SpyShelter 10

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Mops21, Jul 30, 2015.

  1. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    9,749
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I noticed a new Polish review of SS, could you perhaps provide some more info? Did they test it against malware?

    https://avlab.pl/spyshelter-firewall-warownia-ktora-zdola-zastapic-antywirusy
     
  2. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    5,392
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Contact them and see if they will run their on-line banking tests against it. Would be interested in how SS scores.
     
  3. act8192

    act8192 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    1,413
    Rasheed, this Aug.2016 three page review is a rather comprehensive description of SS features and how they work vs traditional AV. Mostly about installations, components, interprocess and such. Banking stuff is mentioned once on page 3 (with suggestion to use Linux), and there's a link to some test, possibly related to banking
    https://www.youtube.com/embed/XVfMFhuKdgw
    but I haven't gone there.
    Illustrations included description of alerts about installing (wireshark, 7zip, malware CECEEA.exe coming through chrome), registry change, signature, certificate handling, key scrambling and safe tunnel for banking, summary of performance, etc. No specific malware samples mentioned other than that ceceaa. Interesting article.
     
  4. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,609
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    Yes...it's rather wide review than the test against malware...Adrian (author) have tested only one sample of app - Wireshark - that is not added to trusted vendor list of SS and one of malware (called in alert 2ECEEA.exe)...as we can see both had been detected and perhaps succesfully blocked. He tested also encryption features with expected result. Author In this article try to propose the thesis that SS can with some additional tools (live CD/on-deman scanners, isolation/virtualisation) can be a good and effective replacement of AV.
     
  5. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    9,749
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    OK thanks, very weird that they didn't decide to test SS against real life malware and against simulators. SS is also never included in other tests, perhaps it's a good idea of itman to contact them and ask them for more in depth testing.

     
  6. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    5,392
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    I don't speak Polish .......... BTW - how did anyone read the SS review since it also was in Polish?

    Problem with that AV Lab web site is there is no English language option available. Appears most of their testing is geared toward the in-country audience.
     
  7. Lockdown

    Lockdown Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2016
    Posts:
    772
    Location:
    AppGuard LLC, Virginia, U.S.
    Datpol used to participate in MRG online banking testing. However, it appears after the product got really slammed by a couple of reviewers Datpol chose to retreat from all testing and reviews except for the occasional review by AVLab. So I think it probable that Datpol views the thousands of dollars price tag for testing as a waste of money - since the perception is probably that testing does more reputational harm to the product than good.

    In Rubenking's review - he didn't know how the product works nor how to use the product - and it is pretty obvious that Datpol didn't explain all of that to him in-detail prior to testing. The end result is the published PCMag review.

    LOL - and you just know that any product that is not a fully automated solution for the IT-ignorant n00b is going to be slammed by Rubenking. I was sort of surprised that Rubenking awarded SpS a 2.5 star rating as he rates any security soft that requires user decision-making very lowly. Since SpS is almost completely reliant upon the user making decisions to protect their system.

    I would have done everything possible to prevent PCMag from publishing the Rubenking review in its current form.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2017
  8. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,609
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    I can agree about Rubenking review ... he probably does not know how SS works and how are its task in protection ... anyhow that "review" was here already discussed. However participation of SS / Datpol in MRG is not so simply things as you wrote and was "touched" here few years ago...it looks that the opinion of developer in such matters hadn't been changed.
     
  9. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    9,749
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes, and this is what bothers me. SS is a good product and will block a lot of malware, but the fact that that SS is never tested and Datpol isn't willing to participate in tests is not a good sign. I have this feeling they fail quite a lot of tests. And there is nothing wrong with that, as long as these holes are fixed, but perhaps they just don't have the time to do this.

    Ichito and others are from Poland, my comments were directed to them.

    Can you ask AV Lab to do some extensive malware testing of SS? Or do vendors need to pay them before they will do so?
     
  10. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    5,392
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Yes. AV Labs are not public service non-profit entities.
     
  11. Jerry666

    Jerry666 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2002
    Posts:
    125
    PC mag , well never did put much trust into reviews there , like car mags never trust reviews there. I like Spyshelter , it's not perfect , but it works well once you learn how to use it . The help files and FAQ could use a bit of work as well .
     
  12. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,609
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    OK...I'll send e-mail to Adrian from AVLab about it.
     
  13. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    5,392
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Also ask him to add an English language viewing option to the web site.
     
  14. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,609
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    OK...it's done :) I linked this page also so they will know what you need :)
     
  15. boredog

    boredog Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2015
    Posts:
    2,499
    I just opened it is Chrome and a translation box popup up. Most of it translated except for the screen shots.
     
  16. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    9,749
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    But that's the weird thing, because a lot of tools that are tested perform badly, so did they also pay? I mean a testing-company can test any tool they like, no? So it's weird that they don't include SpyShelter.

