- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Morro said:VoodooShield said:
Thanks for the offer VoodooShield, but shortly after i made that post i saw that an automated system hat been set up, so i am good now. VoodooShield is up and running.
Good deal, thank you!
Expired Free one year subscription to VoodooShield!
- Thread starter Overkill
- Start date
Disclaimer: We cannot guarantee that all promo codes will remain active. Some offers have a short validation period and expire.
Good deal, thank you!
- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Earth said:
Hi, yes, actually VS runs best on and Admin account. Yes, there is a password feature to make sure the user does not exit out of VS unless they enter the password. And there is a feature that restarts VS if they kill it in the task manager. You can also disable the balloon messages and the left click. All of the features are in settings in VS.
Thank you!
Cheers for the info, just registered an account for the other PC.
Hurry, it's the last day to get your Free 1 Year License.
Hurry, it's the last day to get your Free 1 Year License.
A suggestion, if VoodooShield was designed to replace Windows's User Access Control, it should be displayed as a Process Step and not part of the Agree/Disagree process.
I almost missed it, when installing as it was not clear enough.
I almost missed it, when installing as it was not clear enough.
- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Earth said:
Good deal, thank you! We are thinking about extending the free offer for another week or more, and maybe promote it on the giveaway sites. The offer was initially just an impromptu "Thank You" to all of the people who have helped us get VoodooShield to where it is today. But after seeing the huge response we are getting, we are wondering if we can make it go viral? Especially since now we have the automated account system in place. We initially thought we would receive no more than 50-100 responses, but the response has been amazing!
So should we extend the offer? If so, how long? Thank you!
http://www.voodooshield.com/freeoffer/
- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Earth said:
Yes, we might do that in the next version. We were trying to eliminate some of the prompts, so we put it in BOLD letters. Thanks for the suggestion!
Thanks, looking forward the next release.
Except, I have another problem, a potentially major flaw?
In the Settings, I have configured VS to require a password. However, due to the nature of the program, left clicking the icon enables/disables the protection and it does so without requesting for a password.
Suggestion: If Password is set, require password for left-click enable/disable.
Except, I have another problem, a potentially major flaw?
In the Settings, I have configured VS to require a password. However, due to the nature of the program, left clicking the icon enables/disables the protection and it does so without requesting for a password.
Suggestion: If Password is set, require password for left-click enable/disable.
- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Earth said:Thanks, looking forward the next release.
Except, I have another problem, a potentially major flaw?
In the Settings, I have configured VS to require a password. However, due to the nature of the program, left clicking the icon enables/disables the protection and it does so without requesting for a password.
Suggestion: If Password is set, require password for left-click enable/disable.
Cool, thank you! Actually, if I am understanding you correctly, that feature is already there... Under Settings / Advanced - Disable left click Activation and Deactivation. You have to enter your password to be able to change it
. Please let me know if that is what you are looking for. Thanks!
- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Hello VoodooShield,
Yes, I found the setting and changed it accordingly. However, 1 week later I had no choice but to uninstall VS.
I have returned to my trusted set-up, with UAC.
Yes, I found the setting and changed it accordingly. However, 1 week later I had no choice but to uninstall VS.
I have returned to my trusted set-up, with UAC.
- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Earth said:
I am confused... are you Littlebits too? What issue were you having with VoodooShield? Thank you!
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
VoodooShield said:
Yes I did get to try the latest version and it did have a lot of improvements compared to the older version that I tried. Most download sites are still hosting older versions.
VoodooShield does an excellent job blocking executable files and if the user did use it correctly then it would block probably any type of malicious executable file, but I still disagree with it being novice user friendly since it does not give you enough details about the executable file on the prompts. If it had digital signatures checks and provided that info like UAC does, then the user might have a better understanding of the prompts. If the user made the wrong choice, then an infection could still occur or a safe needed executable file could get blocked. Novice users have no idea how to use custom whitelists or to respond to prompts like this.
Of coarse the option to check the file with VirusTotal is handy, still a new malicious file could not be detected by any of the scanners.
Digital signature checks should be a must to have feature. When you run an executable with UAC enabled on default, it will let you know if the file has a digital signature and will allow you to click on the info and check the certificates. I believe that is more informative then the info provided by VoodooShield. Files with digital signatures are usually the best way to find out if they are safe.
