ProcessGuard 3.500 in Security http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20890193 en Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:28 EDT Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:12:28 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20928724 ZZZZZZZ : I used PG for years till I found Winsonar which worked great.

Then I found Online Armor with its Program guard and am even happier now. :)
--
~~Get our troops home...now!!~~]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20928724 Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:52:53 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20927486 anon : If you are having problems uninstalling ProcessGuard 3.500
from start menu

before trying a safe mode uninstall

just go to c\program files\process guard and try to uninstall from there
..........................
Manual Uninstall:
1) Reboot your operating system into SAFE-MODE. To do this Reboot your machine, and just after your BIOS screen disappears keep pressing the F8 key. A menu should appear, select "Safe Mode" and press Enter.

2) Windows will ask you if you are sure you want to be in SAFE-MODE, answer yes. Then login to the same account you installed ProcessGuard from. If for some reason you cannot log into the same account, skip ahead to step 4 after logging in as the Administrator.

3) Run ProcessGuard's uninstall utility. You can see this from the Start Menu -> ProcessGuard -> Uninstall.

4) To verify the removal, make sure procguard.sys does not exist in your Windows\system32\drivers directory, and that procguard.dll and pguard.dat are not in your Windows\system32 directory. If they still exist delete them.

5) Reboot your machine, ProcessGuard will now be removed.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20927486 Sun, 10 Aug 2008 01:21:51 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20916300 Smokey Bear :
said by Mele20 See Profile :

Ummm...You get back what you give. ;)
Ummmm...You are right Mele, sorry to upset you :)
Therefore, please accept my well-meant, humble apologises (and go 1 post back and read my edit. :uhh:)
--
Smokey's Security Forums »www.smokey-services.eu/
Smokey's Security Weblog »smokeys.wordpress.com/
ASAP Site Member »asap.maddoktor2.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20916300 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:45:12 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20916267 Mele20 : Ummm...I believe you were so "kind and polite" saying I was "curious" implying frivolity and superficial interest only for the sake of learning something "shocking" or "gossipy". You get back what you give. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20916267 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:35:32 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20916227 Smokey Bear :
said by Mele20 See Profile :

Either keep your mouth entirely shut
That is the Mele20 i know: kind and polite ;)

Edit: some addition - remind me to a post on Wilders dated May 9th, 2008, 05:40 AM - you remember? :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20916227 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:25:31 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20916190 Mele20 :
said by Smokey Bear See Profile :

said by Mele20 See Profile :

Smokey Bear, if you know something about Wayne and the whole mess that the rest of us
I will not satisfy your curiosity.
Satisfy my "curiosity"? That tells me you are blowing smoke. You started this for game maneuvering or to make yourself look important. I understand confidentiality and I too keep it. I don't blow smoke about what happened with DiamondCS like you have though. The few times I have even slightly alluded to what happened and what I know in confidentiality, I have stated up front that I am bound by my word to not reveal what I know. You though titillated us deliberately. Either keep your mouth entirely shut or at least state up front that you know something that you are bound by your word to not reveal.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20916190 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 19:18:33 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915944 Smokey Bear :
said by a certain Perth :

Back on topic please.
Thanks for your anonymous comment.
Any reason to hide your identity? Anonymous comments aren´t very reliable. Feel free to register on the forum. It is for free. ;)
--
Smokey's Security Forums »www.smokey-services.eu/
Smokey's Security Weblog »smokeys.wordpress.com/
ASAP Site Member »asap.maddoktor2.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915944 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 18:14:38 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915854 anon :
quote:
Private/confidential obtained info should stay confidential.


Don't overplay your hand, Smokey Bear - you don't know anything apart from what's already in the open.

Back on topic please.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915854 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:57:12 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915766 Peter2150 : I totally agree with you about confidentiality. But then just don't say anything.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915766 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:38:41 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915600 Smokey Bear :
said by Peter2150 See Profile :

To post and imply you know something, and then say you aren't going to tell, sure sounds like the kind of fluff we heard from Wayne.
Private/confidential obtained info should stay confidential.
Call it fluff, I don´t care. I call it common decent behavior.
--
Smokey's Security Forums »www.smokey-services.eu/
Smokey's Security Weblog »smokeys.wordpress.com/
ASAP Site Member »asap.maddoktor2.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915600 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 17:08:35 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915553 Peter2150 : Come on Smokeybear. Promises were made and not kept. People including myself paid for licenses, were promised life time support and now there is no members area to get anything.

To post and imply you know something, and then say you aren't going to tell, sure sounds like the kind of fluff we heard from Wayne.

Pete]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915553 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:58:50 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915466 Smokey Bear :
said by Mele20 See Profile :

Smokey Bear, if you know something about Wayne and the whole mess that the rest of us
I will not satisfy your curiosity.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20915466 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 16:45:25 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20898752 anon :
quote:
i had problems with all the versions of PG that came after build 3.15.. if i was going to use PG, that is the version that i would use..

not to mention, some tests showed that PG did not perform the way that it was supposed to.. it would not prevent "malware" from injecting itself into running processes, which was why i switched to SSM..
try enabling the no reading feature (desabled by default)to the running processes, then try a test to inject and u see it works :)

my 2 cents]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20898752 Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:04:35 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20894752 Mele20 :
said by redwolfe_98 See Profile :

i had problems with all the versions of PG that came after build 3.15.. if i was going to use PG, that is the version that i would use..

