Ghost Security Suite [Beta] V1.2?

Hm, I understand this disappointment, the beta is not fully reliable and then paying money is double frustrating.

Ghost Security can also be leaked by malware, the problem doubles or tripples if you use more other security apps with more hooks, in the end system speed slows down and you lose overview.

SSM is a precise things but costs a lot configuration time.

 

There is absolutely no reason why Jason can't take 5 minutes to tell us he is still alive and actively working on GSS along with a ballpark schedule of his future intentions regarding GSS. If he does not have the time to do at least that much I can only conclude that he has taken up other pursuits and is no longer supporting the product but is keeping quiet lest nobody else would purchase it in it's current state.

That is not too much to ask.

 

I agree, windows should have a lot more control built into it. The only problem is more control usually makes things more complicated.

 

More complicated than having your identity stolen or perhaps on a lesser note having to re-load your O.S. several times a year because one gets hit by "Preventable" viruses and spyware. Tally in the actual costs of such + or - the time it takes and the aggravations it causes and you suddenly have a darn good reason to accept some complexity...

Besides computers where never intended for the lowest denominator... mind its actual use and the fact most businesses have system administrators. Home users complexity impacts becomes actually relatively irrelevant in the greater equation.

As an example maybe I should mention that my clients are always moaning because they have to pay me to clean up infections and fix the "Non Existing" security built into their O.S's They are always asking how come? I simply point the finger @ the culprit... It is not complexity but the fact "they" don't want secured O.S's in the hands of the general public... Or should I say an OS "We" can secure even against them...

The proof might be found when looking at the 2 year prison sentences offered those who refuse to provide the authorities the keys to personal data that is encrypted for example...

They are blindly scared of anything they dont have a back door to. It's as simple as that!

 

We've go through this every three months, for over a year. Jason disappears, we post and wonder why, Jason shows up for a few days and then again .....

We asked him over and over in these forums posts to let us know every couple of weeks. How long can that take? 5 minutes. But he doesn't.

What saves him is that Wilders being a easy going group continues his forums even though Jason shows such an absolute lack of interest.

Too bad. An excellent product and a good forum being ignored.

 

I agree. I love AppDefend, and I think it has great potential.

But what am I supposed to do when the developer ignores the forum, and doesn't seem to be working on the program anymore?

I was forced to look elsewhere and now use SSM. I'd probably go back to appdefend if Jason becomes active again. But I can't wait forever.

It's too bad, because like I said, AppDefend has great potential and it a shame to see it being ignored. Jason is a good developer too, and I trust his software. I'd really like to hear from him and get some updates... but I just can't wait forever.

 

Well i am speaking from a regular users point of view. Most people i know have enough trouble using windows as it is. I don't know how it would all work but we definitely need more built in security in windows but without making it unusable for the average user. Behaviour based hips apps would probably be the best option once they mature a bit.

 

Yes. I am a big fan of open choice. Like having an opt in "Advanced Security" panel which one can use to customize individual process/Service behaviors and access together with an "Idiot Proof" or "lazy Butt" version which would provide (probably mostly useless) automated protection. I say useless because unless 100% of processes are listed in a database and rated prior to inclusion you cant successfully automate a working security. Behavior based scopes don't really work and there are too many software from independent sources out there to control effectively unless the system is locked... Simply put "We" need full control over our desktop and server O.S's...

 

So, as the old adage goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

It would seem that Jason has followed in the footsteps of his previous employer, DCS, in terms of promises being unfulfilled. Who knows, perhaps it was all a DCS ploy to spawn an offshoot so people would buy a new product. Either way it has followed the same pattern:

"Trust us, we are hard at work developing the greatest thing ever. It will be out shortly. But such a great thing takes time to get right."

it is sad.

On the 'more security in the OS' aspect, I do have some sympathy toward Microsoft. People berate them if they don't put in the security apps and berate them if they do. Words like antitrust and monopoly get thrown around and lawsuits ensue. Geesh, that happened over a FREE browser!

And of course the OS itself should be made more secure - but that will take a completely different approach and likely require a significant new investment in software that will need to be written for the new system since it is in some of the underlying technology/code that the problem exists (the stack, for example).

I'm sure GSS isn't complaining that Microsoft is insecure. After all, it creates a great deal of business for other companies. Unfortunately, Jason seems to have taken the money and run :-(

 

My only complaint toward Microsoft is the lack of "Choice" it built into the os regarding security... It "omitted" controls from within the design which is proven to be causative to a rather large number of security problems and the aggravations that ensued... To make matters worst it is still reluctant to integrate innovative ideas and technologies that empower users rather than "Dumming them out". I mean it took until XP SPII to include a Firewal

They are making progress with a new Antispyware which actually does try to provide some degree of protection and a regular "Malicious tool detection" update. Problem is these are all reactive instead of pro-active. It is rather difficult to forgive Microsoft considering their resources and talent available to them.

Jason on the other hand is someone I feel a bit for... It is hard work to figure out what needs to be done and then develop it... by himself! Wow!
Still he does need to give us more attention or some may jump ship...

 

yes but jump ship to what ? SSM seems to be very popular but based upon my limited trial of SSM I would say that it has as much potential for error as for proving protection.

 

What's there to feel for? He's smarter than most and should be able to overcome obstacles. Others do it.

Some may jump ship? It seems most who posted in his forums stopped.

Anyway, we're beating a dead horse. Everyone says and agrees he needs to be active but he's not. Absenting medical or legal issues it is unexcusable.

I'm also wondering why I'm bothering to post in his forums. It doens't gain me anything. I'll stop and wait for real development and support from Jason.

 

Mmmmh...that is a loaded question!
I am not too impressed with SSM either. The interface is scattering functions all over the place making it rather difficult to manage.

Did anyone have a look at ProSecurity http://www.proactive-hips.com/
I might load it up into a VM to check it out sometimes next week...

 

Just installed ProSecurity 1.24 - seems very straight forward. I also like the fact that the last update was a recent as Dec 03 plus pricing for all home machines is only $39.95.

Has anyone else tried this program ? would you run it in conjunction with any other security ?

 

Plenty of ongoing discussion on that product in our other anti-malware software forum and ask that you visit that forum Please.

To all:

I would ask that We take the discussion of other products to one of our more appropriate forums. This as we all know is the AppDefend product support forum and ask that We keep the discussion contained to that product and\or it's support Please.

Thanks,
Bubba

 

I'm sorry if I have broken a forum rule. I wasn't intending to discuss other products in isolation. Perhaps I have mis read this thread but I have the impression that there is currently little active development of Apdefend ? and although I liked what I saw thought it best to look for alternatives.

 

I can assure you no forum rule was broken and simply requested "To all:" that We take the discussion of other products to one of our more appropriate forums.

I can not speak for the programmer and what is going on with Ghost Security Suite in regards to it's development status and await like others any forthcoming info concerning this product.

As you await forthcoming news concerning Ghost Security Suite....have a visit to our other anti-malware software forum as mentioned in the above post.

Regards,
Bubba