VS VoodooShield™ - Free 1 year License

[stylemessiah]

Heres my thoughst and review after a week of using it

Annoying, obtrusive

It would block even the most benign porgrams, i got especially tired off having to turn it completely off to install things, as it would regularly IGNORE my clicks on the tray icon to allow a program install to continue. It randomly popped up a window to launch xx program or installer after scanning and not found to be suspicuous. Having to turn it off to install programs COMPLETELY renders it useless.

So i uninstalled it today, and as a side bonus my Pc is back to being as quick as it was before i installed this.

The other reason i wouldnt ever use it again is that the company stores YOUR whitelisted apps on ITs serves, which is COMPLETELY unnesccesary and OBTRUSIVE and smacks of data mining....

Avoid......

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and we do not expect every single person to like VS. Heck, not everyone likes pizza.

VoodooShield is a computer lock, the idea being that your computer should be locked when it is at risk. It sounds like you install a lot of programs quite frequently, and if that is the case, I would not recommend VoodooShield at all... since it is a computer lock. However, if you are part of the 95% or so of users that do not install new software everyday, and you want to lock your computer when it is at risk, you can try VS. You might like it, you might not.

As far as slowing down your computer, that is just completely false, unless your computer is 10 years old. If you have a super old computer, I would not recommend VS. I actually can not think of any AV software I could recommend if your computer is that old.

Just curious, what other products do you recommend that are as effective and user-friendly as VS?

This is not meant to be argumentative, im dealing with raw facts here.

I reject your premise that Voodoo Shield is a computer lock, and ill tell you why...

Im sure im not the only one who installs software regularly, factor in updates (flash, java etc), that counts as "installs". To have to disable it completely to install software is annoying. Ill also point out that since your product disables UAC by default, when you then have to disable vood Shield to install a program, your product actually leaves a PC in a less secure state. To me thats not a positive thing and the computer at this point isnt "locked" by anything, even UAC....so effectively by disabling Voodoo Shield to get around its annoyance and refusal to respect its own instructions, its debunking exactly what its targetted to do.

As for slowing down my PC, thats absolutely NOT false, im afraid. Im an It professional btw, having worked in large scale enviroments with thousands of users at a time, looking after 43 servers and on average about 4,500 desktops and ive been doing that since probably since before you were born. So ive been around, seen it all. the difference was noticeable in real world terms, im not quoting synthetic benchmarks or boring metrics here. I use my PC every day, i run the same apps every day, i connect to the same systems every day, hell i even open the same tabs in my browser, everyday, so no one is better placed to notice an impact on system performance after adding software than i am at that PC. Sorry to tell you there was a noticeable lag after installing it. thats the truth, you can accept it or not. but to claim outright that what i was saying was completely false is disingenous at best, and hopeful at worst. I would hope you would take it as the genuine feedback it was meant to be.

What do i recommend, im boring when it comes to Av security apps. I never use an AV with intergrated firewall, i use separate AV and separate firewall (currently Avast AV (sometimes Eset) and Comodo (for years)). I use group policy for software restrictions to avoid a lot of nasty crap. My pared down policies path rules are below.

Deny:

C:\Users\*\AppData\*.exe

C:\Users\*\AppData\*\*.exe

%AppData%\*.exe

%AppData%\*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\Temp\Rar*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\Temp\7z*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\Temp\wz*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\Temp\*.zip\*.exe

Allow:

%LocalAppDate%\Temp\Foxit Reader Updater.exe

%LocalAppDate%\Temp\Foxit Updater.exe

%LocalAppDate%\Adobe\install_flash_player.exe

%LocalAppDate%\Adobe\gccheck.exe

%LocalAppDate%\Adobe\gtbcheck.exe

The only thing i ever need todo with the above is add an Allow rule for the odd updater or software installer (for an installer, i add it for the course of the install and then remove it). I would rather do the above manually whereas some people use things like Crypto Prevent to do a kind of similar thing as above, i say similar thing as Crypto Prevent uses "psuedo group policies" whatever the heck that means. Me id rathe ruse actual group policies as its not another level of api/code/possible bugs, and its built right into the OS.

If you look at a lot of my replies lately you'll see that ive been on a bit of a crusade to get people to stop installing a bit of 3rd party software to do what they can do within Windows already, you'll also notice me calling the "ill just install and app or bit of software to do that" brigade lazy. I blame the "ill just install an app for that" laziness creep firmly on the tablet people, and Apple in particular...they seem happy to tap on a screen like base model of evolution and put their brains in neutral.

