Expired Free one year subscription to VoodooShield!

[Overkill]

Traditional blacklist antivirus software attempts to block the 15,000+ new viruses a day. We realized that antivirus companies cannot possibly keep up with all of the new viruses, so we created a different approach. VoodooShield™ blocks all executable code (including viruses), except the software you allow.

Free Offer Registration
Download

Free one year subscription to VoodooShield! The people at wilderssecurity have been a tremendous help to us, and we would like to show our gratitude!

Email us your email address and the password you would like to use for your account, and we will hook you up with a free year of VS. If you have already purchase VS, let us know and we will add 1.5 years to your subscription, just send us the email address you use for your account.

Email us @ support@voodooshield.com, and we will hook you up through July 4th.

FYI 1 yr license and up to 3 pc's


Thank you!

VoodooShield Support Team

And yes, the free subscription is open to ANYONE, even friends of friends of people at wilders .

Edit: You no longer will have to send emails, just use the Free Offer Registration fill out the info and then you can enjoy your free one year subscription.

 

[Littlebits]

I never heard of it before so here is a little description from their homepage.

How VoodooShield™ is Different

Traditional blacklist antivirus software attempts to block the 15,000+ new viruses a day. We realized that antivirus companies cannot possibly keep up with all of the new viruses, so we created a different approach. VoodooShield™ blocks all executable code (including viruses), except the software you allow.

By the description it sounds like UAC which also can block executable codes that are not digitally singed by trusted vendors.

So can this provide any benefits then just using UAC?

Thanks.

 

[pardeep]

Thanks for the share

 

[Aleeyen]

This kind of software is going to hurt the smooth working procedure of the os. But in terms of protection it may not be so good as there are so many kinds of viruses that are not executable files. Though it depends on how and what they think as executable code e.g. various types of scripts etc.

 

[Overkill]

I never heard of it before so here is a little description from their homepage.

How VoodooShield™ is Different

Traditional blacklist antivirus software attempts to block the 15,000+ new viruses a day. We realized that antivirus companies cannot possibly keep up with all of the new viruses, so we created a different approach. VoodooShield™ blocks all executable code (including viruses), except the software you allow.

By the description it sounds like UAC which also can block executable codes that are not digitally singed by trusted vendors.

So can this provide any benefits then just using UAC?

Thanks.

I'm new to this software like you are but it seems to be alot like appguard...I'm testing it out on my daughters pc and so far I really like it.

FYI, edited first post, info and link added

 

[jasonX]

Thank you

 

[Spirit]

Hi Overkill,

Are you sure its standard is upto appguard?
If it so its definitely a gem of software and I am giving it try soon.

Thanks

 

[Littlebits]

I took VoodooShield for a test run yesterday on Windows 7x64. I ran several executable files, some good and bad to test it.

It does very good at blocking executable files but is only a backseat to UAC which would give me the first prompt for files without digital signatures.

So in other words I would get three notifications from each executable file that I tried to run. First would be the Windows file checking notifying me that the file was not digitally signed, then UAC would nail the executable first then after I would approve it then VoodooShield would display the notification. VoodooShield does not know the difference between a safe file and a malicious, the user has to do the research to find out.

In a way of comparison to UAC, UAC is able to identify files with trusted digital signatures but however will not block executable files that don't try to make changes to Windows on default settings so unless you change UAC to "Always Notify" some malicious files that just record or steal user info maybe allowed to run if they don't try to make changes to Windows configuration. So if you are fool enough to download files without checking to make sure they are safe then you could get a password stealing Trojan that would be able to not be detected by UAC on default settings. However UAC will block these executable files on the "Always Notify" max setting.

In a way of comparison to Comodo, Online Armor, Malware Defender, Privatefirewall with HIPS enabled.

All of these security tools can block executable files just as good or better and also have whitelists that can help the user decide what is safe.
I'm not sure about all of these tools but Privatefirewall checks digital signatures just like UAC.

