redwolfe_98
join:2001-06-11
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 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.. | |
|
 
Smokey Bear
veritas odium parit
Premium
join:2008-03-15
Annie's Pub
| Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 said by redwolfe_98  :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/ | |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| said by 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.. 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 | |
|
 |
Smokey Bear
veritas odium parit
Premium
join:2008-03-15
Annie's Pub
| Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 said by Mele20 :Smokey Bear, if you know something about Wayne and the whole mess that the rest of us I will not satisfy your curiosity. | |
|
| | Peter2150
join:2003-08-31
Washington, DC
| Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 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 | |
|
| | |
Smokey Bear
veritas odium parit
Premium
join:2008-03-15
Annie's Pub
| Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 said by Peter2150 :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/ | |
|
| | | | Peter2150
join:2003-08-31
Washington, DC | Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 I totally agree with you about confidentiality. But then just don't say anything. | |
|
| | Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| said by Smokey Bear :said by Mele20 :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 | |
|
| | |
Smokey Bear
veritas odium parit
Premium
join:2008-03-15
Annie's Pub
1 edit | Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 said by Mele20 :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?  | |
|
| | | | Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| Re: ProcessGuard 3.500 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. | |
|
| | | | | |
curiousjoe
@comcast.net
| 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 | |
|
|
|
|
