SpyShelter 12

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by mood, Oct 21, 2019.

  1. BoerenkoolMetWorst

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    4,413
    Location:
    Outer space
    I like lifetime licenses as well, because of the advantages mentioned, but it is not a viable bussiness model. If you want to support a (smaller) company, it is better to pay a yearly fee, as a one time payment doesn't really help them.
    I have a few yearly licenses from smaller companies and have no problem with that. There is however a difference in how the payment is done. If the user needs to renew the license manually or has an option for autorenewal, there is no problem. But I don't like companies forcing auto-renewal down users throats through sneaky methods.
     
  2. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    13,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I had some problems with SS 11 and 12 on Win 8.1, so I decided to stay with SS 10.5.2, it was the last version where skins still worked, I wonder why they removed this feature. I didn't see any major improvements with SS 11 and 12 when it came to new features.
     
  3. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    13,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes, but what I meant is what if something happens to the main developer or he decides to quit? Then I assume you can't activate the license any longer. With big companies you can rest assured that this won't be a problem.
     
  4. BoerenkoolMetWorst

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    4,413
    Location:
    Outer space
    Then you just no longer renew the license anymore and find an alternative. Of course, when you would have a lifetime license you could continue to use the product, but even when it is a proactive security software, it's effectiveness might still reduce after time because it doesn't get updated to protect against new techniques. Also any security vulnerabilities will not be fixed, and compatibility may reduce over time. I for example have continued to use Defensewall on my 32 bit installation, but after a while I wanted more RAM, which was not possible with 32 bit Windows(Not to mention lack of Win10 support), but also it was unable to protect newer versions of browsers. And as I said, the lack of vulnerability fixing. It may not be an immediate problem, but does become a point after time has passed.
    Imho the problem is also there with larger companies. They could be bought by larger companies, who take the product in another direction or just slowly become worse because of a different development team and different priorities. Some products are also just killed of(ThreatFire, Mamutu, Online Armor). I also find that usually, the most interesting software is from smaller companies anyway.
     
  5. Freki123

    Freki123 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2015
    Posts:
    130
    I just see it as a donation. Only pay amounts you are comfortable to lose or stick with big company's. If something happens to the dev the last I would care about would be my license :D
     
  6. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    13,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    That's the problem, sometimes there is no alternative. For example, I've bought a lifetime license for SpyShelter and Sandboxie and I didn't really have to update them, old versions continued to work correctly so even if the developers had stopped I wouldn't have had a problem. If had to pay a yearly fee, and they didn't release a freeware version, then I was out of luck.
     
  7. Space Ghost

    Space Ghost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2011
    Posts:
    75
    Location:
    Poland
    Code:
    12.3 (13/Oct/2020)
    
    – Added support for October 2020 Update (20H2)
    – Fixed rare BSOD on 32 bit version of Windows 10
    Download
    https://www.spyshelter.com/download-spyshelter/
     
  8. Cutting_Edgetech

    Cutting_Edgetech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Posts:
    5,576
    Location:
    USA
    I asked SpyShelter a few years ago if they would consider making SpyShelter Firewall an SPI (stateful Packet Inspection) firewall, and also add some IDS rules to their firewall. They said they had no plans in upgrading the firewall to provide those capabilities. In order to have Application Execution Control, you have to purchase the Firewall version of SpyShelter. Since Eset has a SPI firewall, IDS/IPS, and botnet protection; I decided not to use SpyShelter at all since their none Firewall version does not offer Application Execution Control. If they don't plan on upgrading the Firewall, I would ask that they add the Application Execution Protection to the Premium Version without the firewall. I would have purchased a license years ago, if they had.
     
  9. ichito

    ichito Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,932
    Location:
    Poland - Cracow
    @Cutting_Edgetech
    SS is mainly anti-logger app and firewall module is based/developed on earlier AntiNetworkSpy module which is still as feature in Premium version. It's not a strictly firewall app like Look'n'Stop, Jestico, Sygate or FortKnox that offer the SPI function. For me and perhaps for some other users firewall with its options is enough.
     
  10. Surt

    Surt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Posts:
    226
    Location:
    USA
    SpyShelter Firewall's deficiencies are made up for by its insufficiencies.

    The superb, unequaled SpyShelter Premium in conjunction with a competent firewall is the logical choice.

    Regarding v12.3 and it's issues in 20H1 and 2 in #82 above, Screen Phantom is/was an answer to a question no one asked. In v12.2 it is buggy as well in 1909, enabling itself at random even when it was unchecked under Settings > Security requiring a check and uncheck to disable it.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2020
  11. Wendi

    Wendi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    608
    Location:
    NY, USA
    Hi all. I'm considering SpyShelter Free as another security layer, primarily to achieve user-friendly 'outbound interrogation'. If you have any suggestions/tips as to its settings that would be most appreciated. Also, should I change any settings in Win10's firewall?
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2020
  12. Surt

    Surt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Posts:
    226
    Location:
    USA
    I don't see, nor can I even guess, at what settings one would need to change in Wi10's firewall. As to whether or not Win10's firewall should even be disabled or not when using SpyShelter's firewall, that discussion might be picked by another Wilders member.

    SpyShelter's default settings are adequate. See also posts #64-67 on page 3 of this thread.

    IMHO, you should just turn off Free's firewall.

    Cheers.
     
  13. Wendi

    Wendi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    608
    Location:
    NY, USA
    Thank you for the reply, but I find your last statement confusing. As I stated, the main reason I wish to add SS Free is to gain its outbound protection (to prevent data-theft). If I turn-off SS' firewall, wouldn't that defeat this purpose?
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2020
  14. Surt

    Surt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Posts:
    226
    Location:
    USA
    Sorry. I didn't pick up on that.

