The unofficial Shadow Defender Support Thread.

Discussion in 'sandboxing & virtualization' started by Cutting_Edgetech, Feb 14, 2011.

  1. RootAccess

    RootAccess Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Posts:
    64
    Does Shadow Defender write to the disk.sys, atapi.sys, or some other driver?
     
  2. korben

    korben Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2009
    Posts:
    917
    Not sure if it's the right thread...

    I didn't use to find the so-called extensions to be that useful, but now I do.

    In the morning I boot up my machine, launch SD and start my usual routine related to work and so on. And I never surf the Net with SD disabled - keeps me sane ;)

    I also use OA Pro.
    My Q: how am I supposed to work with some extensions for Opera/ FF/ Chrome in 'clean' environment?

    Upon starting my laptop - should I download the extensions first, then clean /Delete Private Data in Opera, then restart the system and upon next boot-up run SD?

    What scenario do you guys use?
     
  3. CyberMan969

    CyberMan969 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Posts:
    589
    Hi everyone, I wanted to ask the more seasoned users in this forum, what happens when you have a BBSOD when in shadow mode?

    For example, I place drives C: and D: on shadow mode, no exclusions. Then a crash occurs while both drives are in shadow. Will a reboot restore them to their previous pre-crash state? Thanks in advance for any replies.

    It's a shame regarding the current affairs on the SD project. For a while I thought SD will turn out to grace abandonware lists but then this mysterious new version comes out. Among all light virtualization tools, SD is my favorite with its simplicity and functionality. The interface looks a little bit dated but I don't mind that as a simple interface requires less RAM. The product works and if it was to be graced with a fresh revamped interface and the option to exit SD without rebooting, it'd probably be selling like mad. Maybe another company saw this potential and bought it from Tony, and this is just transition time. Pure positive speculation on my part of course. I guess only time will tell.
     
  4. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,614
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    Hi there,

    I've used SD for years now as well as DeepFreeze and ShadowUser Pro. I have experienced blue screens and hard reboots (using the start button) with all of them, and they seem to be designed for such extreme situations always rebooting to the original state. Now to generalize and state that this will happen to all computers I don't know. Best would be to test it with a hard reboot on your machine.
     
  5. CyberMan969

    CyberMan969 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Posts:
    589
    Thanks for the info. With version .225 when I chose to exit shadow mode and commit all changes, there was the usual Windows 7 Log Off screen followed by an SD screen displaying a percentage while commiting data. In version .331 this screen is not visible. After deciding to commit everything and clicking OK to reboot it just freezes on the Windows Logging Off screen. At this point - and with the Windows log off screen still displayed - a small rectangular black box appears at the top left of the screen. It looks to me like the SD committing data screen is running there, but it is very small and you cannot make the progress bar or any characters for that matter. It reboots about a minute or two later and it seems to be doing the job ok, because after rebooting the changes have been commited.

    I run a desktop resolution of 1920x1080 with which version .225 seemed to be OK with, it always displayed the progress screen fully upon commiting. With .331 I've tried it with lower resolutions too and it still didn't work for me, so it may be a bug in the latest version. Either that, or my system is too old/'funky'. Anybody else encountered this? BTW, I've got Win7 SP1 x64 on an old DFI Lanparty UT NF4 SLI-DR Expert board, 4gig RAM, dual core Athlon x2 4400, two nVidia 9600 GT on SLi mode, latest graphics and chipset drivers installed and all updates done. Pretty sucky system nowadays but I mainly use it for older games/web browsing/scanning/printing anyway and it's still OK for that sort of staff. I'm gonna test v331 on my laptop, much newer spec than my desktop and it also runs 7 SP1 x64, will post observations.
     
    Last edited: Apr 21, 2011
  6. AlexC

    AlexC Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Posts:
    1,288
    I´ve downloaded version 1.1.0.326 (x64). Is this version ok? I´m asking because in shadowdefender.com the last official version before the dubious 1.1.0.331 is 1.1.0.325... o_O
     
  7. J_L

    J_L Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2009
    Posts:
    8,738
    That's the last trustworthy beta.
     
  8. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,694
    Location:
    USA
    I was thinking the last beta was .326. I don't believe .325 is a beta at all. It was the last solid stable release before the infamous .331.
     
  9. CloneRanger

    CloneRanger Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2006
    Posts:
    4,978
    @ AlexC

    I've been using v.1.1.0.326 since last year with no problems :thumb: I'm not running the x64 though but the 32bit.
     
  10. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    i wrote an e-mail to sales@shadowdefender dot com asking for the price for 200 seats of Shadow Defender.

    i think i might have exaggerated a little too much. ;)
    i still have not received an answer. :D
     
  11. Acadia

    Acadia Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2002
    Posts:
    4,325
    Location:
    US
    moontan, I'm wouldn't be surprised that whoever is running ShadowDefender nowadays reads these forums and especially this thread. :ninja:

    Acadia
     
  12. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    Ooopps!

    oh well. ;)
     
  13. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,997
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    I received a reply from a colleague, who on shadowdefenderdotcom is identified as the author of the Polish translation to version 1.1.0.331 (by Google Translator)

    "by Bierni » Friday 17:50
    hello after a long break.

    One can only guess what's going on. Last translation was to version 1.1.0.325. What did I think the owner of the shenanigans? Changed the labeling on the newer version and that's it. Some put a malware installer and confident about downloading the latest version of the user himself will come up on a mine. If the author himself has not confirmed the latest version of this issue would be away from her. Unless someone was testing?"


    http://forum.safegroup.pl/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=3884
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2011
  14. AlexC

    AlexC Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Posts:
    1,288
    Thanks!
     