As i often say in real life, "The tablet people shall inherit nothing" and quite more often "Society is doomed"

Im sure you can fix some of the annoyances i had like with the click to allow on the popup tray bubble being wholly ignored and blocking things like crazy, and the problems that make you have to disable it compeltely and then expose whatever software is running to an un-UAC'd system (which is a show stopped for me).

I wish you luck.

*apologies for any spelling mistakes in this or any posts on here, ive usually had a long day by the time i get around to getting on here :) I often dont have the patience to correct myself :)

I appreciate your feedback, it will help to make VS even more uer friendly. You said "Im sure you can fix some of the annoyances", and yeah, the whole goal of VS is to lock the user's computer while it is at risk, and to not be annoying if possible. VS is relatively new to the market, and we are doing our best to make it as secure and user friendly as possible.

I will not even discuss the whole UAC thing... but I will say that if UAC actually stopped malware and was not annoying, then there would not be a VS. Keep in mind, UAC is disabled on 91% of all computers because it is so annoying and ineffective. Not only that, but most users find VS to be MUCH less annoying than anything else.

That is extremely odd that you found that VS slowed your computer down... it typically does not do that. I would be curious to find out why.

Group policy is great, but not for non-enterprise users. So what do you recommend?

That is totally cool that you do not like VS, but I will say that most users absolutely love it... they actually use the word "love" when describing VS. When was the last time you saw anyone use the word love when describing their security software?

Lastly, can you please tell me briefly why VS is not a lock? Thank you!

I do hope you improve things.

UAC - If it is turned off as you say on 91% of PC's, then thsoe people are very silly, and i'll bet that at least 91% of all posts whining about virus infections on boards come from that 91%...

UAC was improved over the Vista implemntation. I have it turned on on all PC's i own/admin. I certainly wouldnt add a 3rd party utility (apart from testng, as in this case) to do a job where theres already an existing tool built right into windows...adding a 3rd party layer do a first layer job just never sits well with me.

I find the opposite to you with UAC, it serves as an obvious reminder to people that theyre about to do something that has implications to their PC, and they actually usually employ a few more brain cells. They are very aware that when the screen dims and that orange tinted box appears they need to focus. All the 3rd party tools ive seen which aim to repalce this use less attention grabbing methods, like tray ballooons and popups, and if theres one thing i can tell you after 30 years of IT, its that over time people become blaise about tray balloons and popups and learn to ignore them as an annoyance. This is why MS made UAC dim the screen and put up the orange box front and centre. Ask any It person and they will tell you that the number one reason the average newbie(particularly first time older PC owners) generally gets infected with a nasty is because they let their AV lapse...they go to a chain outklet, buy a PC, activate the 30 or 60 or 90 day trial of Norton expire and this is because they ignore the tray balloon popup as unimportant. so again, thats why UAC dims the screen, and you get the orange box. MS made the right choice given they were aware of the lack of attention at tray notifications. I have it turned firmly on on my own personal PC, and i know what im doing, but i even i appreicate a bit of (re) focussing when ive had a long day and might othrwise forget that what im doing might have implications im not ready for. Anyone who whines about UAC doesnt understand a) why its there or B) just how useful it is.

Software Rectriction GP - i use it on my own personal desktop, so its not limited to the enterprise, and it doesnt require 3rd party tools, and built right into windows. Not any harder than typing gpedit.msc into a cmd prompt and going into the correct section of the tree. Set up the Deny list once (which will block an astonishing amount of malware), and when needed ad an Allow rule. If you cant manage that simple task and are bone idle lazy, you really have no business owning a PC. If people werent so uninformed and lazy there would be 60% more forum sapce on messageboards around the world :) My other pet hate is Internet Explorer STILL not at least having "Delete temporary files on browser close" ticked by default, after all these years...that would stop a ton of malware.

As for you Lock question: It would only be a lock if it were installed the second after a clean install. as it stands most people are installing it on an existing installation which may already be compromised. UAC works from the time you install windows, right out of the box.....and if youre smart on of the first things you install after a clean install is a good AV. Putting on a 3rd party program on months or even years later, that disables UAC (existing first layer protection) as part of its install process, should seem problematic and illogical to more people than just me.

