System Safety Monitor's 1-man show

The proponent of SSM (Vitali) promised that SSM would include file protection by summer's end. It didn't happen, & he is unresponsive as to status queries. His replies to bug reports & technical questions are getting slower & slower. Also, it seems his forum replies are falling into the status of "cherry-picking" at times -- that is, answering easy questions & ignoring others.

I'm still hoping for the best, but I won't renew until I see signs of actual progress.

 

lately i been seen some hips products bunnish away litle by litle with no responses to customers etc

 

In my opinion we will see another stand-alone classical HIPS R.I.P. There is simply no market potential and capacity for such an application from a marketing perspective. Plus under these harsh financial circumstances it will be very hard to find venture capital. Perhaps SSM will be bought by a bigger company.

It is a pity.
Frank

 

Some of the best software written was the work of one person and is maintained by one or a couple of people. I was fortunate to be introduced to SSM in its early days when Max Burmistrov was the one man show, and have used and tested it ever since. I'd be inclined to think that they're having a hard time making it financially, not an uncommon thing for small software companies, especially when their software is pretty much a one time purchase and targets a limited group of users. It doesn't help their case when their free version is good enough to protect an OS from most anything except the users choices. Hard terms to make a living by. Even if SSM never does add file protection and the company goes under, I'll keep using SSM as long as it's compatible with the OS I'm using. IMO, SSM is a finished product that doesn't need regular updating and maintenance to remain effective.

 

Well when I released System Shutdown Simulator, their reply was very fast and they updated their program to address the issue.

I reckon they are trying to make SSM run as a service and that is why it may be taking so long.

But IMHO HIPS don't need updating, it isnt a big ask to add file protection etc.

Comodo's firewall product has a superior HIPS and is free. I reckon it may be partly responsible for SSM demise (along with SSM free version and EQSecure)

 

I wouldn't be so hasty to put them off with disappointment just yet in spite of their recent lag of responses at the forum and perhaps even emails.

It very well could be they are measuring up their past efforts whether their returns have been as expected and considering what direction to take next.

SSM is been a very big success for many of us but they are still a marketable software entity that has to realize if the profits are matching their expenditures and efforts or not.

It could be this is simply a lull or it might be a falling away. Only time can tell which that is.

EASTER

 

I quote. I wish that SSM will have soon the file-protection feature - I believe that the date could be next November - but anyway actually it ensures an high level of protection, especially if it is deeeply setted.

 

I totally agree, traditional hips like RTD that I use don't need regular updating, what else to add anyway?

 

It would make me sad to see this proggie leave the arena

From the first time I have used it I have been impressed by its power; I think it is sooooo good.

I have trialed many a hips but after a couple of days I always returned to this Ukranian powerhouse.

 

I believe SSMs problems are due to the limited market their product targets plus the fact that it's a one time sale. Not enough customers to be financially viable. Comodo has other sources of income, including products with yearly costs the user pays. It's not a quality or performance problem with their software as SSM isn't inferior to any of its competitors. More features doesn't translate into a superior product, only a more complicated one. Many users may prefer to have them combined in one package like Comodo. I prefer separate apps. Unfortunately for SSM, the trend is towards integrated packages, not specialized separate apps.

Adding file protection wouldn't do much to increase SSM's effectiveness. File are modified or replaced by running processes. With a decent ruleset, these processes can't run without user approval. The built in signature checking for executables already protects them. I have content and integrity checkers for files and folders installed as backup to my primary defenses. After several years of monitoring, I've shut them off. They've never been needed as my primary defenses (SSM, Kerio, Proxomitron) have never been breached. The only time any of them alerted to anything was when I made changes to the system and they told me what I already knew.