For myself and many advanced users who always watch their habits, VoodooShield is basically not necessary. Paranoid users may really like it, but if you are using Comodo, Online Armor, Malware Defender, Privatefirewall with HIPS enabled if it offer no benefits except duplicate notifications which can be very annoying.

Thanks.

 

[ZeroDay]

Thanks for posting your findings Littlebits.

 

[Overkill]

I took VoodooShield for a test run yesterday on Windows 7x64. I ran several executable files, some good and bad to test it.

It does very good at blocking executable files but is only a backseat to UAC which would give me the first prompt for files without digital signatures.

So in other words I would get three notifications from each executable file that I tried to run. First would be the Windows file checking notifying me that the file was not digitally signed, then UAC would nail the executable first then after I would approve it then VoodooShield would display the notification. VoodooShield does not know the difference between a safe file and a malicious, the user has to do the research to find out.

In a way of comparison to UAC, UAC is able to identify files with trusted digital signatures but however will not block executable files that don't try to make changes to Windows on default settings so unless you change UAC to "Always Notify" some malicious files that just record or steal user info maybe allowed to run if they don't try to make changes to Windows configuration. So if you are fool enough to download files without checking to make sure they are safe then you could get a password stealing Trojan that would be able to not be detected by UAC on default settings. However UAC will block these executable files on the "Always Notify" max setting.

In a way of comparison to Comodo, Online Armor, Malware Defender, Privatefirewall with HIPS enabled.

All of these security tools can block executable files just as good or better and also have whitelists that can help the user decide what is safe.
I'm not sure about all of these tools but Privatefirewall checks digital signatures just like UAC.

For myself and many advanced users who always watch their habits, VoodooShield is basically not necessary. Paranoid users may really like it, but if you are using Comodo, Online Armor, Malware Defender, Privatefirewall with HIPS enabled if it offer no benefits except duplicate notifications which can be very annoying.

Thanks.

@Littlebits What I like about it is, it is alot less resource intensive than some of the programs you mentioned and less alerts so it's alot easier for novice's.

@Spirit I am not sure how it compare's to appguard, I just started using it but it is very similar...all I can tell you is give it a shot

 

[Amiga500]

These anti-exe programs are just too much and not really needed.I prefer a HIPS or something like that.

 

[Littlebits]

@Littlebits What I like about it is, it is alot less resource intensive than some of the programs you mentioned and less alerts so it's alot easier for novice's.

It is very light on resources compared to other similar security tools but still UAC uses no resources at all, if the user utilizes UAC and watches their habits, VoodooShield doesn't offer any benefits. I would also like to add if you use Avast Free, the password stealing Trojans can be blocked by Auto-Sandbox, Network and Behavior Shields. Other AV's may also be able to block these files as well.

VoodooShield is not good for novice users since it does not know the difference between a safe file and a malicious, the user has to do the research to find out. Of course all advanced security tools are not novice user-friendly. Comodo comes closer then the rest because it has a large whitelist (which does include some doggy ad-partners) but still has a long ways to go since it will still block many trusted programs or run them in their sandbox where they can't function properly. Still requires manual tweaking to allow some programs which novice do not know how to do.

VoodooShield will display more alerts since again it doesn't check for digital signatures or can tell what is good or bad. It would be much harder for novice users compared to the other security tools.

I have never tried Appguard before, so I'm not sure how the product compares.

Thanks.

 

[Raphoul]

Hi
I just receive it as a giveaway from vood00shield and I tested on a pack of 600 malwares
First i do a scan whith my antivirus 360 Qihoo at the end itis still 26 malwares that 360 Qihoo has not detected. i tried to exexecute each one but for each of them voodooshield has reacted
it is simply a masterpiece
Thank you to you voodooshield team and good luck

 

[VoodooShield]

I took VoodooShield for a test run yesterday on Windows 7x64. I ran several executable files, some good and bad to test it.

It does very good at blocking executable files but is only a backseat to UAC which would give me the first prompt for files without digital signatures.