    I generally reject firewalls which can stand alone, but claim can work without disabling Windows Firewall. What's Windows got they ain't? Who's in control? Why add complexity? "The more they over think the plumbing, the easier it is to (screw up the pipes)." -With apologies to Scotty

    That said, I'll reverse my opinion: run SpyShelter's firewall and disable Windows Firewall.

    I staunchly agree with the school of thought that if a firewall detects a malicious outbound IP connection, it's already panic time, with having been defeated whatever anti-whatever scheme one has in place. I trust what I have in place should prevent the behavior that launches the opening of a such an outbound connection.

    For greater confidence, I enable GlassWire's "first network activity" security feature and consider it a superior asset as it directly monitors Windows Defender Firewall, which is a darned fine firewall. Long ago I watched that feature with NirSoft's CurrPorts and SoftPerfect's NetWorx and found no outbound connection or activity other than GlassWire's DNS lookup (which can be disabled) until I selected Allow to the alert. Block, of course, shuts down the offending execution connection. 10/17 edit: the process continues, of course, but without the outbound. Also, the programs I used were ordinary (browser, email client, streaming apps). I'm not concluding GlassWire's "first network activity" is bulletproof.

    As such, I haven't had the need, or interest, to run the same analysis on SpyShelter's outbound protection, stand-alone or "with" Windows Firewall. Another Wilders member might chime in as there's not much I can further contribute to this discussion, being a SpyShelter Premium, not Firewall, user. BTW, Premium includes its AntiNetwork Spy...

    Cheers.

    Sidebar: In case you want to know more about GlassWire:
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/posts/2804423/
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2020
  15. Wendi

    Wendi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    608
    Location:
    NY, USA
    @Surt - Thanks again for sharing your insight. I didn't know SpyShelter's firewall also functions 'stand-alone'.
     
  16. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    13,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Believe me you don't need Application Execution Control, I don't use it because it's unhandy. You're better off with EXE Radar for executable control.

    From what I understood, it's best to combine the Windows Firewall with SS, because SS is not a complete firewall like for example ZoneAlarm and the ones that you mentioned. BTW, I have now protected the Vivaldi profile folder with SS's "Protected Files" feature, because I started using Vivaldi's built-in password manager.
     
  17. Wendi

    Wendi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    608
    Location:
    NY, USA
    About a week ago I installed the free edition of SS 12.3 to gain (primarily) the benefit of its outbound firewall screening. So far I have been quite impressed with how well it is functioning in that regard while seamlessly coexisting with Win10's Firewall. The first few days SS was quite "noisy" due to its learning process, but for the most part that has now settled down and it has become almost unobtrusive. :thumb:
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2020
  18. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    13,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I'm not a firewall expert, but from what I understood SS is mostly focused on blocking outbound connections. The problem is that it doesn't autoblock, it will always alert. So that's why I switched to Windows Firewall Control and later to TinyWall, who both autoblock connections. But I believe it's indeed best to keep the Win Firewall enabled mostly for inbound control. But feel free to correct me, not directed to you specifically.

    https://superuser.com/questions/48343/what-are-inbound-and-outbound-rules-for-windows-firewall
     
  19. Wendi

    Wendi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    608
    Location:
    NY, USA
    That's incorrect when using either of SS' Auto Allow Modes... I'm using the (default) "Auto Allow - High Security" mode and when a program attempts to make an outbound connection SS pops up a prompt describing the nature of the connection request, asking me to Allow or Deny (or Terminate). Once I specify either Allow or Deny I don't see that particular popup again, which indicates (to me) that SS has learned how to deal with that specific situation and thereafter auto-allows or auto-blocks the same outbound connection request (in accordance with my response to the initial popup)!
     
    Last edited: Oct 23, 2020
  20. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    13,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    No you're correct, but you're misunderstanding me. I don't want to see any alert at all, that's how for example TinyWall works. If some app needs to connect out, then you can easily make a rule. This way you will avoid alerts from apps that you don't want to give permission to connect out in the first place. But yes, the whitelisting feature in SS should also reduce alerts. Problem is, you can't control which software vendors to trust.
     
  21. Wendi

    Wendi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    608
    Location:
    NY, USA
    Sorry about that, I now 'see where you're coming from'. Your operational preference works if you trust yourself to identify all of the necessary outbound connection rules to protect your system and privacy (and then create them)! That's above my pay grade so I prefer having a 'learning firewall' (such as SS) where I can respond accordingly to each alert during its learning process.

    I guess it's just a matter of "different strokes for different folks". ;)
     
  22. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    13,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Yes, it's simply a case of being fed up by all of those useless alerts from apps that want to auto-update. On my system, only a couple of apps are allowed to make outbound connections, all others are blocked automatically by TinyWall. There's nothing complicated about this and great for security. And that's why the "auto allow" feature from SS wouldn't do me any good, because I want to be in control of which apps should be able to connect out. SS shouldn't decide this for me.
     
  23. Surt

    Surt Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2019
    Posts:
    226
    Location:
    USA
    How then would you know if an app needs to connect out?
     
  24. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    13,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Well, like I said, normally speaking only a few type of apps will need a connection to the web in order to function correctly, think of browsers and download managers. I don't use auto-update, so other apps don't need to be connecting out.

    BTW, months ago you posted a link to a Polish security test that was done, and SS did pretty well. But I can't find it anymore, do you perhaps know what I mean?
     
  25. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    13,126
    Location:
    The Netherlands
  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.