    Thanks, have you heard anything from him?
     
  17. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,609
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    No...unfortunately no answer and I don't know why :thumbd:
     
  18. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    9,749
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Very disappointing and not a good sign. Like I said, AFAIK these type of testing companies can probably test any software they like.
     
  19. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    5,392
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    Someone stated in another forum posting that SpyShelter no longer participates in AV Lab tests -EDIT- See reply #882. Along the lines of they did it once; didn't like how the product was testing; and made a policy statement they never will again.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2017
  20. SanyaIV

    SanyaIV Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2013
    Posts:
    272
    Just got the Windows 10 Creators Update (build 15063) (Running Release Preview because.. well.. free Windows 10 Pro..) and now SpyShelter Firewall can't connect to driver. Kind of expected with new versions of Windows, just an FYI. It may or may not be: An issue on my machine only, an issue that won't be present in final release, an issue that'll get fixed with a future update. Either way I contacted SpyShelter support.

    Edit:
    Got a response: "As you see this Windows is not supported."
    ... Yes, I understand that, but this update will start rolling out in 11-12 days, it'd be in their best interest to investigate these kinds of issues to make sure it doesn't happen to all of their customers that update Windows 10 to Creators Update on release.

    For some reason I question my usage of SpyShelter every time I deal with their support. =/

    Edit 2:
    Got another response: "it's not "fix" it's new os with new core so work is not so simple, if that will be possible the will be done without your warnings believe me ;) "
    That sentence is rather confusing to me but as I understand it they don't appreciate reports like these, so I guess I won't be sending them again and now I'll actually consider alternatives to SpyShelter, or straight up removing it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  21. mood

    mood Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Posts:
    2,882
    "will be done without your warnings" :cautious:
    ...another riddle from the support.

    Maybe it will work with the final release or not, who knows. You'll see it in 11-12 days :doubt:
     
  22. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,609
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    I think we shouldn't be unfair...few days ago I received a message from AVLab, but I did not have enough time to describe it here. I will try it in a short time and I think it can explain some issue and guesses. It could probably throw the light on participate of SS in tests also.
     
  23. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    9,749
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes, but I don't understand the logic. I mean, a company doesn't have to give permission to be tested right? For example, a testing company could say: "we have tested your product, and it did or didn't perform that good. So if you pay us then we will/won't put it in the list." I hope it doesn't work this way.

    Yes please do so.
     
  24. itman

    itman Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Posts:
    5,392
    Location:
    U.S.A.
    True. But standard business protocol for most AV Labs is honor the vendor's request to be excluded from testing. Additionally since almost all AV Labs are "for profit" entities, they won't test a product unless the vendor pays for it.
     
  25. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,609
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    Exactly...and your words are very close to essence of AVLab's "steatment". After translating from Polish to English...I hope AVL won't feel offended :)...it looks more or less so
    "Participation in AVLab tests is free. If the producer wants to know detailed information about changes of system, files, network traffic, used code, scripts, tool's configuration...if he wants to reproduce the test environment - he should pay for it. Thanks to such approach we can maintain our objectivity: if you don't want - don't pay. It means that your product will take part in the test, the results will be published but do not expect to receive so detailed feedback as the producer who will respect the time and effort involved in preparing and developing the test."
    The next thing...some vendors want to take part in his tests for free but the result sometime is disapointing for him...and I didn't receive info "who was it" :) They expected confirmation of "marketing slogans" on application pages and it was connected to the last two tests - against ransomware and browser protection while online banking.
    OK...it's time for SS...I agree with Adrian from AVL that testing of SS doesn't have the sense if we try to take into account methodology of well-known testers like AV-C, AV-Test, MRG Effitas, VB and his own...AVL's...metodology. SS is actualy absolutly diferent to others security apps becouse it base on built-in and made while working rules and compulsion of user activity. If the action of user is correct - the score of SS is +/- 100% and it's quite impossible to create good methodology which can be adequate to such user-app cooperation. I dont know present organisation which can test such app as the single and different concept of security...earlier Matousec tried do this but we know with how result...malware.ru did some test of HIPS few years ago but as I remember it was mixted with tests of firewall features.
    Lockdown said (#882)
    "So I think it probable that Datpol views the thousands of dollars price tag for testing as a waste of money"
    Yes...it can be the right although we haven't any info from Datpol...we can only guess that such tests couldn't be some added value exept only the marketing purpose.

    And at the end...at this time the English version of reviews of AVL will not appear more often but nobody said "it's impossible"...they have a lot of work and...what is quite obvious...are focused on survive on market among competitors and additionaly make some money. They have on his CV non-profit undertaken also like help in improvement of AV software and using screen of monitor for blind people...so not always "money is first".

    So...I think I've wrote not some stupid things...if yes - I'm sorry :)
     
Loading...