said by alamarco:Has anyone tried SSM? (»
maxcomputing.narod.ru/ss ··· ?lang=en )
Is it around the same thing? Would running this be a good thing?
I tried the PG free before and I liked it but don't have the money to buy the paid version. With the free I had some problems with it protecting Outpost which would of been solved by the paid. SSM is free so I was wondering how does it compare.
I have used SSM quite a bit after the author asked me find an issue between ProcessGuard v2.0 and his latest BETA. Hopefully another SSM user will post a comparison, however I will try and be as unbiased as I can.
Please also remember that the latest SSM which I am discussing is in BETA status so might not be relevant to the final program when released. You can't compare ProcessGuard to the non kernel mode versions of SSM because they aren't really in the same league, so most of my comparison will be limited to the BETA.
The latest SSM beta compares very well to the free version of ProcessGuard v3.xxx on features. The full version of ProcessGuard does edge it out features, however SSM is currently freeware so that is in it's advantage. SSM isn't designed to run well under XP fast-user-switching either, so if you use that feature it may be a problem.
SSM runs on Windows 9x, which is another benefit of the program. I might point out that the method it uses on Windows 9x to protect the system (like MadCodeHook used in TrojanHunter and some anti-spyware applications) is insecure if software detects the protection mechanism in place. This is the reason the latest SSM beta handles things in kernel mode under Windows NT/2K just like ProcessGuard has been doing, since if done right it can be secure. However, since most malware doesn't "detect" this protection it can provide a lot of security for Win9x users.
Hopefully some other SSM BETA users can provide some reports on stability, but on some of our test machines it proved to be a little unstable. I think some work needs to be done for the kernel mode driver under Windows NT/2K/XP, as previous versions which did not have kernel mode protection in them used to run fine on the same machines. It is BETA software however so hopefully the issues will be worked out before final.
The interface still needs some work in my opinion (it has stayed pretty much the same since early versions), as I found it quite hard to use and some of the GUI doesn't seem to act like it should. The SSM interface however has a lot of features packed into it, which I'm sure some people will find useful. I know a lot of ProcessGuard v2.0 users emailed us complaining about the interface (how they wouldn't dare letting their mothers or partners use it due to complexity), which is one of the areas we tried to improve the most in the latest v3.0 version.
Overall SSM still needs time to improve. There are certain parts of it's kernel mode core which still need to be added and tested that I think users want (at least from the feedback we receive from customers). Speaking from first hand experience I understand the amount of time required to improve and work on something like PG/SSM. I think this is the reason why future versions of SSM might also become shareware. ProcessGuard's kernel mode technology has been in development for over 2 years, and that is with continual 5 day a week research, development and coding over that period.
I do hope SSM continues to be developed because I think only good things can come out of some competition. At the moment ProcessGuard is pretty lonely where it is sitting. With DiamondCS pretty much the only company really trying to tell users that this is one of the best ways to keep your computer protected from malicious software. When there are other products that are similar it makes more sense for magazines, and computer sites to do reviews and comparisons and things like that which get the word out to more people.