
     
  11. rickontheweb

    rickontheweb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    129
    phishmaster said: "You must really point me to those threads."

    Here ya go:

    Click on User CP > Buddy / Ignore Lists > Ignore List > type in "rickontheweb" > Click Update Ignore List button

    Have a nice weekend. :)
     
  12. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    The ignore option sure looks good, when talking to someone who makes things up.
     
  13. rickontheweb

    rickontheweb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    129
    Sorry but the fish aren't biting on this side of the Wilders pond.

    If you have concerns, I encourage you to contact the administrators or moderators of this forum.

    I would be delighted to discuss any concerns with them.
     
  14. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

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

    Bottom line for me is:

    1) I always recommend ProcessGuard to anyone who is interested in increasing their security. Nothing can be simpler than learning how to prevent infections from being ever introduced onto a system. Once an infection finds its way in, then it is far, far more difficult to learn to get it off.

    2) Preventing malware entries from ever being introduced into the registry is an excellent additional safeguard. If someone is comfortable with ProcessGuard, they should definitly look at RegDefend.

    3) No one should be dissuaded from trying out ProcessGuard if they are interested in taking the above approach. It is well worth the small learning curve given the overall long term benefits.

    Rich
     
  15. Jaws

    Jaws Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Posts:
    210
    Hi Rich,

    You are obviously very knowledgeable about security issues unlike a typical home user. And unless they have someone to hold their hand like you, I think they would have a hard time knowing if their machine is clean or not when you take rootkits into consideration. And you seem to contradict yourself when you posted in the *other anti-virus software* forum today.

    richrf said:
    “Once something is on a machine, then it is extremely difficult to clear a machine and call it clean.”

    Hence, my reference to do a windows re-install. Thus, the mere fact that it's extremely difficult to clear a machine and call it clean, demands a re-install. Sorry to take an opposing view, but that's the only way I would install PG. Just my opinion.

    Thanks for listening,

    Jaws
     
  16. Wayne - DiamondCS

    Wayne - DiamondCS Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,533
    Location:
    Perth, Oz
    It actually doesn't matter if you install PG on a clean or infected machine, because as soon as you reboot your system after installing PG its driver will be loaded - before any user-mode malware (which is what the vast majority of worms, trojans, keyloggers, etc etc, are - even some rootkits), so PG can immediately be used to shut down those infections - keyboard hooks will be detected, file execution will be detected, etc etc. Only if a kernel-mode rootkit (and there aren't many) has infected your system before you install PG will the rootkit have the upper hand because PG's anti-rootkit approach is proactive (block the installation of the rootkit driver), not reactive (which is where scanners need to come into play).

    Best regards,
    Wayne
     
  17. Dieter Bressem

    Dieter Bressem Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2004
    Posts:
    36
    Location:
    Germany
    Hi all,

    indeed, for a home user PG is too complex.

    Just look at the Upgrade procedure.: I recommended PG to some friends, they still us the old version, because they are afraid to manipulate the registry to make the latest version run.

    Even if you are an "expert" it is dangerous to do an update. If you make just a small mistake (maybe booting too early), you will have no chance to make it run.
    I twice had to recover my machine by image because something went wrong and neither the new nor the old version was working and I didn't have any chance to reinstall and had to start from the beginning.

    Sometimes a "good" program is blocked. If you update the German Banking T-ONLINE Software and you forget to disable PG before, the whole installation is corrupt and you have to install from the ground up, which takes at leat 1 hour.

    There is no chance to get information about a new version. An unexperienced user doesn't know the Wilders-Forum or will visit the DCS-Forum.
    Why there is no button "Check for updates" or information by email o_O.
    Since many years I am user of AWPTA and AWPS. If there is a new version available they always send me an email, so I don't have to check there website every day.

    After all I have to say that PG isn't usefull for unexperienced users.

    Dieter


    I
     
  18. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Hi Jaws,

    The assumption, at time of PG installation, must always be that the machine is clean. If a user knows that the machine is not clean, then the user will necessarily seek the means to clean it. That is obvious. If the machine is clean (or the user thinks the machine is clean), then PG can be installed. No matter what, PG can be installed, once the user is satisfied (either rightly or wrongly) the machine is clean.

    Now suppose the user thinks that the machine is clean but it really isn't. Well, there is an opportunity at PG install/start-up to trap these trojan infections as Wayne described. Again, the user is better off, either way, once PG is installed. PG doesn't require a Windows re-install. It simply requires a clean machine, and one way or another a user has to get to that condition whether or not there is even any intention of ever installing PG. PG is not the issue. Any machine needs to be clean - eventually.

    Hope this clears up my point-of-view a bit.

    Rich
     
  19. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Hi Dieter,

    I certainly would not recommend to any user, experienced or otherwise, to manipulate the registry the fashion that you suggest. I understand that Wayne posted such a procedure, but I certainly did not try it.

    Correct me if I am wrong, but installing a new version can be done by uninstalling the old version and installing the new one. This would not require any manipulation of the registry.

    However, following this uninstall/re-install procedure, does mean that the user has lost all of the previous settings. This I believe is very poor for new users. Hopefully, the next version provides a much more straightforward upgrade path such as the one the RegDefend has. RegDefend is a snap.