Another thing is UAC runs at the OS level above all software, whereas with VoodooShield is just runs at the software level like most other security software products. I believe UAC can offer better protection and should not be disabled. I know you can find info about UAC having vulnerabilities in the past, but there are no current vulnerabilities I can find by researching the web. Windows Update patches have fixed the previous vulnerabilities. Most malicious files that most home users are likely to encounter don't use vulnerabilities especially in UAC. Most novice users don't utilize UAC, they will just click without reading and they are most likely to do the same with VoodooShield. I don't see how VoodooShield would be any more user-friendly then UAC. Both require the user to read, check and then approve or deny.
VoodooShield runs extremely light on system resources and didn't have any conflicts with my other security products. However the main question is do I need it? and the answer is NO.
I still prefer to use my security setup with UAC on default settings.
I haven't had one single infection since 2006 because my current habits (browsing, downloading, connecting devices, etc.) along with Avast Free which can also block executable files without digital signatures, different firewalls like ZoneAlarm Free and Privatefirewall has kept me malware free.
There is no reason for me to use a paid product when free products will work.
All users are different and VoodooShield might be more useful to others.
Users who are paranoid like on security forums would be more likely to buy the product. I doubt most of the users will buy it because there are just too many free alternatives. They will probably just use up the free subscription and move on the another product.
Most similar paid anti-executable software are no longer developed.
Remember DiamondCS ProcessGuard, GhostSecurity AppDefend, System Safety Monitor, Norton Antibot, Dynamic Security Agent (now is Privatefirewall), Cyberhawk, AntiHook, ProSecurity, ClearShield, SafePC, Trust-no-exe, just to name the ones that I can think of, they are all out of business or discontinued.
The one only anti-executable software think I can think of now that is still being developed is AppGuard and NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro.
The rest are history, anti-executable features have been added to security suites and personal firewalls (Comodo, Online Armor, Privatefirewall, Malware Defender, Outpost, etc.) which provide more details about the executable files then what VoodooShield does.
User who do use these security suites and firewalls simply do need another stand-alone anti-executable software because it is already included.
Good luck to your business.
- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Littlebits said:VoodooShield said:
Yes I did get to try the latest version and it did have a lot of improvements compared to the older version that I tried. Most download sites are still hosting older versions.
VoodooShield does an excellent job blocking executable files and if the user did use it correctly then it would block probably any type of malicious executable file, but I still disagree with it being novice user friendly since it does not give you enough details about the executable file on the prompts. If it had digital signatures checks and provided that info like UAC does, then the user might have a better understanding of the prompts. If the user made the wrong choice, then an infection could still occur or a safe needed executable file could get blocked. Novice users have no idea how to use custom whitelists or to respond to prompts like this.
Of coarse the option to check the file with VirusTotal is handy, still a new malicious file could not be detected by any of the scanners.
Digital signature checks should be a must to have feature. When you run an executable with UAC enabled on default, it will let you known if the file has a digital signature and will allow you to click on the info and check the certificates. I believe that is more informative then the info provided by VoodooShield. Files with digital signatures are usually the best way to find out if they are safe.
Another thing is UAC runs at the OS level above all software, whereas with VoodooShield is just runs at the software level like most other security software products. I believe UAC can offer better protection and should not be disabled. I know you can find info about UAC having vulnerabilities in the past, but there are no current vulnerabilities I can find by researching the web. Windows Update patches have fixed the previous vulnerabilities. Most malicious files that most home users are likely to encounter don't use vulnerabilities especially in UAC. Most novice users don't utilize UAC, they will just click without reading and they are most likely to do the same with VoodooShield. I don't see how VoodooShield would be any more user-friendly then UAC. Both require the user to read, check and then approve or deny.
VoodooShield runs extremely light on system resources and didn't have any conflicts with my other security products. However the main question is do I need it? and the answer is NO.
I still prefer to use my security setup with UAC on default settings.
I haven't had one single infection since 2006 because my current habits (browsing, downloading, connecting devices, etc.) along with Avast Free which can also block executable files without digital signatures, different firewalls like ZoneAlarm Free and Privatefirewall has kept me malware free.