  15. shadek

    shadek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2008
    Posts:
    2,538
    Location:
    Sweden

    Thank you. You may actually have confirmed that the latest version at ShadowDefender.com might be a rouge.
     
  16. skokospa

    skokospa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    177
    Location:
    Srbija
    So,forget this program.o_O
     
  17. moontan

    moontan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2010
    Posts:
    3,931
    Location:
    Québec
    it is still a very good & useful program.
    it is a little jewel, really.

    just stick with version .025
     
  18. crapbag

    crapbag Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Posts:
    145
    Forget the 'new' version. I don't see why you can't still use previous versions as a layer of security. I'll keep it until someone rips a hole in it and renders it useless.
     
  19. sdmod

    sdmod Shadow Defender Expert

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Posts:
    1,159
    If the new Shadow Defender was genuine then there has been lots of time for explanations and apologies, we have not heard a "peep" from anyone claiming to represent the software or developer and (as I mentioned previously) for a security software that is, supposedly, ongoing, that is not good enough.
    All "teazers" and claims of knowledge of the reality of this situation and information about Tony have proved insubstantial.
    The new .org site is just a blog and there is absolutely no action there(as far as I can see), where after numerous posts (which are hidden until I login) I have still not received any reply to pertinent questions.
    Tony used to post on Wilders forums and if he was involved in any of this surely he would have seen the necessity of informing members, users and potential purchasers.
    I can't see how anyone would/could think that the software could be supported and find a proper place in the security world as things are now. Maybe the new software version 1.1.0.331 seems to work and is "useable" but there is always going to be a big question mark over it until it receives sustained legitimate support.
    Patrick (shadowdefendedotcom forum moderator)
     
  20. skokospa

    skokospa Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Posts:
    177
    Location:
    Srbija
    if the .325 version safe for use?
    If for example version .331 rogue,who can guarantee that all other versions are safe for use!?
    although I have purchased software, uninstall it because I do not feel safe.
     
  21. Serapis

    Serapis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Posts:
    241
    If the installer SHA1 hashes are the same then they are totall clean and safe. The hashes we compare to are ones of the files that were present at the time when shadowdefender was actively developed under tony.
     
  22. Feandur

    Feandur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Posts:
    429
    Location:
    Australia
    Folks:
    In terms of Shadow Defender Check sums I am a bit confused. Seems the files kindly uploaded by Tony at post #199 don't correspond to any I have. Mine seem to agree with Cazandros for version 325 but with no one for version 278. I only know that my copy of 278 has been flawless since 2009.

    (1) As provided by LoneWolf [post# 178]
    SD 1.1.0.278 [32 bit]
    Release date: 5th March 2009
    MD5 checksum is cd6fb9b3f38171d0cbbef26f7b8dc8df
    Size is 1,301,911 bytes
    SD 1.1.0.320 [32 bit]
    Release date: 15th january 2010
    MD5 checksum is 0fb512e0ef01f06d4fefa9a6e2dbf8d0
    Size is 1,128,170 Bytes
    SD 1.1.0.325 [32 bit]
    Release date: 23.Feb.2010
    MD5 checksum is 101cdc867f7771faae6810483ef16439
    Size is 1,270,611 bytes

    (2) As amended by Cazandros [post# 179].
    SD 1.1.0.325 [32 bit]
    Release date: 24.Feb.2010 [refer Cazandros post# 179]
    MD5 checksum is 4ed0f50233680ffc37fbe5cf8057c634
    Size is 1,141,856 bytes

    (3) As downloaded by Feandur
    SD 1.1.0.278 [32 bit] downloaded about 29th March 2009
    MD5 checksum is 98c60ba7e32fbc0a59a14caae479f3de
    Size is 1,301,750 Bytes
    SD 1.1.0.325 [32 bit] downloaded about 16th March 2011
    MD5 checksum is 4ed0f50233680ffc37fbe5cf8057c634
    Size is 1,141,856 Bytes

    (4) As propvided by hunkiller [post#167]
    SD 1.1.0.326Beta [32 bit]
    Release date: 10.05.2010 (?)
    MD5 checksum is 2E676853ED629B91F8310F832940FD44

    (5)As provided by Tony at post#199 through download link from
    http://www.megaupload.com/?f=DUDOX9LK
    SD 1.1.0.278 [32 bit]
    MD5 checksum is b845cb56e2ac432836c3915c7107306d
    Size is 1,299,177 Bytes
    SD 1.1.0.325 [32 bit]
    MD5 checksum is 101cdc867f7771faae6810483ef16439
    Size is 1,270,611 Bytes
    SD 1.1.0.326Beta [32 bit]
    MD5 checksum is 2e676853ed629b91f8310f832940fd44
    Size is 1,128,452 Bytes

    ..feandur.
     
  23. Cazandros

    Cazandros Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Posts:
    37
    I took a look at my SD1.1.0.278_Setup.exe (32 bit):
    md5= b845cb56e2ac432836c3915c7107306d
    size= 1,299,177 bytes

    I downloaded it at 06.March 2009 (this is the date of the setup file and of my md5 file)
     
  24. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,782
    Yes Feandur it can be confusing especially when one's MD5 checksum's are misquoted. (1.1.0.325)
    Here is what I have again........
     

    Attached Files:

  25. Triple Helix

    Triple Helix Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2004
    Posts:
    13,269
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    As there is so much if's and but's I recently did a clean Install of Windows 7 x64 I put .325 back on instead of .331!

    TH
     
  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.