AppDefend v1.000 Public Beta

Discussion in 'Ghost Security Suite (GSS)' started by Jason_R0, Nov 19, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tony62

    tony62 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    214
    Location:
    UK
    Excellent piece of software, complete control of my system in one:D
    BTW, is password protection going to be availableo_O
     
  2. xmen

    xmen Guest

    That's true. Though TDS backed out of the competition. Making the whole point moot.

    Well, that's very true. "PG like features" are getting pretty common, even in antiviruses and firewalls. Not to mention the standalones like online Armor.

    Still you must admit, Appdefend does compete with PG headon, with pretty much (say 90-95%) the same feature set. Looking at the list of the top 5 reasons you wrote why to get Appdefend over PG, I don't see any real big changes, just improvements like SHA256 hashing, better interface, speedups and the controlling network access.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm sure "under the hood" it's a lot of work, but essentially PG and appdefend can be compared directly far more so than with say another product like Online Armor, Prev1, not to mention firewall or antiviruses with PG like features which are even less similar.

    I would guess, your experience working on PG made doing Appdefend a lot easier. I'm surprised Diamond CS didn't have some kind of clause restricting you from competiting with them in this area when you left them at least for say x years.

    I suppose it would be similar to someone working in an antivirus company, leaving to start his own.

    Not that I'm complaining mind you, I like competition I'm sure Diamond CS will feel the pressure to improve PG in light of the competition with Appdefend.
     
  3. JAMES 246

    JAMES 246 Guest

    The arrival of AppDefend is very good for the "Security Scene" but probably not good for Diamond CS. Since Jason left Diamond CS they have dumped their Anti Trojan Product and seemed to have concentrated very much on tweaking improvements to Process Guard which was and maybe still is a World Beating Product. Along comes AppDefend and it looks to already have the potential to eclipse PG, but a fairer comparison can be made when both come out of Beta. At the very least AppDefend is a serious threat to a major revenue stream for Diamond CS.
    Many PG users may stay with that product since upgrading is free, this however does not generate future revenue for Diamond CS, to obtain future revenue they will have to compete with AppDefend in a market where the potential buyer is likely to have more security knowledge than the average Joe and is therfore likely to be very intelligent with the judgements they make before purchasing.
    So which one wins between these two fabulous products - my gut feeling is that AppDefend will in the future come out on top, and that Jason has raised the bar with his product.. I guess time will tell, and maybe we will have to wait say 6-12 months for AppDefend 2.0 Versus ProcessGuard 4.0
     
  4. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Forgive me if i have missed this, but:

    What is "Ghost security suite".

    A. AppDefend + RegDefend?
    B. Does AppDefend include RegDefend or will i have to buy licenses for both.
    C. Will there be added other options in this suite, before it's "finished" ? :)
     
  5. Pilli

    Pilli Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2002
    Posts:
    6,217
    Location:
    Hampshire UK
    Hi Don, They are two defferent products within the GS Suite both require separate licences ATM.
    Jason has said that the AppDefend beta still has features to be added

    HTH
     
  6. Reve_Etrange

    Reve_Etrange Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2005
    Posts:
    108
    Why should learning mode not be useful anymore? Go install cygwin on your machine and see if you don't want learning mode :) Even gimp with its umpteen modules is a pain to install/upgrade with PG.
    IMHO, a way to say "ok I trust this app (ie. the exe and its children), don't ask me zillion times for god sake" would be very welcome. In the same vein, "ok I modified this app voluntarily, don't ask me again for the next 5min" would be nice.
    Will add this to wishlist....

    -RE
     
  7. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Hi Pilli & thank you. So $60 or more when finished?, hmm.....but maybe there will be a discount if you buy the full suite when finished? It does seem like a nice suite IMO.:)
     
  8. Defenestration

    Defenestration Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    1,105
    Hi Don,

    With the 15% discount currently on offer for both products (if you sign up as a member at www.ghostsecurity.com), you can get the GSS:

    Single licence (Unlimited home PC's) for US$67.90
    Single licence (Single home PC) for US$49.90

    Since these discounts may be reduced in the (near) future, you may want to buy them now since they both come with unlimited lifetime upgrades, and Jason does seem rather good at updating/improving his products.
     