not to mention, some tests showed that PG did not perform the way that it was supposed to.. it would not prevent "malware" from injecting itself into running processes, which was why i switched to SSM..
I know. PG is still a fine application but the last working version is 3.15. I had the betas and I told Wayne, in one of the last communications anyone had with him in October 2006, in a private message that the beta was unusable. He sent a revised beta to me. It was not much better. Then his message box filled up and I never heard from him again. I use 3.15 today. The real killer regarding PG is that while Gavin Coe posted in the fall of 2006 and stated he had PG working on Vista, it doesn't work on Vista and Microsoft warns strongly against trying it on Vista. From what I see at the new DiamondCS site this "new" version doesn't work on Vista either. I have read and seen reports about PG having the problems you mention. I tried SSM some time ago and it was so complex compared to PG that I gave up. I would try it again now except only the paid version MIGHT work on Vista. I wanted to use the free version until I was sure I could handle SSM with its (to me) unnecessary complexity before I bought it.

ProSecurity which was the most like PG is vaporware now. I would be thrilled if this "new" version of PG really is a new version and works on Vista.

Smokey Bear, if you know something about Wayne and the whole mess that the rest of us, including Wilders management, doesn't know then speak up please.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20894752 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 20:21:49 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20893879 Smokey Bear :
said by redwolfe_98 See Profile :

not to mention, some tests showed that PG did not perform the way that it was supposed to.. it would not prevent "malware" from injecting itself into running processes, which was why i switched to SSM..
Can you provide us with links to reliable tests about PG v3.5?
--
Smokey's Security Forums »www.smokey-services.eu/
Smokey's Security Weblog »smokeys.wordpress.com/
ASAP Site Member »asap.maddoktor2.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20893879 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:50:41 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20893718 redwolfe_98 : i had problems with all the versions of PG that came after build 3.15.. if i was going to use PG, that is the version that i would use..

not to mention, some tests showed that PG did not perform the way that it was supposed to.. it would not prevent "malware" from injecting itself into running processes, which was why i switched to SSM.. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20893718 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:15:18 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20893685 Smokey Bear : @Mele20

The entire DiamondCS/Wayne story is a bit more complicated, however, fact remain that DiamondCS/Wayne made huge mistakes.

I tend to give DCS/PG 3.5 a final chance to provide themself again with the label reliable. There is no doubt DCS made great proggies, and we should be able to forget and forgive and to give DCS the possibilty of a fresh restart.
--
Smokey's Security Forums »www.smokey-services.eu/
Smokey's Security Weblog »smokeys.wordpress.com/
ASAP Site Member »asap.maddoktor2.com/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20893685 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:06:17 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20893607 Vampirefo : Wow!!!!!!! this company still around, I wouldn't use anything they sale without full access to their source code.
--
Best Regards Vampirefo ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20893607 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:46:00 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20892470 Mele20 :
said by MagMan See Profile :

Well thanks for the info, think I will leave it alone for now. Too much negative info on Diamond CS.

I am curious though on what changes there are from ver 3.41 to 3.50?
Probably none. You know Wayne did resurface briefly this spring at Wilders? It was so sad to see him give no explanation of his disappearance...other than a wild story about having been in an auto accident and in the hospital in a coma and when he was better even then he didn't, and no one else from DiamondCS did either, feel any need to contact Wilders staff about what had happened or put any notice on the DiamondCS site. He only posted a flurry of posts close together that one day and then when Wilders members began to doubt it was really him and question if it was Wayne why he STILL had not contacted Wilders staff to apologize or even explain...at that point he stopped posting and never came back to the thread.
--
"The same ferocity that our founders devoted to protect the freedom and independence of the press is now appropriate for our defense of the freedom of the internet. The stakes are the same: the survival of our Republic". Al Gore, The Assault on Reason]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20892470 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 10:50:08 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20892423 MagMan : Well thanks for the info, think I will leave it alone for now. Too much negative info on Diamond CS.

I am curious though on what changes there are from ver 3.41 to 3.50?
--
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20892423 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 10:35:20 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20891969 anon : My advice would be to reinstall PG 3.410, disable all its protection and then unistall. With most of these type of security programs you should always shut down ALL its protection before you attempt to uninstall it. Good luck. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20891969 Sun, 03 Aug 2008 04:54:23 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20890786 anon : To uninstall process guard see this archived thread at Wilders... »www.wilderssecurity.com/showthre···?t=16931

The driver will not load in safe mode. Try the uninstaller in safe mode. Then check for the files mentioned in the Wilders thread.

I have downloaded 3.500 but not installed it yet. There is a small diference in the file size and the MD5 is different from 3.41. I could not find anything about changes.

I always liked this software and I still run the 3.41 free verstion. I run it for it's anti execute feature, however I am skeptical of new products from Diamond CS. If you get 3.500 installed post back with your experience. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20890786 Sat, 02 Aug 2008 20:47:51 EDT Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20890410 Cudni : some mention of it elsewhere
»www.wilderssecurity.com/showthre···&page=16

Cudni]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20890410 Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:55:47 EDT ProcessGuard 3.500 http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20890193 MagMan : Has anyone tried this yet? I can't get 3.410 to uninstall properly, it says it is still running. It can't be found in Add and Remove or Windows install clean-up. Just in Programs with an un-installer. Thanks

»www.diamondcs.com.au/processguar···load.php
--
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is."]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20890193 Sat, 02 Aug 2008 18:03:13 EDT