So in other words I would get three notifications from each executable file that I tried to run. First would be the Windows file checking notifying me that the file was not digitally signed, then UAC would nail the executable first then after I would approve it then VoodooShield would display the notification. VoodooShield does not know the difference between a safe file and a malicious, the user has to do the research to find out.

In a way of comparison to UAC, UAC is able to identify files with trusted digital signatures but however will not block executable files that don't try to make changes to Windows on default settings so unless you change UAC to "Always Notify" some malicious files that just record or steal user info maybe allowed to run if they don't try to make changes to Windows configuration. So if you are fool enough to download files without checking to make sure they are safe then you could get a password stealing Trojan that would be able to not be detected by UAC on default settings. However UAC will block these executable files on the "Always Notify" max setting.

In a way of comparison to Comodo, Online Armor, Malware Defender, Privatefirewall with HIPS enabled.

All of these security tools can block executable files just as good or better and also have whitelists that can help the user decide what is safe.
I'm not sure about all of these tools but Privatefirewall checks digital signatures just like UAC.

For myself and many advanced users who always watch their habits, VoodooShield is basically not necessary. Paranoid users may really like it, but if you are using Comodo, Online Armor, Malware Defender, Privatefirewall with HIPS enabled if it offer no benefits except duplicate notifications which can be very annoying.

Thanks.

@Littlebits What I like about it is, it is alot less resource intensive than some of the programs you mentioned and less alerts so it's alot easier for novice's.

@Spirit I am not sure how it compare's to appguard, I just started using it but it is very similar...all I can tell you is give it a shot

Thank you Overkill!

 

[VoodooShield]

I never heard of it before so here is a little description from their homepage.

How VoodooShield™ is Different

Traditional blacklist antivirus software attempts to block the 15,000+ new viruses a day. We realized that antivirus companies cannot possibly keep up with all of the new viruses, so we created a different approach. VoodooShield™ blocks all executable code (including viruses), except the software you allow.

By the description it sounds like UAC which also can block executable codes that are not digitally singed by trusted vendors.

So can this provide any benefits then just using UAC?

Thanks.

Please compare the two and you will see which is better!

 

[VoodooShield]

This kind of software is going to hurt the smooth working procedure of the os. But in terms of protection it may not be so good as there are so many kinds of viruses that are not executable files. Though it depends on how and what they think as executable code e.g. various types of scripts etc.

VS is unbelievably smooth, try it, you will like it. VS has been out for over one and a half years, and nothing has slipped past it. If you have some examples of non executable malware that can get past VS, please let us know... we can block whatever method they are using. Thank you!

 

[VoodooShield]

@Littlebits What I like about it is, it is alot less resource intensive than some of the programs you mentioned and less alerts so it's alot easier for novice's.

It is very light on resources compared to other similar security tools but still UAC uses no resources at all, if the user utilizes UAC and watches their habits, VoodooShield doesn't offer any benefits. I would also like to add if you use Avast Free, the password stealing Trojans can be blocked by Auto-Sandbox, Network and Behavior Shields. Other AV's may also be able to block these files as well.

VoodooShield is not good for novice users since it does not know the difference between a safe file and a malicious, the user has to do the research to find out. Of course all advanced security tools are not novice user-friendly. Comodo comes closer then the rest because it has a large whitelist (which does include some doggy ad-partners) but still has a long ways to go since it will still block many trusted programs or run them in their sandbox where they can't function properly. Still requires manual tweaking to allow some programs which novice do not know how to do.

VoodooShield will display more alerts since again it doesn't check for digital signatures or can tell what is good or bad. It would be much harder for novice users compared to the other security tools.

I have never tried Appguard before, so I'm not sure how the product compares.

Thanks.

EVERY process, including UAC uses resources. Actually VS was created because UAC does not work well, and it is annoying. Any modern virus will go right past it. VS is actually VERY user friendly, especially for novice users. All the user has to know is to let VS block anything and everything, unless they asked for something to run. And if they did ask for something to run, they should scan with the built in VirusTotal just to make sure. Doesn't that make a heck of a lot more sense than prompting the user whether they want to run something or not? Especially when they do not know whether to allow it or not? Thank you!

