VoodooShield Review by PCMag India

There are some people who do not like VoodooShield and some that like it. There is no reason to think that one has the monopoly of being right.
There is no productive discussion based on general likes/dislikes. It would be better for everyone to be more concrete. For example, VS seems a very light security (pro), but can produce many false positives (con).
So maybe, the users who like VS could post about the concrete features they like, and the users who do not like VS could post about the features they do not like. What do you think?
 
I guess I don't look in on enough Voodoo threads.

I had no idea that Voodoo and Dan are that controversial.

I tried it years ago... and I thought it was meh.. but have zero strong feelings about it.

But hey... different views are a spice of life.
 
Andy Ful said:
So maybe, the users who like VS could post about the concrete features they like,
Click to expand...

1. It provides lightweight, out-of-the-box OS protection (hardening) while keeping the system fully usable.
2. Autopilot mode - it doesn't bother me with prompts, unless I tweak settings and then expect more of them.
3. The simple VS golden rule: If you didn't intentionally run it, don't allow it.

I give it the @oldschool (y) (y) :D

Edit: I forgot #4 - email Dan about a multi-year license because he might make deals! (y) ;) It's good to support your developer.
 
Last edited:
I've got one specific reason I use default-deny software and two specific reasons why I use VoodooShield over other default-deny software.

I currently use VS Pro by itself; have done so since the beginning of the year (and have used it alongside Windows Defender in years prior) and I'd certainly say I like the software.

Frankly, the main reason I use default-deny software is because I'm uncomfortable with the way antiviruses allow files to run unmitigated. Don't get me wrong, I'm confident in my own computing habits to not accidentally infect my own system, and due to me having a genuine interest in my own cybersecurity I'm undoubtedly at very little risk of infection because of that, but I'm not confident in a traditional antivirus's post-infection defences to protect me if that confidence were to be proven false, or if my system was attacked via a vector outside of my control (compromised website/CDN/ad network, for example.).

As for the reasons I use VS specifically: Firstly, its impact on system performance is hardly noticeable. After spending the majority of 2019 using Windows Defender and then disabling it at the beginning of this year, I saw an immediate and noticeable improvement to my system's performance. As everyone's hardware/software is different obviously results may vary, but my system is a cheap (£400/$482), general purpose machine running an i3 processor; it's not exactly a speed demon and any performance impact is fairly noticeable.

The second reason I use VS is due to its built-in Windows processes whitelist. This is what elevates it above SecureAPlus (the only other default-deny software I have any real experience with) for me. This might seem trivial at first, but if you've used SAP for any length of time you've probably been forced to unblock at least a couple of executables and dlls that are apart of any Windows installation but aren't signed by Microsoft. This thoroughly annoys me as I don't have extensive knowledge of every single unsigned file that's part of a typical Windows installation, and being prompted about said files simply generates doubt in my mind as to whether they're legitimate or not.

In regards of pricing: If you believe the pro version to be too expensive then stick to the free version.
As for controversies, I won't comment but I'll say this: If you don't trust a product (or its developer), don't use it.

Hope someone found this write-up useful. Thoughts? Questions?
 
Arequire said:
The second reason I use VS is due to its built-in Windows processes whitelist.
Click to expand...

Precisely! I think you hit the nail on the head.

Arequire said:
I don't have extensive knowledge of every single unsigned file that's part of a typical Windows installation, and being prompted about said files simply generates doubt in my mind as to whether they're legitimate or not.
Click to expand...

Same here. I'm an above-average user with neither coding experience nor a good understanding of Windows processes. This was why Comodo firewall was no good for me, the only thing I have to compare it with other than H_C. My experience with AV alerts includes Wise Vector SopX which I've been trialing recently. I found its "Document protection" about as problematic as Controlled Folder Access, maybe harder for the reasons above.

(Edit in italics)
 
Last edited:
bentparts said:
Who is Jeff T ?

And I'm not kidding either... who is Jeff T ?

Everyone knows you were banned here multiple times. And everyone knows that someone who is banned can request to come back. So please stop lying and acting like you weren't banned. You behaved like a child and you got yourself banned. Everyone including myself spectated and watched you do it to yourself.
Click to expand...
VS is a fabulous product , best to leave personal references about the author out of this thread
 
James246 said:
VS is a fabulous product , best to leave personal references about the author out of this thread
Click to expand...
Thank you, I appreciate that! I am all for that... four years is enough for me ;).

Just so people understand, I have to follow certain procedures in the criminal proceedings, and the restraining order is the first step.
 
oldschool said:
I remember a couple of others who have appeared now and then, but ...



Hallelujah! Either that or close the thread.

Good to see you here @danb! (y) :D I hope we can keep an open thread.
Click to expand...
Thank you, you too OS! Yeah, I am excited to see what suggestions users will have for VS. With the exception of small usability refinements and a complete GUI update, I am out of ideas for now ;).
 
blackice said:
Yeah, I only see one person here “bent” out of shape. The end. Actually a decent review.
Click to expand...
Thank you blackice! I agree, overall it was quite fair and accurate. I was shocked that Neil found a couple of malware that tricked WLC... I am assuming they were PUPs because it is quite weak on PUPs. I can tighten up WLC a little, but PUPs are always tricky, especially when they are signed with an EV sig. A lot of times the VT hits are super high, so it makes it look even worse, but really it is just a PUP. We need to unify the Blacklist, VoodooAi and WLC at some point and reduce VS's dependence on the blacklist... but there is no big rush on that.
 
@danb

If there are any danger than tweaking VS to detect more PUPs would increase the false positives, then in my opinion it might be best to not do so. Seeing as VS from I recall is still design to run alongside a competent AV. Let the AV deal with pups and VS with much more dangerous malware.
 

Recently browsing

Members who viewed this thread in the last 5 minutes

You may also like...

Back
Top