ProSecurity 1.30 now with major new features

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Kenjin, Mar 13, 2007.

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

    Kenjin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2004
    Posts:
    63
    Hi,

    a new version of ProSecurity has been released with big improvements in many areas. The most exciting addition for me is PS now has full file system protection module!! Check it out. Here is full change log:


    After 3 months development this version has added some major features!

    What's New? [March 14, 2007 v1.30]
    --------------------
    1. [NEW][PAID] File protection module.
    2. [NEW][BOTH] Checksum based application rule.
    3. [NEW][BOTH] Copy/Paste function for hook/registry/file/library rule module.
    4. [NEW][PAID] New added options for registry / file protection in warning box.
    5. [NEW][BOTH] German language supported! (Thanks OwenBurnett and peterpaulw in advance!)
    6. [NEW][BOTH] Add a clean balloon alerts menuitem to systray menu.
    7. [NEW][BOTH] Add options in the warning box to allow/block an action for certain time or allow/block an action until the program restarts only.
    8. [NEW][BOTH] The traditional Chinese language supported! (Thanks plunderer in advance!)
    9. [NEW][BOTH] Refresh button for advanced settings page.
    10. [FIX][PAID] The tickbox "Enable System protection" controls to registry/file protections too now.
    11. [FIX][BOTH] A bug may show two icons in the systray.
    12. [FIX][PAID] Exporting/Importing function makes wrong match order of app. level registry/file/hook/library rules.
    13. [FIX][PAID] The registry rule can't been modified if user only modify rule's description.
    14. [FIX][PAID] The warning box may show some weird characters for registry accessing warning in the ending of a normal string.
    15. [FIX][PAID] Accesses invalid memory address while changing comboboxes' state in registry/file protection pages.
    16. [FIX][BOTH] Rule generate wizard should cause access invalid memory address.
    17. [FIX][BOTH] A bug may cause BSOD in very few cases.
    18. [FIX][PAID] If the file path is too long, PS can't get the file name success.
    19. [FIX][PAID] Low level disk access protection function.
    20. [FIX][BOTH] Freeze while installing new version and rebooting.
    21. [FIX][BOTH] Other small bugs of driver and GUI.
    22. [FIX][BOTH] Correct wrong hint information of application privileges and rights.
    23. [IMPROVE][BOTH] Inherate installing mode from app. which is running in installing mode.
    24. [IMPROVE][PAID] All app. level rule lists(advanced settings) supports on multi-set and multi-delete.
    25. [IMPORVE][PAID] Low level disk access protection function.
    26. [IMPROVE][BOTH] Speed up list to show in global library page.

    Download: http://www.proactive-hips.com/download.php

    http://www.proactive-hips.com/manualbook/images/settings.gif
     
  2. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,150
    Location:
    Mass., USA
    Thanx for the heads-up Kenjin.
    Note to others interested:
    In PS Main window "New Ver" / "Select update server", leave default [Auto select an update server].
    I mistakenly selected www.proactive-hips,com, and it subsequently reported back that current version was up to date.
    Am downloading currently.
     
  3. lu_chin

    lu_chin Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2005
    Posts:
    294
    What do System Protection and File Protection protect?
     
  4. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    Wonder if this one is too tough to combo with SSM because i'm a glutton for solid shield layering in any variety so long as they don't conflict or BSOD.
     
  5. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    ProSecurity hooks deeply into Windows as SSM does.
     
  6. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    To be fair I am annoyed of using so many HIPS. I hopw u will not mind my post.
     
  7. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    Not annoyed at all and i feel your distaste at having to pile on a mountain of security programs (HIPS) just to keep malicious attempts at bay. As long as they can do a protective job without gumming things up system wise i don't mind setting up such garrisons, but i see your point it does get to be a bit much at some point.
     
  8. Perman

    Perman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,160
    Hi, folks: It seems that this version has been improved a bit. Surely for one thing; it fixes the BSOD issue in v.1.26, i ditched it just for that. The new clean installation of v.1.30 runs very smoothly so far. A big leap? :)
     
  9. Chubb

    Chubb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,967
    I understand that GUI is a minor thing, but hope that Pro Security would do some work on the GUI maybe in 2.0.
     
