App Review A brief look at Voodooshield

[Lucent Warrior]

A glimpse of Voodooshield at default settings other then my already whitelisted tools.

 

[King Alpha]

Awesome vid my friend @Lucent Warrior. Thanks for the share.

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

Love it, this is a good look for those not that familiar with Voodoo's workings.
And in the end, squeeky clean..
Great video Lucent

 

[DJ Panda]

Vodoosheild is an excellent program. Although I don't use it currently it did well in some tests I did.

 

[Deleted member 178]

Great Video Bro, i like the use of TCPview, not common to see it used

 

[Cats-4_Owners-2]

Thank you for illustrating the protective workings of VoodooShield, a program I've heard many good things about. Seeing truly is believing!

 

[jamescv7]

Voodoshield evolved already to a full pledge lockdown program, users should explore carefully the overall configuration.

Actually Voodoshield can act alone to any system at all as long you have internet connectivity for accurate results.

 

[CMLew]

Thanks for sharing the results.

Seems its time for me to start moving out of ERP and consider VoodooShield.

Only thing stops me is Free vs Pro version. Can't justify atm the additional features usefulness for a home user.

 

[safe1st]

Good video!
thank you

 

[Cohen]

Thanks for sharing this video and showing just how good VoodooShield is.
I've yet to see a test where VoodooShield failed to do its job properly, which makes me feel a lot safer.

 

[JB007]

Fine video with impressive results !

 

[TheMalwareMaster]

Was it a 100 percent block or something was missed?

 

[shmu26]

It looked like most of the samples were initially blocked by Windows SmartScreen. That means these samples were not very sophisticated. I mean, if they cannot bypass SmartScreen, then you don't even need 3rd party protection for them, right?

 

[Lucent Warrior]

It looked like most of the samples were initially blocked by Windows SmartScreen. That means these samples were not very sophisticated. I mean, if they cannot bypass SmartScreen, then you don't even need 3rd party protection for them, right?

Most testers disable Smartscreen and uac to save time in their tests, i did not. I rarely see samples bypass smartscreen in windows 10 while testing, and i process many samples daily.

 

[shmu26]

Most testers disable Smartscreen and uac to save time in their tests, i did not. I rarely see samples bypass smartscreen in windows 10 while testing, and i process many samples daily.

the truth is, I am not trying to dis your excellent test, but rather, to ask a question about this whole type of testing.
I am not a tester myself, and I am probably missing some important information, but I just don't understand how testing malware samples that can anyways be stopped by Smartscreen and uac will show the efficacy of a 3rd party software solution.

 

[DardiM]

Thanks for your nice video

 

[ElectricSheep]

Good informative video

 

[DardiM]

the truth is, I am not trying to dis your excellent test, but rather, to ask a question about this whole type of testing.
I am not a tester myself, and I am probably missing some important information, but I just don't understand how testing malware samples that can anyways be stopped by Smartscreen and uac will show the efficacy of a 3rd party software solution.

Remember that a lot of people dis-active Smarscreen (certainly for the telemetry part).

It looked like most of the samples were initially blocked by Windows SmartScreen. That means these samples were not very sophisticated. I mean, if they cannot bypass SmartScreen, then you don't even need 3rd party protection for them, right?

From a general point of view, when a malware infects your PC, you can't know by advance if it will bypass or not Smartscreen (you must have or not a third party protection installed)

 

[Deleted member 178]

but I just don't understand how testing malware samples that can anyways be stopped by Smartscreen and uac will show the efficacy of a 3rd party software solution.

1- because Smatrscreen and UAC are considered weak by many Youtesters and "wannabe-expert" (old habit from XP/7 era), they don't even bother to enable them.
2- because finding complex malwares that can bypass SS and UAC is not so easy to find.

 

[Lucent Warrior]

the truth is, I am not trying to dis your excellent test, but rather, to ask a question about this whole type of testing.
I am not a tester myself, and I am probably missing some important information, but I just don't understand how testing malware samples that can anyways be stopped by Smartscreen and uac will show the efficacy of a 3rd party software solution.

1. they are not always caught by smartscreen, just most.
2. very little detail in the OS file reputation system still makes it hard for a novice to know which way to turn, only information they receive with those is that the file is unknown to Smartscreen and they recommend "not running".
3. once the file has been let past smartscreen, it is totally up to the tested product to stop it or the system becomes infected.
4. most importantly, this is a brief review of the product, testing this method allowed me to show all aspects of dealing with a file via this product, and the ways to make choices/decisions.