pe guard

hope everything is good for him ....

 

This may eventually be a good tool to have in one's toolkit and while I wish the developer well, I am not sure that I would trust "any" of my security to a product development that is a "Mecurial" as this one...

This appears to be a one-man show which creates considerable reliability/servicability issues - especially for security products...

 

Very true. *cough* Shadow Defender *cough*

 

Not necessarely. *cough* TreatFire *cough* *cough* DefenseWall *cough* *cough* SandBoxIE *cough* *cough* *cough*

I think you can get the flue both sides easily anough! Each developing approch having strong and weak points going for them both...
*cough*

 

Except with Shadow Defender you get a complete and reliable product, whereas with PE GUARD you get basically an alpha version of something that is supposed to remotely resemble a HIPS program or something, and doesn't offer any solid protection.

 

PE Guard has stopped everything that MRG has thrown at it. Only DefenseWall and Bluepoint can make the same claim. Unfortunately, MRG is no longer testing PE Guard or Bluepoint.

 

I am personally very sad to hear the (lack of) news of if PE-Guard is done or not. I have been watching this product to eventually install and try out as long as the dev kept on working and everything kept working good but the lack of dev is worrying.

 

i am very sad here it feels like the end of the world

 

Depends, with the dev MIA and no updates... What happens if a WIN update, say like WIN 7 SP1 breaks something, then what?

 

You mean that single test they did - "Online Banking/Browser Security Test"? I don't know of another test that included PE GUARD.
And even if it did pass that and more MRG tests, that doesn't prove much of anything to me personally. I keep my own malware collection and PE GUARD doesn't fair that well against it. Sure, it does a reasonable job but not good enough for my standards, and most certainly not good enough for a $15 price tag. Shadow Defender on the other hand really stops everything I've seen other people throw at it, and things that I throw at it. Even TDSS, which is an area where PE GUARD fails, among other areas.

Then we have a problem. But surely that applies to both products, as PE GUARD's developer seems MIA as well.

 

Hopefully both will return.

 

PE Guard will return but it will take some time

 

PE Guard, Hitman Pro and Bluepoint to be included in future MRG testing.
http://forums.malwareresearchgroup.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=552

 

cool

 

Results for a variant of TDSS Dropper here:
http://malwareresearchgroup.com/2010/09/detection-of-the-latest-variant-of-tdss-dropper-2/

 

That's funny. It fails here. And I tend to trust my own testing methods and standards than someone else's. Problem is I have generally high standards so a rather large number of programs don't impress me much or at all.

 

Another point of view:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1639455&postcount=411

 

And what does that post have to do with the current discussion?

 

Leave malware testing to the professionals and don't discredit their results.

 

One is free to believe whatever and whoever one wants. I have tested for myself PE GUARD with recent versions of TDSS and it doesn't manage to prevent infection. I trust the results that I see with my own eyes more than the results some testing organization publishes somewhere.
Besides we're talking about the same professionals that claimed Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware to be of inferior quality if I'm not mistaken. They may have changed their opinions about the program but I myself can't trust them.
Also we can say the same thing about Matousec's tests. They are supposed to be professionals too, right? I mean they publish results and have some sort of methodology, etc. Yet a lot of users here take their tests with a grain of salt.
I've learned to question authority, organizations, etc. I research matters myself as well, and don't take someone else's opinion for a fact just because he/she is supposed to be a professional.

Besides I never published any results and never claimed to be some kind of a professional tester either. I was simply sharing my experience.

 

TheIgster's thread got closed for just this same approach. He decided to discuss his test results on a personal blog rather than imposing on Wilders to publicize his efforts.

Although you seem more concerned with arguing rather than comprehending what others are trying to tell you, I hope you might give some heed to following TheIgster's good example.

 

First of all I didn't post any really specific results. Secondly, I never asked for feedback. I simply mentioned it as a side note. It wasn't my intention to be discussed in detail or anything like that.
But OK, let's go along with this. If I say only that I don't like PE GUARD's efficiency, wouldn't I be required to prove this or give examples of what I mean?
You yourself just asked for proof several minutes ago that Shadow Defender isn't bypassed by malware that bypasses other light virtualization software.

 

i also tested pe guard and with good results did you tested the free version?did you have the let pe guard decide configuration or did you use the power mode?thanks,i also use the anti-executable which can help in blocking malware ofcourse if you know how to proper answer a pop up alert

 

I''m soft of afraid to answer you as it might be interpreted again as publishing results or something that I'm not supposed to do. Still... I tested the latest trial version, used the power mode and did not let the program choose for me.
I'm using Malware Defender with added my own additional registriy keys/values, files/folders and extensions to monitor/protect, so I think I am capable of answering a HIPS popup alert.

 

I concede your point.