  10. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Hi Easter! I was actually referring to you. You were using SSM, added PG, then AD, and finally now thinking of PS as well. Oh my God! What about Neova Guard?!!
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2007
  11. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    It,s pitty to have such a cheepish look GUI for PS, sorry to say!
     
  12. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,150
    Location:
    Mass., USA
    That'll be next....:)
    Thanx aigle, I needed a giggle.
     
  13. Perman

    Perman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Posts:
    2,160
    Hi, folks:Hi. aigle, I agree. This reminds me of Janpanese cars in earlier days; excellent engine, outstanding performance, just that little bit plain look. Perhaps, enlisting a artist can help more bits. Excellent app, indeed.
     
  14. true north

    true north Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2006
    Posts:
    159
    Hi there,

    how goes PS with GeSWall along? Any problems ?
    Thanks.
     
  15. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    Well don't think for a moment that i wouldn't fill the SDT Table with these or others so long as performance keeps chugging along as well as it does with a mere 512MB of RAM

    Can you imagine in the Spring when my new box is completed (more RAM/CPU) how many more i'll be putting thru windows boot camp. If they can complee my courses without choking or letting a malicious slip past their shielding i have no reservations running a platora of security interception apps (HIPS).
     
  16. Devil's Advocate

    Devil's Advocate Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Posts:
    549
    I have yet to see any evidence that you need to pile on a mountain of security programs (HIPS) just to keep malicious attempts at bay!
     
  17. mizar

    mizar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2006
    Posts:
    31
    No problems at all.:thumb:.They are running together just fine.(geswall 2.5.1 free edition and prosecurity 1.30 free)
     
  18. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    That,s good news.
     
  19. TECHWG

    TECHWG Guest

    So far i have found no problems with 1.3.
    Then again i know whats coming up in future and i must say i cant wait :shifty: in a few months there will be about 3 or more major additions to PS, but alas this takes much time to add new things. Exciting times !

    Good work Jie
     
  20. mitchelson

    mitchelson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    I don't think so. ProSecurity is not as stable as SSM, but easier to use.
    There is still a long way to go.
     
  21. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    ProSecurity hooks the SSDT less deeply than SSM? I´m surprised to say the least.
     
  22. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    You are looking at matters from a different perspective i believe. I have no reason to put up such type shielding simply for the purpose of keeping malware at bay even though thats an underlying reason. My agenda in doing it is chiefly to TEST the validity of our many security products claims and to determine just how effective or not they really are when confronted with the most notorious of malware designs fashioned to bypass these shieldings.

    I delve deeper in kernel mode hooking than some and look closely to their response time when signals are sent to core microsoft fuctions to see if they really are put together well enough to force and exchange of possible interactions of droppers or other writings to the registry such as enum\root\legacy and if they are able to circumvent/change permisions to keep users from pulling them off where they attach. It's improtant that security programs stop these intrusions at areas where they can lodge themselves with little or no effort when an active security program's task is to prevent them from wresting that type control away from a user's normal PC settings. Nothing more , nothing less. Hope that helps explain things a little better to your satisfaction.

    Any other questions? Plaese feel free to offer them.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 16, 2007
  23. mitchelson

    mitchelson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    I think there is no need to install so many stuff. Just PS will be ok. :)

    In fact , I wanna say ProcessGuad(RD+AD)+SafeSystem 2006(FD) >ProSecurity.
     
  24. EASTER.2010

    EASTER.2010 Guest

    Quite true mitchelson, i'm a researcher which differes from typical users security interests so no i would never expect others to follow suit in the same manner as i take security products and their nemesis rootkits/malware to task.
     
  25. nick s

    nick s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    Posts:
    1,430
    In the past few months I have found the opposite to be true. The latest SSM 2.4 beta, for example, is not usable on my XP Pro SP2 systems. I found an issue with PS 1.30 beta and AMD's or MS's dual-core timing patches, but it appears to be fixed with PS 1.30 final. SSM has had a similar issue, but I cannot run the latest beta to see if the issue has been addressed.

    Nick
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.