[VoodooShield]

Heres my thoughst and review after a week of using it

Annoying, obtrusive

It would block even the most benign porgrams, i got especially tired off having to turn it completely off to install things, as it would regularly IGNORE my clicks on the tray icon to allow a program install to continue. It randomly popped up a window to launch xx program or installer after scanning and not found to be suspicuous. Having to turn it off to install programs COMPLETELY renders it useless.

So i uninstalled it today, and as a side bonus my Pc is back to being as quick as it was before i installed this.

The other reason i wouldnt ever use it again is that the company stores YOUR whitelisted apps on ITs serves, which is COMPLETELY unnesccesary and OBTRUSIVE and smacks of data mining....

Avoid......

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, and we do not expect every single person to like VS. Heck, not everyone likes pizza.

VoodooShield is a computer lock, the idea being that your computer should be locked when it is at risk. It sounds like you install a lot of programs quite frequently, and if that is the case, I would not recommend VoodooShield at all... since it is a computer lock. However, if you are part of the 95% or so of users that do not install new software everyday, and you want to lock your computer when it is at risk, you can try VS. You might like it, you might not.

As far as slowing down your computer, that is just completely false, unless your computer is 10 years old. If you have a super old computer, I would not recommend VS. I actually can not think of any AV software I could recommend if your computer is that old.

Just curious, what other products do you recommend that are as effective and user-friendly as VS?

This is not meant to be argumentative, im dealing with raw facts here.

I reject your premise that Voodoo Shield is a computer lock, and ill tell you why...

Im sure im not the only one who installs software regularly, factor in updates (flash, java etc), that counts as "installs". To have to disable it completely to install software is annoying. Ill also point out that since your product disables UAC by default, when you then have to disable vood Shield to install a program, your product actually leaves a PC in a less secure state. To me thats not a positive thing and the computer at this point isnt "locked" by anything, even UAC....so effectively by disabling Voodoo Shield to get around its annoyance and refusal to respect its own instructions, its debunking exactly what its targetted to do.

As for slowing down my PC, thats absolutely NOT false, im afraid. Im an It professional btw, having worked in large scale enviroments with thousands of users at a time, looking after 43 servers and on average about 4,500 desktops and ive been doing that since probably since before you were born. So ive been around, seen it all. the difference was noticeable in real world terms, im not quoting synthetic benchmarks or boring metrics here. I use my PC every day, i run the same apps every day, i connect to the same systems every day, hell i even open the same tabs in my browser, everyday, so no one is better placed to notice an impact on system performance after adding software than i am at that PC. Sorry to tell you there was a noticeable lag after installing it. thats the truth, you can accept it or not. but to claim outright that what i was saying was completely false is disingenous at best, and hopeful at worst. I would hope you would take it as the genuine feedback it was meant to be.

What do i recommend, im boring when it comes to Av security apps. I never use an AV with intergrated firewall, i use separate AV and separate firewall (currently Avast AV (sometimes Eset) and Comodo (for years)). I use group policy for software restrictions to avoid a lot of nasty crap. My pared down policies path rules are below.

Deny:

C:\Users\*\AppData\*.exe

C:\Users\*\AppData\*\*.exe

%AppData%\*.exe

%AppData%\*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\Temp\Rar*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\Temp\7z*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\Temp\wz*\*.exe

%LocalAppData%\Temp\*.zip\*.exe

Allow:

%LocalAppDate%\Temp\Foxit Reader Updater.exe

%LocalAppDate%\Temp\Foxit Updater.exe

%LocalAppDate%\Adobe\install_flash_player.exe

%LocalAppDate%\Adobe\gccheck.exe

%LocalAppDate%\Adobe\gtbcheck.exe

The only thing i ever need todo with the above is add an Allow rule for the odd updater or software installer (for an installer, i add it for the course of the install and then remove it). I would rather do the above manually whereas some people use things like Crypto Prevent to do a kind of similar thing as above, i say similar thing as Crypto Prevent uses "psuedo group policies" whatever the heck that means. Me id rathe ruse actual group policies as its not another level of api/code/possible bugs, and its built right into the OS.

If you look at a lot of my replies lately you'll see that ive been on a bit of a crusade to get people to stop installing a bit of 3rd party software to do what they can do within Windows already, you'll also notice me calling the "ill just install and app or bit of software to do that" brigade lazy. I blame the "ill just install an app for that" laziness creep firmly on the tablet people, and Apple in particular...they seem happy to tap on a screen like base model of evolution and put their brains in neutral.