 

[VoodooShield]

Hi
I just receive it as a giveaway from vood00shield and I tested on a pack of 600 malwares
First i do a scan whith my antivirus 360 Qihoo at the end itis still 26 malwares that 360 Qihoo has not detected. i tried to exexecute each one but for each of them voodooshield has reacted
it is simply a masterpiece
Thank you to you voodooshield team and good luck

Thank you, we appreciate that! We also appreciate the fact that you understand what VS is all about!

 

[Littlebits]

Please compare the two and you will see which is better!

I did and my choice is UAC.

EVERY process, including UAC uses resources. Actually VS was created because UAC does not work well, and it is annoying. Any modern virus will go right past it. VS is actually VERY user friendly, especially for novice users.

I have never heard a user complain about UAC using resources.
Sometimes UAC can be annoying but VoodooShield gives you even more notifications, how could it be less annoying?

I would like to see an example of modern malware bypassing UAC, so far I have ask for this before and come up empty. I have tested many of the latest malicious threats and none were able to bypass UAC, do you care to provide a sample to backup your claim?

Please explain how VoodooShield is more user-friendly then UAC, you completely lost me on that one. For novice users, you must be joking.

Both UAC and VoodooShield require the user to do some resource to find out what is safe and what is not however UAC does check for digital signatures when running executable files which is more helpful then what VoodooShield provides. VoodooShield does have a "Train Me' option, that means a novice user could just put it on Trian Me and allow everything including malicious files. Until VoodooShield can tell the difference between safe and malicious files it is far from being novice user-friendly since novice users don't know how to check resources to know what is safe or malicious. It also has two options "Automatically allow all software from the programs file folder" and "Automatically allow all software from the Windows system folder" which is also bad for novice users if they already have live infections, most don't know if their system is infected or not. These settings are better for more advanced users.

Thanks.

 

[VoodooShield]

Please compare the two and you will see which is better!

I did and my choice is UAC.

EVERY process, including UAC uses resources. Actually VS was created because UAC does not work well, and it is annoying. Any modern virus will go right past it. VS is actually VERY user friendly, especially for novice users.

I have never heard a user complain about UAC using resources.
Sometimes UAC can be annoying but VoodooShield gives you even more notifications, how could it be less annoying?

I would like to see an example of modern malware bypassing UAC, so far I have ask for this before and come up empty. I have tested many of the latest malicious threats and none were able to bypass UAC, do you care to provide a sample to backup your claim?

Please explain how VoodooShield is more user-friendly then UAC, you completely lost me on that one. For novice users, you must be joking.

Both UAC and VoodooShield require the user to do some resource to find out what is safe and what is not however UAC does check for digital signatures when running executable files which is more helpful then what VoodooShield provides. VoodooShield does have a "Train Me' option, that means a novice user could just put it on Trian Me and allow everything including malicious files. Until VoodooShield can tell the difference between safe and malicious files it is far from being novice user-friendly since novice users don't know how to check resources to know what is safe or malicious. It also has two options "Automatically allow all software from the programs file folder" and "Automatically allow all software from the Windows system folder" which is also bad for novice users if they already have live infections, most don't know if their system is infected or not. These settings are better for more advanced users.

Thanks.

I am not here to argue, and I respect your opinion and input. Can you honestly tell me that you ACTUALLY tried VS? Or did you just watch the old videos? Be HONEST! Do you know how I know that you did not try VS? We have not used the term "Train Me" for around a year or so, but it is on the videos that we have not updated.

Please try VS, I promise, you will see how much better it is than UAC.

Until you try it, I really think it is pointless to address your other concerns, especially when I know you will like it.

But I will address the issue of viruses bypassing UAC... I see it ALL the time. Actually before Vista was RTM, UAC was already hacked. I did a quick google search, and here is just one example.

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/bits/2010/11/26/windows-zero-day-flaw-bypasses-uac/1

The videos do not explain VS well, so please try VS and let me know your honest opinion of it! Thank you!