Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by CloneRanger, Dec 7, 2011.
I'm impatient becuse actual version didn't work for me.
I know what you mean, I want it to be finished as well!!! I have a new developer named Rajesh who is helping me with development now. He is a lot more familiar with implementing the service than I am, and actually, he is just a better all around coder than I am, he is truly amazing and is doing a phenomenal job. We both think it will be around 1-2 weeks from now, but it really is hard to tell. If we were to release the current version, you guys would seriously be mad at me . But we really are getting very close, and I will let you guys know asap. Thank you!
Cool I'm keeping and eye on the progress and v1.27 works very well!
Hey TH, good to hear, thank you! Yeah, it will not be long now!
I was using VoodooShield for a whole year! it was amazing
But my license has expired.. and i can not renew because paypal shut down my account for an unknown reason for me and i cant get it back it realy pisses me off and i dont own a creditcard and i dont want a card to.. is there maybe another way that i can buy me a license for VoodooShield?
Hey Pablo, just email us your email address to email@example.com and we will fix that for you. Thank you!
Will the new version be out before New Years?
I am not sure, I know we are getting very, very close. I will let you guys know something asap!
Thanks, Merry Christmas
Interesting thing happened today. Unless I train VS to block launching cmd it will not luanch when VS is active, i.e. when browsing. I like this
However, today I was able to launch cmd 32bit while browsing by using the software Launchy. After I did, I tried to launch cmd 64 bit while browsing, from the start-menu and it did successfully launch.
is this to be expected or is it a possible security issue? I didnt knowingly intend to teach VS to allow cmd. But perhaps allowing Launchy means VS trusts what it launches?
Patiently but with some anticipation waiting for VS 2.0.
Thank you Overkill! I hope everyone had a great Christmas!
Hi MrGump! It is kind of hard for me to explain how it works, so I will give you an example and hopefully it will make sense. If not, please let me know.
Say you have a backup.bat file on the desktop... VS will block it until you allow it. But once you allow it, it will always allow C:\Users\Dan\Desktop\backup.bat, but it will never allow C:\Windows\System32\cmd.exe by itself unless you change the setting in the Settings / Tweaks page.
Hopefully this is what you are experiencing, if not, please let us know. Although, a lot of the code is changing in VS 2.0, so we will have to double check that this is working as expected once the new version is ready.
Hi justenough, yeah, it will not be long now, sorry everyone that it is taking longer than we thought. We just want to make sure it is right, and I really do not want to mess up anyone's computers .
To give you guys an idea of what is left to do here is our to do list:
1. Fix the balloon notification and desktop shield icon flashing to work with the service and dll's.
2. Minor tweak on the Automatically Position VoodooShield option.
3. Double check to make sure that everything works well with SUA and UAC.
4. Finish updating the installer to include the new dll's.
5. The settings are now in SQL instead of in the built in .net XML settings feature, and we have a few things to finish up with this.
6. Finish implementing the new VirusTotal automatic integration.
7. Static Linking of the dll's so we do not have to include the C++ run time in the installer. We might go either way on this, we just need to figure out what the best option is.
Rajesh and I both have a lot of time this next week, and hopefully we can wrap it up very soon.
BTW... VS 1.XX was all about getting the GUI and the user experience "right", and VS 2.XX is all about making it as robust and bulletproof as possible "under the hood", so the look and feel will be similar to 1.XX. And we really think you guys will like the handful of new features we are adding, especially the automatic VirusTotal scan. Thank you!
Sounds like a major upgrade, looking forward to it. My vote is for a polished 2.0 VS over having it sooner.
I agree also I never liked rushed software updates since 1.27 is working so well!
BTW... I was curious if you guys could help me out with something. We have always had a hard time explaining VS to someone who is not familiar with our software. I can usually explain it, but it takes me about 3-5 minutes, and even then a lot of the people still do not understand how it is different from UAC, or any of the whitelisting solutions.
I usually say something like... "VoodooShield is a computer lock... it is basically a desktop shield gadget that toggles from ON to OFF, depending on whether a web app is running or not, since the computer is at risk when a web browser or email client is running. VS takes snapshots of your system while it is OFF, so it can learn what to allow when it turns ON to lock your computer. Then when a web app is launched, VS takes one final snapshot and automatically turns ON, and blocks anything that is not on it's tiny, customized whitelist. VS is intended to be the first line of defense for malware and viruses, and if a user chooses to allow something, then their traditional antivirus software can take over and do its thing."
So what am I leaving out? Why do some people still think it is just like UAC, and do not see the huge differences, like...
1. UAC does not build a tiny, customized whitelist. It blocks the file EVERY time you try to run it.
2. I believe that UAC allows files by publisher / digital signature. I have always thought this is extremely dangerous.
3. UAC seems to only block the good files. For example, a client gets a virus, I am removing the virus, and UAC prompts me to run a virus cleanup utility.
4. UAC is an ALWAYS ON semi permeable filter that allows exceptions. VS locks your computer when you are at risk, and does not allow exceptions.
5. UAC elevates user rights. Well, I will not even get into this, since I believe this is an old Unix 1970's technology that should have stayed in the 70's.
6. With UAC, the user will most likely choose "Yes". This is not an issue when deny by default is implemented.
Anyway, I could go on and on, but I was just curious if anyone could help us out and shed some light as to why some people still equate UAC with VS? We seriously need to figure out the best way to quickly explain VS, and any help we get would be greatly appreciated!!! Thank you!!
Will v2 still do this?
Whenever I get an alert and allow it, the shield turns red and unless you notice it and double click and it goes back to blue, you will not be protected anymore
Sounds good, thank you justenough and TH!
Yeah, it is going to work the exact same way!!! The only difference is that when VS blocks something now, if the user chooses to run it, the hash / file will be automatically uploaded to VT before it is allowed. And this feature is optional, but I don't think anyone would ever turn OFF the Automatic VirusTotal scan.
See, I am not very good at explaining stuff sometimes . Sorry about that!
Your description seems to the point. Maybe you'd have to make less innovative software to be able to have a less dense description. Or you could just say to heck with it and put "VoodooShield protects your stuff good" on the box.
So it will always be like that?
I had the same issue, which I think is a bug, but I think he didn't' understood your explanation.
Having a popup and allow it shouldn't make the tray icon red.
You wouldn't think so
Thank you, we appreciate that!
Overkill and guest... Sorry, I see what you mean now. When the user allows something, VS has to turn OFF to allow the new item. We used to have an option where VS would turn back ON immediately after allowing one new processes. This worked well for most programs, but for example, sometimes there were multiple exe's in an installer, and VS would allow the first one, and block everything else afterwards.
VS should turn back ON when a web app gains focus again, as long as that option is enabled.
Maybe what we should do is to keep VS ON, and automatically allow everything that is in the path of the initial executable for 5 minutes, or whatever the auto reactivate time is set to. Does that sound like it will fix this issue? Thank you!
Sounds good to me, thanks
An emerging approach in combating viruses and malware is to whitelist software which is considered safe to run, blocking all others.
Some deem this superior to the standard signature-based, anti-virus approach of blocking/removing known harmful software (essentially blacklisting), as the standard approach generally means that exploits are already in the wild.
These products may provide administrative control over program whitelists in addition to preventing introduction of new malware.
Separate names with a comma.