There is no reason for me to use a paid product when free products will work.
All users are different and VoodooShield might be more useful to others.
Users who are paranoid like on security forums would be more likely to buy the product. I doubt most of the users will buy it because there are just too many free alternatives. They will probably just use up the free subscription and move on the another product.
Most similar paid anti-executable software are no longer developed.
Remember DiamondCS ProcessGuard, GhostSecurity AppDefend, System Safety Monitor, Norton Antibot, Dynamic Security Agent (now is Privatefirewall), Cyberhawk, AntiHook, ProSecurity, ClearShield, SafePC, Trust-no-exe, just to name the ones that I can think of, they are all out of business or discontinued.
The one only anti-executable software think I can think of now that is still being developed is AppGuard and NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro.
The rest are history, anti-executable features have been added to security suites and personal firewalls (Comodo, Online Armor, Privatefirewall, Malware Defender, Outpost, etc.) which provide more details about the executable files then what VoodooShield does.
User who do use these security suites and firewalls simply do need another stand-alone anti-executable software because it is already included.
Good luck to your business.
Thank you for your input, I appreciate it. Obviously we will agree to disagree, so I will not address every point you made unless you feel it is necessary. But I did want to mention one thing... You said:
"I don't see how VoodooShield would be any more user-friendly then UAC. Both require the user to read, check and then approve or deny."
The reason the other AE's went out of business is because they did not have our patent pending desktop shield gadget / customized whitelist snapshot / application shielding (toggling in smart mode) features that creates an AE that everyone can use, even a novice. It allows VS to offer deny by default as opposed to the extremely dangerous affirmative prompt that UAC uses. It is very simple... if VS blocks something out of the blue then ignore it. If it blocks something you are trying to run, then click on VS (or the balloon) and allow it, and scan with VirusTotal if necessary.
I happened to have read your profile and noticed that you are a local computer guy like me. I have been killing viruses for 15 years, and 30-50% of my business has always been malware removal. And according to your profile, the majority or your business is malware removal as well... "I'm a computer repair specialist... Most of my business is malware related issues." What I can tell you is that in the last year and a half since VS was released, I lost all of that business and no longer remove malware from computers (unless they are a new client) because nothing has slipped past VS. There are 2 exceptions where the user allowed an email attachment after VS blocked it (twice on both occasions), but this was before we implemented the VirusTotal scan. It is quite funny... one of the users happened to be my Mom. The other was a client who happened to receive an email from American Airlines with an attachment (Ticket.exe), and he was actually flying AA in two weeks. So even though VS blocked it, he still allowed it.
So I know that VS works, and that the user experience / user interface works great with all users.
Hackers spoof digital signatures all the time, and it slips right past UAC.
We are not quite finished with VS, and there are several more features and refinements we will be adding, but we have limited resources. But having said that, VS is insanely great the way it is, and it is already more reliable than, well, you name it.
But a lot of people completely overthink VS and completely miss the point of it. And that is... when a web app is running, there is never a good reason for the computer run new or unknown executable code, or to make system changes.
It really is that simple.
Peace!
- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Earth said:
Sorry about that, did we respond to your issues through email? We have not received any major issues or complaints. We had some issues with the website and accounts, but that was all I remember seeing. We have had an overwhelming amount of email the last week or so, so it might have been lost in the chaos. If we did not respond, please feel free email us again. Thank you!
