SAS Open Ports

I don't think that this is about whether Stem does or doesn't want to use SAS. And I haven't read anything that even slightly resembles an insult.

 

No insult intended. But I know from other software that uses such API, they close off connections/port used correctly.

Not for the thread starter.

 

We close the ports, Windows keeps the ports open after we issue the close command - Stem claims that's not the case - so I am going to leave it at that - I am going to focus on continuing to fight spyware.

 

Security issue or not, this is a a programmer error, no more no less.


Stem never insulted you or your team. On the contrary, he has been very polite.

If this is the way your company handles well argumented critisism, you just lost a customer (possibly many more to come).

 

I respect your opinion and again, have stated we will look into forcing the close of the ports. You may wish to let the original poster know, as I have, that a port like that staying open for a period of time respresents no security risk, or resource drain on the system - I believe that's the (original) concern of the user.

I appreciate the data you have provided.

 

There is no proven fact here - Stem is stating one thing from an outside observation, which I respect and appreciate, and I am stating something from a developer with access to the physical code.

I am sorry that you, or others, would not use our product because I am defending my product and my position based upon the fact that I have traced through our code and the ports are being closed. Windows appears to hold them open longer after the session is closed - I have stated we will look into a way to force the closure.

You can search the forums, and see we have faced much criticism from outside sources and if we have a bug, we fix it, if something needs to be addressed we address it, if a user suggests a feature, it goes on our wish list.

I apologize to the group if I am coming accross "harsh" or "rude", but this thread is taking up lots of time that could be better spent fighting spyware and not arguing over something we have stated we will look into

 

Stem - if it's ok, I will PM you when we have code changes to force the port closure immediately (after version 4.0 releases) and you can run your tests again. I would also like to try and replicate your situation here - if you wouldn't mind PM'ing me the exact setup, tools, tests you are performing I would like to trace through and see what Windows is actually doing in that setup as in our tests here, the ports do close withing minutes of the update.

 

Just for the record -> If there is an issue in our product we fix it. If this turns out to be an issue it will be addressed. At this point, it appears the code is closing the ports on our systems and other's systems we have tested. My hunch here is that Windows is, for some reason, holding the ports open after the session is closed as I have verified in the debugger the session handles are closed.

If we can reproduce the circumstances and replicate the situtation we will address it like we do everything else in our products. We address all concerns from any user.

 

I don't have any experience with programming or whatsoever. For me, I don't know if open ports after an update with SUPERAntiSpyware's servers are dangerouse for you and you're system. But when a developer says it's not harming your system, or draging any systemresources, I feel well enough to let it be.

Panther: To leave a such great product over a little discussion (this is a forum), is to bad. SUPERAntiSpyware is a great product, and I'm sure they will not loose more customers just because of this little discussion. I rather keep a good software as SUPERAntiSpyware, than throw it away because two humanbeings are just acting like, yes, human. Just because Nick is the developer behind this software, he has the right to have his own opinion and are free to share them.

 

To set this straight from my point.

I looked at this from the point of ports in use (shown from many applications) due to posts (and PM`s made).

I have no problem with SAS, in fact many of my friends who work HJT recommend this.

I was looking at the report, which is correct, internally, the ports/connections remain. Externally, these are not shown. I see nothing that shows these ports open. (but as always, I re-check... not because it is SAS, but because it is what I do)

 

Why?

To ask is correct.
Is it not?

 

Well, yes of course it's right to ask. Absolutly. I'm not saying not do. But when Nick now have said like 5 times, that the open ports doesn't harm your system, I feel well enough to trust him. But this is just me. I respect that other may be more careful, I really understand. I'm also cautious when it comes to this, but I trust SUPERAntiSpyware as a company well enough. Again, this is just my opinion.

But then again, I'm not to familiar with this, so I don't know what the consequence can be.

But yes, it's better to ask than leave it. I hope the problem will be solved.