  9. Jason_R0

    Jason_R0 Developer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Posts:
    1,038
    Location:
    Australia
    Hi Tony,

    Yes password protection will be added very soon (private beta testers have been wanting this for a long time too :) ).
     
  10. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Thanks Defenestration, i completely missed that.:)
     
  11. [suave]

    [suave] Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Posts:
    218
    OMG what an amazing piece of software this is, Jason!

    Excellent work!

    One question; Why must I install Ghost Security Suite for using appdefend? In the future, will you make it a stand-alone product like PG?

    I don't use RegDefend and I don't really need Ghost Security Suite because all I want to use is AppDefend instead of PG.

    Does this make sense? ;)
     
  12. Jason_R0

    Jason_R0 Developer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Posts:
    1,038
    Location:
    Australia
    Hi Suave, it does make sense which is why you can "DISABLE" RegDefend and never have to worry about it. :)

    The amount of resources used having both components is very minimal over one or the other. However since most of my customers will use both it doesn't make sense to split it up into 2 separate processes and save a few kilobytes of disk space for people who will use only one. Hope that makes sense. :)
     
  13. xmen

    xmen Guest

    Jason that's interesting news. So for those of us currently want only and have regdefend, eventaully, we have to update to a version that has appdefend built in?
     
  14. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,535
    I would prefer to have separated programs to use only what I want...

    If I would like to use both, in this way the Ghost Security Suite makes sense...
     
  15. Jason_R0

    Jason_R0 Developer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Posts:
    1,038
    Location:
    Australia
    Hi xmen,

    Yes all future components will be bundled together, with the user selecting which components will be active from the kernel layer. When you disable AppDefend for instance, it is effectively the same as not having it there in the first place.

    Even though it may be "grayed" and in the GUI, the extra few kilobytes it adds to your memory usage and disk usage is minimal.
     
  16. [suave]

    [suave] Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Posts:
    218
    I don't know, I'd rather purchase this program as a seperate application, just like GhostWall.

    I like things very simple, and since I don't use regdefend, I dont want to be bothered with the whole Ghost Security Suite thing and looking at all those extra things/features/options that I don't need.

    I must admit though, the Ghost Security Suite is great for people that use all your apps simultaneously. But for people like me, I guess I'd rather just have a simple little stand-alone application called AppDefend running in my system tray to replace PG and supplement GhostWall.

    I really really really don't want to have to use the whole ghost security suite just for AppDefend. It's not a matter of saving space/memory... it's just the fact that I have things there that I don't need that irks me :(
     
  17. Kerodo

    Kerodo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,966
    I have to agree with that 100%..

    And another thing that I think has to go is the whole nag screen concept. I don't think you're going to really "nag" anyone into buying your software. In fact, typically, whenever I see something like that, I immediately dump the software, even if it's good. I just don't like seeing that stuff in an app. I think it cheapens the product. A simple 30 day trial is enough, just have it stop working after 30 days, or 15 or whatever you like. Nagging is useless..
     
  18. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    I suspect the reason for this setup is to minimise the hooking needed of the Windows kernel. With just one overall security program (albeit with multiple components), only one set of hooks is needed reducing the likelihood of conflicts.

    This brings up an idea for the next component - HookDefend! :D Protect existing security applications from being de-hooked by malware or utilities like SDTRestore! See which applications are intercepting Windows functions and be able to check for previously installed rootkits! (with eyepatch included for all budding pirates ... Yar!).

    PS. I know Physical Memory access control can block hooking, but there are enough applications out there that seem to need PhysMem access (games, Java, etc) to make specific hook monitoring useful.
     
  19. xmen

    xmen Guest

    Yes it would make things simpler for jason too I expect rather than juggling several seperate programs ,different versions etc. But it's not very elegent for people who don't want the full set. Or perhaps people are afraid their resistance will be worn down, day after day of looking at the incomplete set.

    Hookdefend should be able to protect itself from being dehooked no?
     