- Feb 14, 2013
- 113
I do not work for VoodooShield, but I have been using VS for a little over a year now. I do understand how VS works, and may be able to give a little insight into how VS works. To put it in the most simple terms possible VS has a training mode which it uses just after the installation is complete. It learns the applications you have installed on your machine. VS by default already allows the applications you have installed in the Program Files directory, but there is an option to not automatically allow those applications. You would just have to run all those application you have installed in the Program Files directory during training mode in order for them to be allowed after VS's protection is enabled. I myself personally leave the settings at default to automatically allow programs in the Program Files directory because there is very little threat in doing so. Windows by default protects this area by requiring admin privilege to execute in the system space. Most of the time malware attacks the userspace in order to gain escalation of privileges to infect the user's machine. I could go into more detail, but it really deserves a thread of it's own. Ok, so really all you need to do is run any applications you have installed in the userspace during training mode so VS will learn to allow them while VS's protection is enabled. Those applications will be allowed from then on when VS's protection is enabled. VS works like an Anti-executable. During training mode it adds the applications already installed in the Program Files directory, and those in the userspace that you trained VS to allow by running those userspace applications while VS was in training mode to the whitelist. VS blocks all other executable that are not on the whitelist from then on unless you explicitly choose to allow an executable. You will see VS's tray icon on the desktop toolbar flashing when it blocks an executable file. If you choose to click VS's icon when it is flashing it will give you an option to allow or deny the executable. If you do not click the tray icon when it is flashing it will automatically block the executable. VS gives you several seconds to click the tray icon to see if you want to allow the execution. I do not know how many seconds that is, but it would be easy to find out. VS will also log all allowed, and blocked executions. That was a feature I personally asked forjogs said:
So basically VoodooShield learns the application you have on your machine, and will not allow any executables to make any changes to your machine while protection is enable. It's an Anti-executable with it's own proprietary design. VS also has a smart mode where VS automatically detects when you are doing anything that can infect your computer. VS enables it's protection on it's own, and then switches back to training mode whenever the use is not doing anything that can infect their machine. I use the always on mode myself, and when I need VS to learn some new application it has not learned yet I manually switch VS to training mode just long enough for it to learn the application.Here's what to expect to get up, and running after VS has been installed. Run VoodooShield in training mode after the installation is complete for about 30 minutes while you are not doing anything risky that could infect you machine like Surf the Net, check email, plug in any external device that could be infect. After about 30 minutes is complete reboot your computer twice while in training mode to make sure VS learns the services, and processes that run during boot. You may only need to run VS once in training mode during boot, but I prefer to run VS in training mode twice during boot just to be on the safe side. That just makes me feel better i suppose lol After this your set to go. If anyone does find something that will bypass VS then please let VS know. I haven't found or seen any from other user that has at the present time. I compare it's protection as good as Appguard, but VS operates in a very different way. I actually use VS, and AG together. They compliment each other very well. VS by design should work with any other Security product, and it is extremely light on CPU resources, and memory.
I'm not sure what type of threat you are referring to by saying that some viruses are not executable files. Are you referring to threats that attack the memory? Actually, that reminds me of something. The developers plan on adding read / write memory protection soon.
I'm not sure how VS will hurt the smooth flow of the operating system. Could you explain more please? VS in my experience has been one of the most user friendly, and painless security applications I have ever used.
I hope users do not think i'm bias in some way. I'm a huge fan of Appguard as well, and I have been helping BlueRidge Networks since about 2007 with testing their software.
- Oct 23, 2012
- 12,527
VoodooShield said:
I installed and am using VoodooShield.So far so good,I really like it.What I like more is your willingness to explain the software and offer assistance to the members here.Great support goes a long way when people consider purchasing software.Your time and effort is appreciated.
Thank You
Littlebits
Retired Staff
- May 3, 2011
- 3,893
You have to understand they are different levels of novice users, when I was teaching computer education courses, about 95% of my students didn't even know how to use the left click functions on the mouse, use taskbar icons, use Windows default components, some didn't even know how to turn off their computers they would just push the power button.
You can't tell me that they would understand how to use a product like VoodooShield. To effectively use just about any type of software requires at least intermediate computer knowledge. As cutting_edgetech explained in detail how to use VoodooShield, most novice users would already be lost on the first sentence. You would have to stand beside them and teach them with examples. Still even after that some may still not understand it completely.
Sometimes it is hard for more advanced users to understand how novice users think. When I was teaching my computer learning courses, I found it was much easier to teach my students how to download safely and avoid fake alert sites then it was to teach them how to use security software effectively. Some would even learn how to use UAC much easier then trying to figure out how to use security software. Education is the key to protecting systems, no software will compare. A lot of my students never learned all about the basic common functions performed on Windows but many did learn to most important security habits which did keep them malware free. You might be surprised how many public schools don't offer computer education courses. A lot of students never get the chance to learn until they attend college unless they take private lessons.
A lot of the more advanced users can say as well your habits are far more important then the security software that you use. Learn how to control your habits then all you will need is a basic AV, if that.
Thanks.
- Jul 2, 2013
- 37
Similar threads