As i often say in real life, "The tablet people shall inherit nothing" and quite more often "Society is doomed"

Im sure you can fix some of the annoyances i had like with the click to allow on the popup tray bubble being wholly ignored and blocking things like crazy, and the problems that make you have to disable it compeltely and then expose whatever software is running to an un-UAC'd system (which is a show stopped for me).

I wish you luck.

*apologies for any spelling mistakes in this or any posts on here, ive usually had a long day by the time i get around to getting on here :) I often dont have the patience to correct myself :)

I appreciate your feedback, it will help to make VS even more uer friendly. You said "Im sure you can fix some of the annoyances", and yeah, the whole goal of VS is to lock the user's computer while it is at risk, and to not be annoying if possible. VS is relatively new to the market, and we are doing our best to make it as secure and user friendly as possible.

I will not even discuss the whole UAC thing... but I will say that if UAC actually stopped malware and was not annoying, then there would not be a VS. Keep in mind, UAC is disabled on 91% of all computers because it is so annoying and ineffective. Not only that, but most users find VS to be MUCH less annoying than anything else.

That is extremely odd that you found that VS slowed your computer down... it typically does not do that. I would be curious to find out why.

Group policy is great, but not for non-enterprise users. So what do you recommend?

That is totally cool that you do not like VS, but I will say that most users absolutely love it... they actually use the word "love" when describing VS. When was the last time you saw anyone use the word love when describing their security software?

Lastly, can you please tell me briefly why VS is not a lock? Thank you!

I do hope you improve things.

UAC - If it is turned off as you say on 91% of PC's, then thsoe people are very silly, and i'll bet that at least 91% of all posts whining about virus infections on boards come from that 91%...

UAC was improved over the Vista implemntation. I have it turned on on all PC's i own/admin. I certainly wouldnt add a 3rd party utility (apart from testng, as in this case) to do a job where theres already an existing tool built right into windows...adding a 3rd party layer do a first layer job just never sits well with me.

I find the opposite to you with UAC, it serves as an obvious reminder to people that theyre about to do something that has implications to their PC, and they actually usually employ a few more brain cells. They are very aware that when the screen dims and that orange tinted box appears they need to focus. All the 3rd party tools ive seen which aim to repalce this use less attention grabbing methods, like tray ballooons and popups, and if theres one thing i can tell you after 30 years of IT, its that over time people become blaise about tray balloons and popups and learn to ignore them as an annoyance. This is why MS made UAC dim the screen and put up the orange box front and centre. Ask any It person and they will tell you that the number one reason the average newbie(particularly first time older PC owners) generally gets infected with a nasty is because they let their AV lapse...they go to a chain outklet, buy a PC, activate the 30 or 60 or 90 day trial of Norton expire and this is because they ignore the tray balloon popup as unimportant. so again, thats why UAC dims the screen, and you get the orange box. MS made the right choice given they were aware of the lack of attention at tray notifications. I have it turned firmly on on my own personal PC, and i know what im doing, but i even i appreicate a bit of (re) focussing when ive had a long day and might othrwise forget that what im doing might have implications im not ready for. Anyone who whines about UAC doesnt understand a) why its there or B) just how useful it is.

Software Rectriction GP - i use it on my own personal desktop, so its not limited to the enterprise, and it doesnt require 3rd party tools, and built right into windows. Not any harder than typing gpedit.msc into a cmd prompt and going into the correct section of the tree. Set up the Deny list once (which will block an astonishing amount of malware), and when needed ad an Allow rule. If you cant manage that simple task and are bone idle lazy, you really have no business owning a PC. If people werent so uninformed and lazy there would be 60% more forum sapce on messageboards around the world :) My other pet hate is Internet Explorer STILL not at least having "Delete temporary files on browser close" ticked by default, after all these years...that would stop a ton of malware.

As for you Lock question: It would only be a lock if it were installed the second after a clean install. as it stands most people are installing it on an existing installation which may already be compromised. UAC works from the time you install windows, right out of the box.....and if youre smart on of the first things you install after a clean install is a good AV. Putting on a 3rd party program on months or even years later, that disables UAC (existing first layer protection) as part of its install process, should seem problematic and illogical to more people than just me.

