The unofficial Shadow Defender Support Thread.

The unofficial Shadow Defender Support Thread

Same, here. No problems!
Let's keep our fingers crossed...

 

Shadow Defender V 1.1.0.331 vs V 1.1.0325 - VirusTotal (scan: instalation kit):
a) V 1.1.0.331
http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/...523-1316075960
detection rezult: 2/43
b) V 1.1.0325
http://www.virustotal.com/file-scan/...020-1315367959
detection rezult: 4/44

 

There is no way...for me...enter to SD forum. I gave info

 

hey there I purchased shadow defender just a few days ago cause I got like tired of all those av scans updates etc...I found the software and I thought this was an excellent way to protect your computer and another reason I bought the software was "Unlimited Shadow Defender" and "lifetime updates" like it's mentioned on the official website. I hate purchasing a year license and then being left unprotected or having to purchase another one. But I already noticed the devs obviously have given up on shadow defender and there won't be any updates. Too sad ...But I mean does this software even need any updates?? It's a small application that simply offers you a virtual environment. No signatures etc. I mean you have that fixed layer of protection (virtualization). Writing to your real hard drives is not allowed so I wonder if updates are even necessary for this kind of software...

Or in short: Will you stay protected in the future using this software even without any new software updates??

Also committing an installer in shadow mode and then installing the software and afterwards committing the whole installation folder will be registry entries be deleted on reboot even though your committed the installer and the folder itself?

Installed version 331, the newest available on the official site.

thanks for your help in advance!!

 

it works in Win7, so it should work on Win8.

i'd recommend you use version .325
i would consider suspicious the version you downloaded.

 

why should the .331 version be suspicious when I downloaded it from shadowdefender.com??

Also there's no .325 download available on that page so I would have to download .325 from a third party site, well I would call that suspicious actually...

my payment went to avangate.com a software distribution platform.

so what's the point?

 

Because its developer Tony went missing about an year and a half ago and no body knows what really happened to him and it is also speculated by its former moderators themselves that someone has hacked the site and uploaded this latest version.Its moderators also abandoned its forum because of suspicion of it been hacked.If you search this thread, you will find links to version .325.

 

It's a long history...you should read beginning of this tread. Shortly...Tony who made and developed SD is the missing person...already long time...and it was no contact, no communication with him. Nobody know where is he. And suddenly on SD site appears "newest" version of SD...from where? Who made it? Even close friends of Tony don't know about it.
I'm from Poland and I'm secialy interested in Polish translation...it was created by Bierni after releasing v.325 and was only an unofficial...but this translation became (the same...nobody know how?) an official translation in v.331.
The latest version - tested and secure - is only 325.

 

for me this looks like the rights for the programm have gone to a different company like I said I paid avangate.com for the software. Was is a different company before when the original coder of the software was still active? That would be logical....at least for me. Also if the new version was somehow infected or manipulated why the hell would someone do that with a software like this, a virtualization software for the more advanced users which is also not very popular or known by many people...I really don't get it.

Just installed my whole computer running the .331 version. I now have to decide do I format my comp again to install the software which was spread through some forums or do I keep my current setup risking that there's really something wrong with .331.........And someone really made an in depth scan with different antimalware engines and said that it was clean like hell....

Man this sucks...

 

it's not a problem, .325 works really good.

 

Me too....I'm using version 331.....apart from the paranoia and rumours in this thread its working fine....malwarebytes likes it....Avast 6 likes it...and above all I like it.

 

There is not even a change-log for the .331 version at the website.
http://www.shadowdefender.com/history.html
which somehow doesn't sit right.Apparently many have emailed the support contact there and havent had any response either.Personally Id stick with .325 until there is more information from trusted sources about.331.

 

the longer you stay in malware forums the more paranoid you get ...just kidding.
Seems like all those old users really trusted the original coder of shadow defender. But that whole story sounds so absurd to me I can hardly believe all that. More realistic to me would be that the original coder had a deal with another company...I mean if the .331 version was infected, manipulated whatsoever don't you think at least someone out there would have found out at least something about it.

just scanned .331 and .325 version on virustotal just to strengthen my paranoia

.331 = 1/43
.325 = 2/43

but those were poor engines I guess K7 and some Hacker Blabla thing....not reliable at all and 99,9% false positives...

 

Arcanez, with your second question in your abvove posting in a certain way you already answered the question if it is better to stay with version .331 or to go back to version .325.

