Jason or Wayne... I am attempting to run IIS on my newly reformatted comp & host my website. I want to use Port Explorer on that comp as well. Do I need another KeyFile specifically for the comp? Thanx in advance!!
One keyfile per physical computer. If you run multiple operating systems on one computer, you'll only need one key, but if you have two physical computers, you'll need two keys. Email us if you have any problems Best regards, Wayne
POOR SOFTWARE hi! I tested Port Explorer and my conclusion is that only stupids will ever fork out $30 for that. You don't even provide testing facilities for the SPY feature because it is buggy. Biiiily@nospamforme.net
Folks, Don't bother responding to trolls (or "stupids" as our young educated friend here might say). Their only aim is to cause disruption to legitimate business and there's always a good chance they're financially motivated to do so, ie. affilliated with one of our competitors. I would be more surprised if that _wasn't_ the case. Trolls normally just 'hit and run' - find an anonymous proxy, create an anonymous forum login, post once, and are never seen/heard from again, so it's best simply to ignore them - they always go away eventually as they're never here for anything serious, just to cause trouble. So folks, why would somebody waste their time to attack a helpful and unique program like Port Explorer (that has already received the _highest possible_ ratings from reputable sites such as TUCOWS and Webattack)? Simple - it's in our competitors interests to do so, particularly against Port Explorer as port-to-process mapping is an anti-trojan technology that virtually every anti-trojan company wants/has looked into, as it provides a superior level of anti-trojan capability, as you'll soon see with TDS4. None of our competitors have been able to develop this technology (it requires a lot of kernel-level research - most of it undocumented, so I doubt our competitors will ever develop their own port-to-process mapping techniques) so it makes us a prime target for troll posts which attempt to make the technology seem less effective than it is, simple because it's something they need also. When you think about it like that, you realise their criticism is just a complement to the technology - tantamount to jealousy - they want it but they can't have it, and because they want it so bad but can't develop it themselves they'll hide behind anonymous proxies with anonymous logins simply so they can spread lies. It's nothing knew in the corporate world, but remember - they wouldn't target us if we weren't successful. Our friend here has however given me the opportunity to elaborate on the packet-sniffer (Socket Spy). Judging from our records, a large majority of the people in this Port Explorer forum have a registered copy of Port Explorer and knows how well the Socket Spy utility works - not only processes, but also individual sockets (something no other packet sniffer can do). Additionally, Port Explorer's packet sniffer doesn't bind to any adapters (something that makes other packet sniffers incompatible on a lot of systems). We haven't had a single email regarding any problems with it either (a lot of praise though! thanks folks), and 'anonymous billy' (first time at this forum - don't tell me you're surprised, folks) is the first person to ever make such a post. Either way, the crux of his argument is that he's saying a feature is buggy simply because he can't try it, that's laughable in itself. Well that's enough time wasted for one day, time to get back to work. Enjoy the rest of the weekend folks, hopefully our young friend anonymous Billy will also find something productive to do this weekend. Best regards, Wayne PS. If you're interested in seeing the awards that Port Explorer has won so far (even though it's only a month old), simply visit the main Port Explorer website - http://www.diamondcs.com.au/portexplorer/ No other port-to-process mapping tool has been given such high-rated awards, and those awards were given to the evaluation version of Port Explorer (which doesn't have the packet-sniffer). I don't know about you, but I'd trust TUCOWS/Webattack/Softwareseeker to be more accurate at reviewing a program than our anonymous friend here. No need to wait for a reply from Billy, if he's anything like all the other trolls this will be the last time we'll ever hear from him (at least using this nick/email/login, of course) so I'll close this thread.