What I can tell you about UAC is that I have been removing viruses and malware for 16 years, and I cannot count the number of times that a client has called me into their office to remove malware. I sit down at the desk, and download cleanup tools, (Hitman Pro, Malwarebytes, etc), and UAC BLOCKS THE CLEANUP TOOLS!!!!! Think about how ironic that is ;).

UAC has definitely improved, but I just wish that they would continue to improve it. The thing about VS is that since it uses Deny by Default, it COMPLETELY ELIMINATES the main issue with UAC... and that is users click yes by default, especially novice users. Novice users have NO IDEA what to allow and what not to. Heck, sometimes I have to read what UAC is trying to allow and google it just to make sure. With VS, at least there is one extra step and a 55 blacklist engine scan to protect the user.

Think about it for a second... if UAC was not baked into Windows, how many people would install it? Pretty much no one, right? Well, for sure we know it would be 9% or less.

I would suggest that the number one reason that PC's get infected is because the detection rate for a newly created virus is less than 5% on average. And most infections are obviously the newer viruses. I mean, when was the last time you saw Bonzai Buddy ;). Remember him? ;)

BTW, VS really should not have blocked much at all while you were testing it. You can always uncheck the "Protect User Space in Smart Mode" option, and VS will essentially not block anything unless it is a virus. I am going to probably eliminate this option, and when VS is in Smart OFF mode, if a file is launched in the user space, the hash will be automatically uploaded for analysis, and if it is clean the file will run automatically. Man, it is going to be smooth.

I service thousands of computers from hundreds of clients, and I have NEVER seen Group Policy enabled. In the enterprise it is great, but for small to medium sized businesses and home computers, they simply do not use it, and never will.

On the lock... sorry, but I have to disagree. All you do is reset your snapshot once in a awhile and have your traditional antivirus cleanup any previous infections as time goes by and they are added to the blacklist... problem solved. See what I mean ;). And VS trains in the matter of minutes.

Honestly, I have heard the same 4-5 supposed "issues" with VS for 3.5 years, OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. And quiet simply, there is a simple explanation for each of them, but people just do not take the time to think it through. I always laugh when they bring up these 4-5 issues... I think to myself "did they really think that we did not take that into consideration?" I mean, we have thought about VS for 80 hours a week for 3.5 years.

Although, I still admit that there might be something that we have not thought of... we just do not know what it could be, but there HAS to be something, because I know I did not create the perfect computer lock.

So I eagerly await dcs18's demonstration, it will be cool to see what he figures out. Apparently he is having a little difficulty breaking VS though, it is taking him quite some time. We have a few haters from one of the malware sites, and I would guess they have tried to break it, but no one has yet... VS is a tough nut to crack. But someone will at some point. But either way, it is still MUCH more effective than clicking yes by default to UAC. If you had to guess... how many viruses or malware in the wild would break VS? I would say that number is extremely close to zero, if not, zero.

Besides, VS is not about the VoodooShield 2.0 PC Software... it is about putting a toggling desktop shield gadget / computer lock on every device. That is one reason why it does not bother me when people bring up the same 4-5 issues over and over again. But maybe I am going about the "putting the toggling desktop shield gadget / computer lock on every device" thing the hard way. If you can think of a quicker way that we can lock our computers when a web app is running (since the computer is most at risk at this point), then I am open to your suggestions. And besides, we are not supposed to install anything new with our security software running anyway, right?

Did you get a chance to read the PCMAG review? I loved the line "With apologies to Sir Arthur C. Clarke, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from…voodoo? Well, the technology in VoodooSoft's VoodooShield 2.0 ($19.99 per year) is so simple and effective, it might as well be some kind of magic."

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2c2817%2c2470799%2c00.asp

Thank you for your input, I appreciate it!

[VoodooShield]

Also, please keep in mind... the reason why I say we need to put a toggling desktop shield gadget on every device is simple...

1. Why would you ever want to block something while a web app is not running? It cracks me up to NO END when UAC blocks software that is already installed on the system when there is not a web browser, email client, etc running. It is an impossibility to get a virus in this scenario, assuming you are working with a clean computer of course. Please do some serious critical thinking on this before responding... it really is an impossibility. With of course the exception that someone downloads malware to their downloads folder or desktop and runs them manually, but that is what the Protect User Space is all about...

2. Why would you ever let new, non-whitelisted executable code run on your system when a web app is running?

That is why we need a toggling desktop shield gadget / computer lock on every device ;).