Your second question was:

As far as I understand the way how Shadow Defender works, there is no need for an update as long as there are no security risks discovered in an existing (respectively the older) version.

As far as I know, until now such security risks have not been discovered in version .325. And even if the newer version should have brought some security improvements, we do not know about them, as there are no changelogs for versions higher than .325 (as ellison64 pointed out).

---> So why not stay with version .325 (or lower) when you know that this version is clean, whereas for higher versions you neither can be sure that they are clean too nor (in case that they are o.k.) there are no indications for any (security) improvements as compared to .325!

 

Hi everyone,

Sorry to bring back an old issue, but i am a little bit confused about version 1.1.0.325. Particularly, about its 2 different setup files:

Release Date-----------------MD5-------------------------File Size

23/2/10--101cdc867f7771faae6810483ef16439--1270611 bytes

24/2/10---4ed0f50233680ffc37fbe5cf8057c634---1141856 bytes

According to members Cazandros and Tony (posts #181 and #182, respectively), the latter may be a small "informal" update of the former.

Both "score" the same at VT (3/43) and are labeled as "goodware". What troubles me though, is their file-size difference (i mean, the "updated" one is approximately 125 Kb smaller...). Is this normal? Has anyone noticed any substantial difference in their performance?

In any case, which one do you recommend me?

TIA

 

I would recommend the 1270611 bytes-file because I know that I have downloaded it at 23/2/10 from shadowdefender.com. The other version could be a silent update from Tony.

 

Thanks!

 

@ zitzit

Good catch Yes a 125 Kb file change released only the next day is a very large reduction ! Makes me wonder what he removed etc, & why ?

 

The reason that Shadow Defender 1.1.0.325 was changed within hours of release was because I found it had a problem (some sort of glitch) and when I reported it to Tony he changed it but didn't change the version number, by then though some of the originals were "out of the bag". I can't remember now what it was but problems that I have had include lost registration to Nero after being in shadow mode and/or lost virus checker update settings, also had a problem with icons not appearing after installation. I can't remember specifically what it was with version 1.1.0.325.

Patrick (ex Shadow Defender Mod)

 

Thanks for this info, Patrick.

And do you remember if the fix was done on the x32 or x64 version ?
Or both ?

 

is it compatible with SSD drives btw?

 

Well, out of curiosity, i extracted the 2 SFX archives. As expected, the respective setup applications are different in size, but only slightly (the "24/2" is about 3 Kb smaller than the "23/2"). What makes the real file-size difference between the 2 SFX archives is an extra file, in the "23/2", by the name "Setup.exe.0" (482 Kb), which turned out to be the setup application of 1.1.0.320 version -don't know why it's there.

Also, i uploaded the 3 setup applications to VT. The 2 setup applications of "23/2" SFX (setup.exe & setup.exe.0) both came up clean (0/43), while the one of "24/2" SFX got detected as "Worm.Win32.AutoRun" by Ikarus and Emsisoft (same engine ?). I can't believe that it's anything else other than FP.

Anyway, i 'm going to install the "23/2" version over my .315 and see how it goes.

P.S. I 'm thinking of installing MBRGuard and Keriver 1CR. Is there any known conflict with SD?

 

You should do fine. I used this exact same package for a year without any conflict. And I am using about the same setup now with AppGuard (incl. MBRGuard), Keriver Image and Shadow Defender (3.26) on 7x64 and I am very satisfied.

 

whats actually a good addition to shadow defender? Cause you can still get infected in that virtual environment and not noticing it, possibly. Like for example key loggers can still detect your keyboard activity til the next reboot and probably just do its job like intended sending passwords etc to the internet. Whats actually a suitable addition to shadow defender to detect threads that just got on your system and simply lock down their activity. The malicious files themselves are then being destroyed on reboot by shadow defender.

Oh and btw why MBRGuard? I don't know that software but regarding to the name I guess it is supposed to protect the master boot record from being changed by malware. Well I saw a review of shadow defender successfully protecting the mbr, some sort of rootkit was loaded in shadow mode, then the mbr was checked with a mbr tool and the mbr got changed by that malware in shadow mode but the mbr was fine again after a reboot due to shadow defender. So shadow defender actually protected that master boot record...

 

Right. But I am using SD on demand only, and the ISR program that I am always running does not protect the MBR. Btw, as for your first questio, if you are not on x64, my recommend would be to use DefenseWall to complement SD.