  20. Jason_R0

    Jason_R0 Developer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Posts:
    1,038
    Location:
    Australia
    Hi [suave],

    If you take a look at the "whole Ghost Security Suite" as it is now, it is barely over 1MB for the installer. Ghost Security Suite is "a simple little stand alone application" which allows you to see alerts from multiple components. Functionally there is no difference if the RegDefend component was there or not. Infact if the window title said "AppDefend" instead of "Ghost Security Suite" and there wasnt a little picture of "RegDefend" on the main tab, I'd suspect I wouldn't be hearing a complaint from you?

    Until there is some real substance behind why you want it into a separate process, there isn't much I can do to help you with it.
     
  21. Jason_R0

    Jason_R0 Developer

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2005
    Posts:
    1,038
    Location:
    Australia
    Hi Kerodo,

    If only there was some registry setting which I could lookup on the system to solve this problem :-

    Won't_buy_shareware_if_a_nag_screen_appears

    Then people like you could set that to "1" and no shareware would ever nag you again.

    In all seriousness however, nag screens are proven to help people purchase software. Before I had George the Ghost on the machine, there wasn't even one message/nag when your TRIAL version turned into the FREE version. This means legitimate users might not have known it expired and thought it was free forever. In the final version the nag screen will only appear 2-3 times a month at maximum, in this build it appears every time you start the program.

    The reason why I chose to do "George the Ghost" is to lessen the impact of nagging the user by hopefully lightening up the situation with a little comedy. Looking at it from a purely technical perspective I can understand how it could "cheapen" the product. I don't take myself so seriously however that I am unable to poke fun at myself.
     
  22. Paranoid2000

    Paranoid2000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2004
    Posts:
    2,839
    Location:
    North West, United Kingdom
    Ah, but would RegDefend alert on this? :D
     
  23. [suave]

    [suave] Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Posts:
    218
    Jason, it looks sloppy, that's all. It makes me feel like it is installing all these extra things that I dont want.

    Look, if I pay for AppDefend, I'd like it to be its own stand-alone program. Infact, I think all your software should be stand-alone. Maybe you can have the ghost security suite be optional for people who use more than 1 of your software? This way you can make both sides happy.

    Anyways, I am using the trial now, and it just bothers me to see the whole RD and GSS there. I feel like there is extra things there that I don't want and also like the AppDefend software that I will purchase in the future is not complete because of all these extra things in there that are disabled and serving absolutely no purpose other than a decoration...

    At first I thought I was crazy when I posted this the first time. But now I know that I am not because I see other people here are agreeing with me.

    What we want is what we pay for. That's all.

    I know it is exactly the same thing to have GSS with AD as a component or just plain AD as a stand-alone application, but it's just annoying looking at all those extra stuff that came bundled with the software I bought that serves me no purpose. It makes me feel like it is incomplete, and it just bothers me.

    I don't know if I am explaining this right. And please don't take this the wrong way either. Your work is amazing and I hope you keep up the excellent work and surprise us with more excellence in the future.

    And btw, I am not complaining. It is just a matter of preference. The software itself is a wonderful little piece of work. Maybe you can think about making GSS an optional thing for those who want it.
     
  24. Peter2150

    Peter2150 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Posts:
    20,590
    Hi Suave

    In a way I understand, even though I like the Ghost Suite. If by chance you use KAV 5.0 and haven't seen the KAV 2006 beta, you will think the Ghost suite is just a light cloud in the breeze. That seems to be the trend. Compare what jason has stuffed in 1mg download, and the KAV beta is 10mg for just supposedly an AV.

    Pete
     
  25. [suave]

    [suave] Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Posts:
    218
    Pete, I wouldn't touch KAV with a 10 foot pole. I tried NOD32 and even that was too much for me. I use f-prot now wich takes up about 1,500k in memory in only 1 process and I am starting to hate that too and I have no idea why.

    Im real picky with the things I install and hate things that are too big and I really don't like all-in-one security type apps. I love Jasons work so that's why I make my comments. All the other products can go to hell.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  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.