Is SSM Dead?

That is because MS keeps changing the OS landscape forcing others to adapt or fade away. As Bill Gates said earlier, in the future there will be no need for a PC. So everything present today may be gone just like the Wang word processor.

 

I still have MY Wang!

As for forums -- I would rather the SSM programmer give priority to business. And so he is.

 

Well, I see many posts in the SSM forum (some of which are my own) going unanswered for days and days, and sometimes never being answered at all, so I utterly disagree that "He CAN do the job". If he could do it solo as well as it needs to be done, he never would have had those extra staff members around in the first place.

I feel no obligation whatsoever to help save what fully seems to me to be a sinking ship.

P.S. Is GSS out of beta yet?

 

Can I give you my 8 inch diskettes?

 

lol

 

Very wise words indeed (could have been mine ), and so true.

I'm sure it is not meant this way, but with this kind of thread title things will only grow worse for SSM. You will get what you think.

SSM is the best HIPS around, no other hippie is standing in its shadow.
Reading about the ever growing number and the sophisticated nature of threats SSM is almost a must on a pc.

I'm 100% sure that when Vitk stays persistent in developing this gem it will pay off.

"An optimist sees an opportunity in every calamity; a pessimist sees a calamity in every opportunity"

Winston Churchill

 

I suggest you should soon take another close look at ProSecurity. Current version 1.30 is already better than SSM, but the new upcoming 1.40 will add more features and consolidate the competitive edge. The author said he might release a public beta of 1.40 in the near future.

While SSM is indeed one of the best HIPS, it is no longer THE best IMO. ProSecurity e.g. has made much progress in the last 9 months and has surpassed SSM in terms of power and protection at the latest with version 1.30.

I actually have used both SSM and ProSecurity for a long time and would hate to see SSM die, however if that should really happen it is good to know there is a powerful alternative which constantly gets better and better.

 

And Vista was originally announced to be released in 2004.

But all kidding aside, I sincerely wish the best for ProSecurity. The author thereof hasn't been heard from or issued an update in a MUCH long period of time than is the case with SSM. I am pleased to hear that you have been in contact with him, and that he is working on the next release of PS.

It's kind of strange that users of PS would find more information about PS updates here at Wilders than they can find in their own forum. I suggest that this good news also be posted in Pro-Security's own forum, where there has been no word of PS plans or actions for nearly 4 months.

I have nothing but good things to say about Pro-Security. I am very happy that there will continue to be at least TWO good choices (SSM & Pro-Security) for those of us who do not wish to use the less powerful HIPS that are designed for mass market, "set-it & forget-it" users.

I look forward to version 1.40 and certainly intend to give it a trial when it arrives.

 

Bellgamin,

The ProSecurity fan/addict/admin of the PS site seemed to have vanished into thin air (I remember you having some different opinions)

My appreciation for PS has risen (after all it withstood some test other HIPS failed).

Regards Kees

 

As for those tests you mention, are they still online? If so, where? I'd like to read them.

I am also interested in any tests you know of that included Winpooch. I have been following that app ever since I read some positive comments you & Easter had to say about that app.

Thank goodness, the "classical HIPS" market niche is still very much alive and living in Wilders estates.

 

Well, first of all, I'd like to say that "classical HIPS" niche will be always alive, but not really great. That is the reason, I suspect, PG died and problems of core SSM team. Such the niche generate issues with advertisement and PR (I mean, low ROI).

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the "more secure" feature of MS Vista is that it implements something akin to SSM ? Does not Vista bug the tish out of you everytime you execute something which requires admin privilege? UAC for every one? Wouldn't THAT be the SSM killer ? What does Joe Shmuck want to do: NOT bother using UAC or NOT buy something more complicated to use like SSM ??

 

But what about the one or two people that still do not have vista?
Maybe they would like something like SSM.

 

As a toy poodle is to a rottweiler, so is Vista uac* to HIPS.