[Cyberboom]

I like the technique of VoodooShield :D

[VoodooShield]

Thank you, we appreciate that! I guess we will see in the demonstration if it is bulletproof as well soon ;). I already know it is HIGHLY effective. I have it running on several hundred computers in my home town, I am a local computer consultant, and since my clients have been running VS the last couple of years, they simply do not get viruses anymore.

[fredlaso]

It seems like the 1 year promo is still running:

https://voodooshield.com/freeoffer/

[VoodooShield]

Yes, thank you for mentioning that. The offer ends 11.11.14, the third anniversary of 11.11.11, the initial release date of the very first VS beta ;).

[VoodooShield]

dcs18, I will give you a hint. Attack the CPN, I believe that is VS's weakest spot, although I would have no idea how to bypass it, but there has to be a way. Believe me, I have tried everything to bypass it, not that I am a blackhat hacker. And I can only tell you this because we are moving the the kernel mode driver very soon. We started with the CPN to avoid blues screens... you know, until we got the rest of the code absolutely correct. And the conversion to the KMD should be quick and painless since the code is extremely similar.

[dcs18]

Well, I am no hacker, in my eyes your most serious vulnerability is the one you yourself mentioned at post # 8.

Every new security program unfortunately, seems to suffer this deficiency (post # 12) - they are able to be terminated. Some Developers pay heed to it - most don't.

NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro was the most popular Anti Executable diligently promoted, by Ponting which has since been discarded by most of us only due to the inordinate delay in implementation of this most essential capability.

ATM, Process Lasso Pro - is the preferred Anti Executable of many members, out here. However, we would not hesitate to employ VoodooShield™ - if it can be made impervious to termination.

[clubhouse]

Well, I am no hacker, in my eyes your most serious vulnerability is the one you yourself mentioned at post # 8.

Every new security program unfortunately, seems to suffer this deficiency (post # 12) - they are able to be terminated. Some Developers pay heed to it - most don't.

NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro was the most popular Anti Executable diligently promoted, by Ponting which has since been discarded by most of us only due to the inordinate delay in implementation of this most essential capability.

ATM, Process Lasso Pro - is the preferred Anti Executable of many members, out here. However, we would not hesitate to employ VoodooShield™ - if it can be made impervious to termination.

The "we" word again :D :D

[VoodooShield]

Well, I am no hacker, in my eyes your most serious vulnerability is the one you yourself mentioned at post # 8.

Every new security program unfortunately, seems to suffer this deficiency (post # 12) - they are able to be terminated. Some Developers pay heed to it - most don't.

NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro was the most popular Anti Executable diligently promoted, by Ponting which has since been discarded by most of us only due to the inordinate delay in implementation of this most essential capability.

ATM, Process Lasso Pro - is the preferred Anti Executable of many members, out here. However, we would not hesitate to employ VoodooShield™ - if it can be made impervious to termination.

Fair enough... All in due time ;). We have a lot of features and refinements that we are working on. If I could wave my magic wand in and have VS absolutely perfect and contain every single feature that is on our to do list, by all means, I would. But this stuff really does take time. And in all fairness, I realize that a user can terminate VS, but I do not see how a process can. If you can bypass the CPN, then yes, but I believe that would be the only hope of ever killing VS with another process / malware. Thank you for taking the time to try to break VS, we appreciate it.

BTW, there is the latest review from pcmag if you are interested: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2c2817%2c2470799%2c00.asp

[VoodooShield]

Well, I am no hacker, in my eyes your most serious vulnerability is the one you yourself mentioned at post # 8.

Every new security program unfortunately, seems to suffer this deficiency (post # 12) - they are able to be terminated. Some Developers pay heed to it - most don't.

NoVirusThanks EXE Radar Pro was the most popular Anti Executable diligently promoted, by Ponting which has since been discarded by most of us only due to the inordinate delay in implementation of this most essential capability.

ATM, Process Lasso Pro - is the preferred Anti Executable of many members, out here. However, we would not hesitate to employ VoodooShield™ - if it can be made impervious to termination.

The "we" word again :D :D

;)

[dcs18]

Fair enough... All in due time ;). We have a lot of features and refinements that we are working on. If I could wave my magic wand in and have VS absolutely perfect and contain every single feature that is on our to do list, by all means, I would. But this stuff really does take time.

Glad to hear - we shall be monitoring your progress and look forward to a worthy replacement to Process Lasso Pro.

