The unofficial Shadow Defender Support Thread.

Does anyone know where I can find .325 x64? It's not included in the Megupload-pack posted here and the direct link posted gets me redirected to .331.

 

I think the hash of .331 has just changed on VT.com meaning there's probably a new .331 version around.

 

Here is it: klick

 

Thank you!

 

guys my opinion on that one. we may assume that the site has been hacked, some say they are tony's friends (alleged ) and say that tony is alright but he has some problems - how knows? maybe it is the case maybe it's not. I say let stick to the facts. what we know for sure is that the actual developer hasn't announced a release of the .331 version officially, there's no contact with the developer since looooong time and all we have is some links uploaded through bunch of unknown users, non-existing official forum and a website that will soon expire, so I say- don't touch it, keep away from it. if you want to use SD go with the latest official installer (.325), if you don't own one go with one from someone you know or someone who is known/respected and can be trusted (e.g. on this forum). this is kinda dirty business, little shady - and there's no place for this kind of things when it comes to security and safety.

 

thanks bierni86

 

Apologies LoneWolf for mis-quoting both you and Cazandros. You posts [eg: at #145, 178, and now #224] quite clearly show 4ed0f50233680ffc37fbe5cf8057c634 and 1141856 byte

I can only put it down to my brain going “walk-about” at 2:30am here in Brisbane, Australia. I had copy/pasted the wrong check sum which reflected badly on you and your considerably efforts to provide helpful information to this issue...for which apologies.

Cazandros' post at #179 and #181 provided the insight that Tony might change a posted version without the change necessarily being reflected in a change of version number [poor Q.A. imho].

So.... {hope i got it right this time}........
for version 325 [32 bit], it seems we have at least the following variants:
23Feb 2010: 101cdc867f7771faae6810483ef16439 and 1270611 bytes
{this is the variant you'll get from the link in post #199}
24 feb 2010: 4ed0f50233680ffc37fbe5cf8057c634 and 1141856 byte
{I downloaded this variant on 16th March 2011.. the “curtain” closed possibly soon after}

for version 278 [32 bit], it seems we have at least the following variants:
about 6 March 2009: b845cb56e2ac432836c3915c7107306d and 1,299,177 bytes
{confirmed by Cazandros post #223, and what you'll from the link in post #199}
about 29 March 2009: 98c60ba7e32fbc0a59a14caae479f3de and 1,301,750 Bytes
{variant I'm happily working with on XPsp3}
about { ? } : cd6fb9b3f38171d0cbbef26f7b8dc8df and 1,301,911 bytes
{as advised by LoneWolf in his post#178... hope i got that right!}

Is it possible the mods or the senior members could put a sticky link at the head of this thread making available "clean" links with checksums? No offense intended at all to Tony's efforts at post#199. ...But I can understand and feel more comfort if someone senior and well known [eg, the likes of a Bellgamin etc ] would care to do the link posting. I am prepared to email such a person...maybe sdmod [?] my two copies [v278, and v325] if it helps.

I see an opportunity to keep clean copies of SD alive with this community [as care-taker] before SD dies off.

any thoughts?

feandur

 

No apologies needed Feandur

That would be August 2nd 2009.

 

Hello Bierni...nice to see you
It's good that you got the voice, because the way how your translation was "annexed" to the latest version points to the strange and unclear intentions unknown owners of the portal.
Site of SD (*.com) is still working though was due to expire on April 25...

 

yeah, you're right!

it's still the 25 here so maybe we'll know more later today...

 

I've been checking some cached google results from the SD forum and some of the links to the .226 beta are still functional. I don't know whether these are right or not, but their sizes are identical to two other older copies I have.

Have a look here:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&source=www.google.co.uk

Anyone knows what was actually fixed on v326?

 

The links the SD mod put up still work fine, thanks anyway.

 

Yup, still work great.

 

It doesn't. You get redirected to possibly malicious version .331 if you try to download .325.

 

I have the same...allways

 

ShadowDefender.com is still up and working! I suppose someone extended their domain?

 

Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc.
DomainsByProxy.com
15111 N. Hayden Rd., Ste 160, PMB 353
Scottsdale, Arizona 85260
United States

Domain Name: SHADOWDEFENDER.COM
Created on: 25-Apr-07
Expires on: 25-Apr-11
Last Updated on: 05-Jan-10
------------------------------------
if they have, the info hasn't been updated yet.

 

Website up, but forum down.

 

update:

Domain Name: SHADOWDEFENDER.COM
Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
Name Server: NS1.EZTK.COM
Name Server: NS2.EZTK.COM
Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Status: clientRenewProhibited
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Status: clientUpdateProhibited
Updated Date: 26-apr-2011
Creation Date: 25-apr-2007
Expiration Date: 25-apr-2012

looks like it has been extended.

 

Looks like shadowdefenderdotcom was updated 26.04.2011 (tab "Registration")
http://whois.domaintools.com/shadowdefender.com

 

Yes it looks like it has updated...but by who?
In this situation I think the software should not be trusted until we have some answers, consistant support and transparency from the developer. No sane security software developer would do this. Security software is more than the software itself, it needs meaningful support, clarity and transparent dialogue from the developer for customer security and confidence.
You can't download the software and then just say "Great! it works" How do you know what it is?

Patrick shadowdefenderdotcom mod

 

"Sacred words" I think users were more careful in few last months...and it's very good. This diagram shows that
http://siteanalytics.compete.com/shadowdefender.com/?src=dt100

 

What about customers who have paid versions ...?
I feel cheated
Mike from Returnil and guys from Prevx,well do their job,I feel some security because they are always there and always help when you need ...
Shadowdefender this is a program for computer security,
and the question for those who use this program:
After all these events whether they feel safe when you use this program?
-http://forums.malwarebytes.org/index.php?showtopic=79159-

 

After all the uncertainty I've decided to revert to my older pre-SD backup. I love SD for its simplicity and its bare-bones functionality, but like sdmod said the current situation is absolutely ridiculous. No trustworthy developer should behave like this. I'm switching over to Clean Slate.

 

Either this was updated with the domain for whoever has this or someone is watching this thread? I just DL'd most of them yesterday from those links, I had a feeling whoever is running the domain would do this.

I tried the newer version and it blue-screened my PC immediately after install and I had to use an image to get back, so I won't be using the new version.

Here http://www.mediafire.com/?o81ynfgqzvhc8 is a link for the mostly 64bit files from 313,324,325,326 and the SD mods favorite 278. They should work I installed the 326 version yesterday and it comes up as 326.