ShadowDefender v1.1.0.270 is now officially released

Discussion in 'sandboxing & virtualization' started by nanana1, Aug 27, 2008.

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

    Einsturzende Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    390
    Location:
    neubauten
    It is not FP, it is behavior (notification/alert), there is nothing wrong with accurate alert, (this is not signature detection)
     
  2. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    I am not disagreeing but the key word in your statement is "accurate", would you not agree.
     
  3. Einsturzende

    Einsturzende Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    390
    Location:
    neubauten
    7.10.png

    It is way how SD working.. I guess
     
  4. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    Very good, but it isnt bad activity, so if I choose to say no, my legit program wont work. But I see what you are saying, I guess I expect software to know what is and isnt legit kernel modification.

    And your english is fine.;)
     
  5. Long View

    Long View Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2004
    Posts:
    2,295
    Location:
    Cromwell Country
    It's late here so I must be missing the point - why would you want to commit C: even if this succeeded would it not just be the same as not have SD protection running ? if SD is part of C: can it be expected to commit itself ?
     
  6. Einsturzende

    Einsturzende Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    390
    Location:
    neubauten
    yeah, it is activity made by legit application, I already posted on KLab forum to suggest whitelisting, nothing yet ...
    P.S. there is no no for an answer, only allow

    :D
     
    Last edited: Oct 6, 2008
  7. Saraceno

    Saraceno Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Posts:
    2,405
    I couldn't work it out either.

    If you're wanting to commit C:, that means you trust all the files on it, and you believe it's free from viruses and malware. So if you trust it all, you would just leave it shadowed and protected.

    You're only supposed to commit small files, things you want to keep. Songs, movies, files. Why on earth would you want to commit a massive amount, many gigs, of data?

    You'd be better off just turning off the program and doing whatever you wanted to do with your C: drive.
     
  8. virtumonde

    virtumonde Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Posts:
    504
    Guys,you missed my point.
    This was a test to see how this operation will work.It's easy to understand what is the best use for program like this and it's the way you describe it and as i use it also(by commiting only those type of files that you need and belive are malware free),but i don't see anywhere on Shadow Defender site that Do not try to Save entire Session ,becouse it will not work.
    The result could had happened becouse of Agnitum firewall,but the program failed that's the result on my Pc.
     
  9. Saraceno

    Saraceno Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Posts:
    2,405
    All ok, I see your point.

    I guess I would never try committing anything that was a running process.
     
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.