Shadow Defender alternative ?

Re: The Shadow Defender Challenge.

The concern I would feel given the first portion of your quote (above) would give me strong suspicions regarding the second part.

I have no personal information and certainly find the app interesting but I would hesitate to spend money with a company that apparently lurks in the shadows while revealing nothing about themselves. Perhaps it's my law enforcement background but I don't think you need to have been a "fed" to smell something fishy about the situation.

Full disclosure (especially when it comes to "security apps") should be standard practice.

 

You could be right but I did notice that a couple of the .331 files have a later modification date and different size than their .325 counterparts!

Exercising caution is always a good idea, but I must say that I haven't had any security issues whatsoever with the .331 build.

 

Re: The Shadow Defender Challenge.

In truth I was hesitant, but I had read so many great SD reviews that I decided to try it. After trialing it for a couple of weeks I just had to buy it and the only avenue for that was from the new provider.

You won't get any arguement about that from me.

 

Re: The Shadow Defender Challenge.

I 'd like to ask members here if they know of even one person that has had a reply to a question or query from the new Shadow Defender "owners"?
I have tried to contact them on numerous occasions (as the Shadow Defender mod) but didn't ever get a reply.

So we know once and for all...if they are legitimate let them speak up.
Something was wrong even before they took over with Tony missing for ages and out of contact...no support for people who bought the software.
I think enough people are using the 1.1.0.325 old version to know that it safe and reliable, unfortunately though, there is no support. We know the good checksums

SD1.1.0.325_Setup.exe

101CDC867F7771FAAE6810483EF16439

SD1.1.0.325_Setup(x64).exe

35EDF53C0B4D3B8960047CFBFCBAE7E3

 

It's unfortunate that folks (like myself) who have not had the opportunity to test out the software will probably not be able to do so under present circumstances (unless they are willing to throw caution to the wind).

 

Blues,

As you are sketical of the current version but would like the opportunity to test SD, all that you have to do is download the older and trusted .325 version. It will run as a fully-functional 30-day trial.

 

Re: The Shadow Defender Challenge.

I have a different checksum for the 32 bit version. Mine is
MD5: 4ED0F50233680FFC37FBE5CF8057C634
Is this not a good version of SD1.1.0.325?

 

If you could provide me with a trusted (vetted) link I'd be appreciative.

Thank you.

 

Re: The Shadow Defender Challenge.

It is fine, the same as mine......
Explanation on this can be found from post#182
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=293075&page=8

 

Re: The Shadow Defender Challenge.

Ah ok I missed that. Thanks LoneWolf!

 

32-bit or 64-bit?

 

32 bit. I run XP Pro SP3.

Thanks for any assistance.

 

Here ya go... SD1.1.0.325_Setup(x32) virus-free and tested (by me) on 32-bit WinXP Pro SP3.

http://www.mediafire.com/?pap1e60mhj277d3

 

Thanks, SD...but I'm not feeling very confident in this file at the moment.

I just scanned the download with Emsisoft Anti-Malware and it reported the following:

worm.win32.autorun!E2

From their database:

Name: Worm.Win32.AutoRun!E2

Description:

Worms are programs that are able to spread independently and act harmful in some cases. The spreading techniques range from manual activation by the user (by clicking an email attachment) to the fully automatic spreading using security leaks of the operating system.

 

Here's the info from virustotal

 

Blues...everybody know "hypersensivity" of Emsi's produtcs...it's nothing new. New version of OA already connected to cloud "AMN" alerted me someday during WTF installation that this app is very dangerous and deffault action was "block". Of course I didn't block.

 

Blues, the SD driver has always drawn a few false positives, which have been reported throughout the SD threads. All that I can tell you is that I tested the setup file I uploaded with MBAM and Panda and both AVs found it to be clean. Last but not least I installed and ran the same file without sustaining an infection....

....but I understand your hesitance, because in the end you have to be comfortable.

 

Thanks for the info (and the download) SD. I also scanned with MBAM with no report of malware.

I haven't read every post and thread on the topic so I'm sure there's a lot I'm unaware of as far as the false positives that some of the AV's are coming up with.

I'm also sure that you can understand my caution due to all the "mystery" surrounding this app over the past year or two.

Now I'll see if I can find a tutorial to download or study online prior to experimenting with the app.

Thanks again.

 

There wouldn't be much point in a version that was identical to the previous version. All that means is that changes were made. It doesn't necessarily mean that this version is an improvement over the last official version. Without a change list, we don't know what changes were made.

Maybe, but do you have any evidence that any outstanding issues were fixed or other improvements made? If the developer of this version comes forward, proves their credentials and posts a change list for 1.1.0.331 then I will give it a go. Until then, I'm sticking with 1.1.0.325.

 

Well I see one visible improvement in v1.1.0.331 - the driver is now signed (VeriSign) which, in my eyes, is a plus!

pegr, I only stated the facts regarding the date and size changes of some files and any conclusions are (of course) speculative. Please understand that I'm also very curious, to say the least, about the 'mysterious new owner' but (after making a full image backup!) I ventured to try the current .331 build and it has been working very well for me. That's not a recommendation, just the facts...

 

That's the 24/2/2010 version.

For what it's worth here are the VT results for the 23/2/2010 version

IMO, both files are safe.

 

Since responding to Blues' request (above) for the 32-bit version of Shadow Defender 1.1.0.325 I've received a few pm's asking if I had the 64-bit version. I do, so I have uploaded it as well. They are now both available for downloaded using the following links (I have no idea how long they will be retained on Mediafire's server):

32-bit

64-bit

I've been asked where I got these setup files... I downloaded them from shadowdefender.com (last year) before all links for prior builds were redirected to the current build.

 

And my personal thanks to both you, SD, and Patrick for helping to make the earlier versions available and the information you have shared.

This thread has provided excellent information from a lot of good, community minded folks. Kudos to all involved.

 

Yw Blues. I have found Shadow Defender to be a remarkable program without parallel in its category.

Regardless of the mystery surrounding the disappearance of the original developer (Tony) and that of the current supplier, I for one will continue to use Shadow Defender for as long as it continues to work with Windows.

 

Admittedly, I haven't even tried other programs in SD's category (light virtual apps), but after reading those threads where independent tests have shown that SD was the only program of its type that was able to contain nasty rootkits (discarded upon restarting!) that was good enough reason for me to go with SD.

To me the current state-of-affairs is but a curiosity. For all we know the new owners (seemingly Chinese) may be unable to communicate in English. Given the invaluable user-support available here (on Wilders), I am not at all reluctant to continue using this amazing program.

Wendi


PS... SD, I presume that other than being a satisfied user you are not associated with shadowdefender.com?