If you can bypass the CPN, then yes, but I believe that would be the only hope of ever killing VS with another process / malware.

The human element is the most dangerous malware.

BTW, there is the latest review from pcmag if you are interested: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2c2817%2c2470799%2c00.asp

In his review, Neil J. Rubenking did not even realize that he would be able to terminate VoodooShield (he never even made an attempt - maybe he is blissfully unaware that he is supposed to.)

Thanks for the link, though.

[clubhouse]

Very impressed so far....We ;) will continue to watch the informative and mature posts at Wilders :)

Congrats on the positive pcmag review.

[VoodooShield]

Fair enough... All in due time ;). We have a lot of features and refinements that we are working on. If I could wave my magic wand in and have VS absolutely perfect and contain every single feature that is on our to do list, by all means, I would. But this stuff really does take time.

Glad to hear - we shall be monitoring your progress and look forward to a worthy replacement to Process Lasso Pro.

We are not trying to replace Process Lasso Pro... it is not a toggling desktop shield gadget / computer lock. PLP is a great program, but you are comparing an apple to an orange.

If you can bypass the CPN, then yes, but I believe that would be the only hope of ever killing VS with another process / malware.

The human element is the most dangerous malware.

Exactly, and VS resolves this. Completely. Some of my clients who run VS are extreme novices with computers, yet they perfectly understand and know how to use a simple, toggling computer lock.

BTW, there is the latest review from pcmag if you are interested: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0%2c2817%2c2470799%2c00.asp

In his review, Neil J. Rubenking did not even realize that he would be able to terminate VoodooShield (he never even made an attempt - maybe he is blissfully unaware that he is supposed to.)

Thanks for the link, though.

I am certain that Neil realized that VS's self protection is inherent in the CPN. I would think that you would have realized this while you unsuccessfully tried to break VS. Besides, at some point we might add another self protection mechanism, and VS has gone through extensive beta testing, but we want to be 100% certain that all of the bugs are worked out before we make it so users cannot kill VS if something goes wrong. Neil has been a security reviewer probably since you were in diapers, and he evaluates security software day in and day out. Can you please recommend a more experienced security software reviewer? We will see what they say about VS.

I am assuming that we will not be seeing a demonstration of you breaking VS any time soon? If you find a way to break VS, please email us, you can contact us through our website. Thank you!

[VoodooShield]

Very impressed so far....We ;) will continue to watch the informative and mature posts at Wilders :)

Congrats on the positive pcmag review.

Thank you, we appreciate that!

[dcs18]

I am certain that Neil realized that VS's self protection is inherent in the CPN. Neil has been a security reviewer probably since you were in diapers, and he evaluates security software day in and day out. Can you please recommend a more experienced security software reviewer?

Well, Neil must certainly have been a successful security Reviewer ever since I was in diapers.

However, it is also abundantly evident from his successful review that he is still in diapers.

I am assuming that we will not be seeing a demonstration of you breaking VS any time soon? If you find a way to break VS, please email us, you can contact us through our website. Thank you!

I continue to wait patiently for your TeamViewer ID to demonstrate on your system - you are a Hacker . . . . . . . . . aren't you?

Besides, at some point we might add another self protection mechanism,

Looking forward to that happening, soon - until such time of denial, VoodooShield can continue to depend on voodoo for all the protection.

[VoodooShield]

I am certain that Neil realized that VS's self protection is inherent in the CPN. Neil has been a security reviewer probably since you were in diapers, and he evaluates security software day in and day out. Can you please recommend a more experienced security software reviewer?

Well, Neil must certainly have been a successful security Reviewer ever since I was in diapers.

However, it is also abundantly evident from his successful review that he is still in diapers.

I am assuming that we will not be seeing a demonstration of you breaking VS any time soon? If you find a way to break VS, please email us, you can contact us through our website. Thank you!

I continue to wait patiently for your TeamViewer ID to demonstrate on your system - you are a Hacker . . . . . . . . . aren't you?

Besides, at some point we might add another self protection mechanism,

Looking forward to that happening, soon - until such time of denial, VoodooShield can continue to depend on voodoo for all the protection.

Honestly, if you know of a better, more experienced reviewer, we would LOVE to have VS reviewed by them. I just do not know of that many reviewers, so please let me know.

All you have to do is post a file of any kind or a link to a sample website that contains a driveby that can bypass VS. I am assuming that your demonstration would bypass UAC as well, right? ;). Why is it that everyone compares VS to UAC, but does not hold it to the same standards when it is not inconvenient for their argument?