Hasta la Vista-- hither, thither, yon, here, there, &mebbe s'moa
~~~~~~~~~
*uac = User Account Control

 

I haven't used Vista so It's hard to draw a comparison using anything more than what I've read. It seems to me that there are major differences on a fundamental level. An app like SSM gives the user the control. Microsofts system leaves them in control. One controls the activities of the software and OS components. The other controls the user, preventing them from controlling system components. There may be some overlap in function, the controlling of malicious processes, but their primary purposes are in opposition. I expect that this is the real reason M$ is making it difficult for HIPS, especially when it's been demonstrated that Vista can be compromised in spite of their built in security.

There will always be those of us who will not use an OS that we can't control, who will refuse to use Vista or anything else M$ comes up with that continues their present practices. For these users, HIPS remains a viable solution. Whether their vendors survive depends on how many users tell M$ what they can do with Vista. That puts it in our hands.
Rick

 

The concept of UAC is, like SSM, a white list process control. The problem is it doesn't learn, that's why "Does not Vista bug the tish out of you everytime you execute something".

Worse, it bugs the hell out of you when running any process whether you've run it a thousand time or running the first time.

I have yet to see anyone personally or in forums keep UAC enabled for long.

I hope MS revisits UAC in their promised SP.

zcv

 

As for the tests I do not know anymore, but I can recall that Pro Security came out best in two out of three new test. In one test only Rick Herbalist prooved that his Windows98 Gladiator set up could survive (but then again Rick applied some double twisted security belts which most users will not apply, me included, after all his implimentation of SSM is one of years experience). What I remember was that Anti Executable and the new On-line Armour withstood all three test (this were seperate blogs/posts). I tested EQSecurity and it failed one of those 3 tests. I thought the test were initially posted/mentioned by Aigle, NicM and I thought by a guy named Liam in the DefenseWall forum.

Due to the fact that my son has a more powerful PC and we have an old version of Regustry Mechanic we are using CyberHawk Pro in stead of EQSecurity on his machine (he justed likes the fact that CyberHawk always prompts and some more clues on the risk gives than EQS when installing new software).

I am very impressed with WinPooch, it's registry, network initialization control (to replace software FW when behind a hardware FW) and file protection control works flawless. Only the execution kill protection (it failed the test Aigle had posted) and self protection are not strong.

A friend of mine has a powerfull PC, he runs SSM free to surpress the nag screens of Antivir and Appdefend. Sitting after a hardware FW with SSM free (nagscreen kills, all other protection disabled) Appdefend 2.0 beta and WinPooch (only registry and data protection) he has a fine and solid freeware set (he always asked me to test something when his previous set up failed, he has not asked me to check whether our setup fails also in a long time).

For the developers of SSM and PS I hope EQSecurity will never develop english help files or/and become payware soon. EQS is an incredible application, powefull, fast with a small memory foothold and free.

Regards K

 

Sadly, Winpooch's developer (Benoit Blanchon) clearly states that he will no longer work on this splendid app. He issued an open invitation to others, for them to take over upgrading of Winpooch. To my knowledge, no one has done so.

The process detection module of Dynamic Security Agent can do the same function. It's free & really quite splendid.

I hope EQS DOES become payware. Otherwise, no rice in the programmer's rice bowl.

No rice, No dice o

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By the way have you had a look at the greatly expanded HIPS-type settings that are now available on OnlineArmor2 IF & ONLY IF you click on "advanced user"?

Unless you choose to click on "advanced user", OA2 remains just as user-friendly as ever for those who want "set it & forget it" protection. A superb blend of simplicity and power!

I renewed & cherish my OA license. Even so, Vitali is working on SSM's next update. On 7/16, I will renew that license as well -- BTGLW.

 

Bellgamin,

Why Online Armour and SSM? Is it on different PC's? What is the gain of running both on 1 PC?

Regards Kees

 

Not 2 PCs. 1 PC, 2 different images.

 

If I believe what i read here. ProSecurity - Dead. SSM - Dead. Winpooch - Dead. Antivirus - Dead.

Except if you are a beta-tester of course, then you have insider information on how the latest coming beta will blow your socks off.

 

Can you please point out where you read that SSM was dead.

 

Agree with Pete 200%!

As to SSM, its owner (Vitali) is again responding to support requests posted on SSM's forum. He is replying to email support requests. AND he has reported that he is working hard to put the finishing touches on SSM's next update. My current license expires 7/16/07. BTGLW, I SHALL renew.

As to PS, the last post by its developer (back in March) was that he was working on an update. Since then, however, he has not posted in PS's forum. Hopefully he will surface again soon.

As to Neoava, the developer recently started a forum HERE, & has stated that beta 3 will be out "soon" --- RTBS.

Yes, AFAIK Winpooch definitely has no active developer at the moment.

On the more positive side, the new version 2 of OnlineArmor now offers several "classical HIPS" capabilities. These are available ONLY if you click on an "advanced" box in OA. Doing so will produce a set of VERY *classical* power options for EACH individual filename, as shown in the screenshot below. {This particular screenshot shows how I set OA so as to protect the Dynamic Security Agent app on my computer.}

However -- for those who are fans of "set it & forget it" -- do NOT press "advanced" and OA will remain one of the easiest-to-use HIPS there is. Moreover, OA has elevated itself several leagues ABOVE the status of a mere HIPS. In addition to HIPS capabilities, "OA-plain" now includes a full-featured firewall, email protection, web protection, & spam filter. "OA+" includes all the power of OA-plain PLUS built-in Kaspersky antivirus.

BOTTOM LINE- There is some shake-out going on in the HIPS arena. Outfits with a weak business model are dwindling, but major players (such as Prevx, OnlineArmor, & DefenseWall) are VERY much alive & thriving. HIPS are still the bleeding front-edge of security apps. *Don't leave home without one.*