    New users, at this time, will not have any problems since they will be installing the current product, which in itself is worth much, much more (in terms of security) than the $29 that is being asked for. I consider PG worth at least as much as the top AV/AT engines are charging and probably much more because of the basic, extremely strong protection that it provides. But each user should make their own decision on the merits of the situatioin.

    I do agree with you that the upgrade from the previous to current version was not well thought out. Personally, I did not upgrade, because I did not want to go through the effort again of establishing the correct settings for my machine. I do not have the latest patches, but at least for now, they are not affecting me or affecting me very little - e.g. sorting dates correctly.

    I hope that Wayne is listening to your comments, because they are very valid and certainly do affect the ability of users to easily upgrade in the future.

    Thanks for your comments.

    Rich
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2005
  20. Jaws

    Jaws Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Posts:
    210
    Hi Wayne & Rich,

    Rich, I'm sure in your mind you understand what you said but now I'm totally confused. Are you saying if you have an infected machine and install PG in learning mode, that PG will automatically flag all nasties and tell you they are bad? Are you saying to a typical home user that's not familiar with one processes from another, that PG will prevent the nasty processes from running in learning mode?

    Please don't lecture me on the requirements of a clean machine since most home user don't know a clean machine from an infected one. While I'm not familiar with PG, I'm investigating its uses and considering its purchase (very reasonable price, I'm just not rolling in dough at the moment). It seems like it would fit in with my minimalist computing style.

    BTW, I'm not new to computers. I've been an professional auto mechanic (they call it auto tech now, whoop-dee-do) for more then 30 years and have worked with on board computers since 1979. And been using computers since C-64 days.

    I'm just trying to get some insight into what seems like a worthwhile program in these troubled times. Please don't think I'm trying to knock this program.

    Thanks,

    Jaws
     
  21. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Hi Jaws,

    The point about "clean" machine, is that a clean machine is not a PG requirement. It is a user requirement. Every user needs a clean machine one way or another.

    When installing PG, a user will be asked to accept or reject each program. What my friend did, when cleaning up his machine, was to Google each program to make sure it was a known and good one. If he was not sure, he did not let it run and he asked. So he was able to clean his environment bit by bit. He did this because he wanted a clean machine - not because he wanted ProcessGuard.

    He does financial work on his machine, and for him the time spent was more than worth it. His only alternative was to wipe his machine clean and start all over again, and that would have taken him far more effort that what he did. It took him about 40 minutes to go through each program that was active and deciding whether to let it run or eliminate it. Had he wiped the machine clean, he would have had a clean system - and then he could install PG. Same thing, just different ways of getting there.

    PG will show whether programs are requesting special services, such as global hooks. These type of requests usually raise red flags. Another product called Security Task Manager analyzes these requests, automatically assesses the hazardous of these requests, and assigns a risk raking to each program. I often use this program to quickly look at the programs running on my system.

    The whole point is that ProcessGuard is extremely useful in preventing a system from getting badly infected - whatever state the system is at the time. If it is 100% clean, the PG will help immensely in keeping it that way. If the system is not clean - well the user has to decide whether to clean it or to get PG to help keep it from getting dirtier.

    My own setup is KAV to detect (in case my system was dirty), and PG and RegDefend to keep the system clean. It works very well for me. Oh yes, I also have WormGuard to guard against worms. Not sure whether it is needed anymore, but I keep it nonetheless.

    Rich
     
  22. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    5,507
    Thanks to the poster who started this topic. I am thinking about downloading this product to test it out for a bit. I believe there is a trial version of PG correct?

    I would like to give this a test drive for a bit. I plan to reformat my pc soon so if anything does go wrong, no worries.

    Thanks to all of you who gave such informative posts here.

    Regards,

    Jag
     
  23. Trooper

    Trooper Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2005
    Posts:
    5,507
    Bummer I stand corrected. No trial of the full version. :'(
     
  24. Wayne - DiamondCS

    Wayne - DiamondCS Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Posts:
    1,533
    Location:
    Perth, Oz
    Sorry my friend but whether you use a program at home or at work doesn't have any effect on how hard it is to use.

    Most people find PG very easy to use - it's not a 'large' program and its interface is fairly intuitive, and the large number of people using PG is a testament to this as a fact, not an opinion. There is also a comprehensive helpfile that should explain virtually everything the new user needs to know. Granted, PG isn't for everybody - only users of Windows operating systems, and not people with a very minimal background in computing, but most people who've been using a computer on a regular basis for more than two years should find the program very easy, especially if they read the helpfile. You can't expect to fully understand security software if you don't take some time to read through the helpfile.

    PG is also a program that you can make as complex (maximum security) or simple (minimal but still strong, kernel-mode security) as you want - simply uncheck the security options you don't want, so while people new to computing may find maximum security difficult to attain most will still find it easy to achieve minimal security. It's entirely up to the user.

    Best regards,
    Wayne
     
  25. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    I believe the point about PG's 'complexity' is simply that, when you are asked to give permission/deny permission to a program, you don't have any information readily at hand to explain what the said program is and does. A library database, of even only windows system processes would be extremely helpful (and say a link to google if not in the library)...that is a library that pops up when asked permissions, or when you hold your mouse cursor over a program name in the tab settings.

    Also a more detailed explaination of Global Hooks (and the other global protection settings) would be very useful.

    Of course, a simple update method would also be very appreciated.
     
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.