VoodooShield/Cyberlock

Putting VoodooShield + DefenseWall + Shadow Defender to the test now, will post back with my results soon. (Xp Home 32-bit)

 

I think atleast on win 7 64bit ultimate, that voodooshield would do fine, if you do not run sandboxie and shadow defender.

 

Wow, that is a major flaw!! What version of SD did you have installed? Did you have any exclusions defined in SD? Have you reported this to Tony the developer?

 

Hi, thank you for testing VS, we appreciate that! Please let us know if you find anything else that is odd!

VS blocks by path, so it would allow any file that is named abc.exe in that folder. And path comparison definitely preferred over hash comparison. I have already written the code to do a secondary hash check, and we might include it in the next version, but it really is not necessary, and it would just slow VS down. But we can put an option to activate the hash comparison as well. But thank you for your input, we appreciate it!

 

Exactly, thank you!

 

It works, but the dos commands create little conflicts sometimes. Maybe you just trained it a little better than I did. Once we make the Custom Allowed Paths override the blacklisting, everything will work great, including Sandboxie, Shadow Defender, Flash Get... anything that has a dos command. It make take up to a week to make the changes, but I think it is something we need to do.

 

Cool .

 

BTW, has anyone seen CloneRanger? He is the one that started this thread .

 

Ok, with VoodooShield 1.09 + DefenseWall 3.22 + Shadow Defender 1.1.0.325 on 32-bit version of Xp Home,
uninstalled System Explorer, rebooted right back into Shadowmode (always on) System Explorer was back, as it should be. No errors. (SD=Pass)
uninstalled System Explorer, rebooted out of Shadowmode to real system and System Explorer was back, as it should be. No errors. (SD=Pass)
I'll keep trying and see if anything gos screwy. As of right now though all seems to be running very well together.

 

He's around....
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=2249786&postcount=6

 

FYI, it looks like www.avlab.pl is taking VS for a test drive. I will be really curious to see what they find! I am not saying that VS is bulletproof, but as far as I know, nothing has slipped through VS, and many, many people have tested the heck out of it.

I will be really curious to see what they find!!! Hopefully if there are any holes, they will find them and we can fix them!

 

The latest version of shadow defender.

 

Did you have any exclusions in SD defined in the exclusion list?

 

That's great! Looks like the word is getting around about VS. Yeah it will be interesting to see what they find! If anything at all gets through i'm going to say it would be something that is able to kill VoodooShield.exe process. I think it would have to target VoodooShield itself, and I don't believe we will encounter anything like that in the wild at the present time. Also, possibly if something tried to execute from a path other than C:/, but that would be a bug though.

 

You've completely missed my point yet again, it's only one or the other due to the way VoodooShield is designed, because clearly other similar security software knows how to work with UAC. If I were to follow along, how about a LiveCD in VirtualBox within restriction-enabled Sandboxie + EMET all checked monitored by Comodo Internet Security paranoid mode and continuously backed up by AX64 Time Machine v.s. VoodooShield? Guess what, the first system has UAC enabled, no problem.

I'm sick of repeating myself, so forget semantics. I'll just state it one more time VoodooShield does not replace UAC, it is just incompatible for whatever reason.

 

Here is avlab webpage translated into English http://translate.google.com/transla.../comodo_vs_emsisoft_kontrowersje_wokol_testow

 

The point is that you were saying the UAC is better than VS... here you go:

http://news.techworld.com/security/3205799/microsoft-left-windows-7-open-to-hackers-says-sophos/


VS 1.09 works ok with UAC, but it will work perfectly with VS 2.0 since it will run the engine as a service. We are working on that, and it will be available soon. That is not the reason we will be running the engine as a service, but a side effect of doing so will make it perfectly compatible with UAC. It has not been a priority of ours to make UAC perfectly compatible with UAC because most people disable UAC and no one wants to be prompted, only to have VS kill the process after UAC allows it. It is redundant and annoying.

You still have not answered my main question...just tell me what issue you have with us creating software that is designed to protect the 60-80% of computers who run admin accounts with UAC Off?

Here is the 90% stat directly from MS

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2007.09.securitywatch.aspx

 

Cool, thank you!

 

Seriously, what were you reading? Maybe my writing is incompatible with your interpretation...

What do you know, I guess the problem will be fixed as a side benefit.

An article from September 2007 is very relevant in July 2013 indeed. Why is that question so important in to you in the first place? Especially since I answered it, which you either ignored or found unacceptable.

 

Only 360 internet security for updating.

 

I find it a bet tough and uneasy to talk too, so I have not report it. Last few times I reported bugs, the answer was not what I was hoping. he is restrict.

 

The article basically says that UAC is worthless unless you adjust it to a higher setting... which is contrary to what you were saying about UAC, and how you could lower it.

So there has been a major shift away from admin accounts the last few years? If you can find a more updated stat, please let me know!

Yes, I still cannot find your answer to the one question that will settle this whole discussion. Can you please repost it?

 

I don't understand what you mean by restrict. Tony is Chinese, and he is a one man show so there could be a communication barrier. His English comprehension may not be so good.

 

Hi:

sorry my bad I mistook tzuk for tony. lol. tzuk is very straight and restrict. I apologize for the mistake.

I have not talked to tony yet. I am waiting to see if anyone else have the same issue with the specs I said or is it my special machine that's unique.

 

That is not complicated and I'll try explain it....guy who wrote that article was earlier a member of others Polish forums where VS was already mentioned. I suppose the first article about VS was on SG.pl forum...it was about 1,5 years ago and one month after its premiere on Wilders. VS was at the beginning pointed only for USA market so it was not so interesting in my country as other anti-exe.