[dcs18]

I am assuming that your demonstration would bypass UAC as well, right? ;). Why is it that everyone compares VS to UAC, but does not hold it to the same standards when it is not inconvenient for their argument?

I am 100% in agreement with you, on UAC - have personally disabled that unintelligible and noisy POS from hundreds of systems (maybe a thousand.)

Tell you what - I am gonna get back to you about VoodooShield. It will take me a night's sleep to be rid of all my own bias - please don't quote any of my posts (till I get back to you.)

Remember, I have ulterior motives in wanting to see VoodooShield shine - I am actively on the hunt for the best Anti-Executable.

[VoodooShield]

Does Voodooshield interfere with Windows Recovery? Every security software with real time protection I've used has blocked attempts to restore my PC. It didn't matter if I made exceptions to allow this process, It would show an error message that restoration couldn't complete.

Hi Joe13, thank you for mentioning that, it seems to be working great, even with VS ON. Although, whenever someone is doing system maintenance, it is best to exit out of VS since it is a computer lock.

[VoodooShield]

I am assuming that your demonstration would bypass UAC as well, right? ;). Why is it that everyone compares VS to UAC, but does not hold it to the same standards when it is not inconvenient for their argument?

I am 100% in agreement with you, on UAC - have personally disabled that unintelligible and noisy POS from hundreds of systems (maybe a thousand.)

Tell you what - I am gonna get back to you about VoodooShield. It will take me a night's sleep to be rid of all my own bias - please don't quote any of my posts (till I get back to you.)

Remember, I have ulterior motives in wanting to see VoodooShield shine - I am actively on the hunt for the best Anti-Executable.

Very cool, I agree, we need to find a better alternative to UAC, or hope that MS develops it a little more. Until then, I am going to do what I can to make VS the most user-friendly and best "computer lock" (as I call it) I possibly can.

[dcs18]

Download link: http://voodooshield.com/download/versions/Install%20VoodooShield.2.11.exe

This link appears to point to the 2.11 - I am assuming that 2.12 is the latest (or, is there anything later than that - even a beta is fine, by me?)

[Ponting]

This link appears to point to the 2.11 - I am assuming that 2.12 is the latest (or, is there anything later than that - even a beta is fine, by me?)

AFAIK,2.12 is the latest build version of VS :)

http://voodooshield.com/download/versions/Install%20VoodooShield.2.12.exe

[dcs18]

@ VS

Just seem to have run into some premature issue/s.

I downloaded and installed the 2.12 from the download link available at the Giveaway site - during installation, the installer did not detect that my UAC was already disabled and I chose No.

Towards the end of the installation, the installer made a server call which was disallowed.

System was allowed to restart, as prompted - post reboot, VoodooShield did not show-up anywhere on the System Tray Notification Area. However, noticed a server call being initiated by VoodooShield.exe (this time,) which was disallowed.

Was relieved to find it on my Start Menu - however, it fails to open the VoodooShield GUI (same problem happens through the Desktop shortcut, too.)

Task Manager shows VoodooShield is running and certainly doing something - but, just not showing itself.

Have by now, clean installed VoodooShield using various permutations & combinations (allowing all levels of permissions and access - including firewall.) Have even tried disabling all other security programs during these clean re-installs (not much to disable, anyways.)

Windows 8.1 Update 2, Pro with the latest Windows Update.

[VoodooShield]

@ VS

Just seem to have run into some premature issue/s.

I downloaded and installed the 2.12 from the download link available at the Giveaway site - during installation, the installer did not detect that my UAC was already disabled and I chose No.

Towards the end of the installation, the installer made a server call which was disallowed.

System was allowed to restart, as prompted - post reboot, VoodooShield did not show-up anywhere on the System Tray Notification Area. However, noticed a server call being initiated by VoodooShield.exe (this time,) which was disallowed.

Was relieved to find it on my Start Menu - however, it fails to open the VoodooShield GUI (same problem happens through the Desktop shortcut, too.)

Task Manager shows VoodooShield is running and certainly doing something - but, just not showing itself.

Have by now, clean installed VoodooShield using various permutations & combinations (allowing all levels of permissions and access - including firewall.) Have even tried disabling all other security programs during these clean re-installs (not much to disable, anyways.)

Windows 8.1 Update 2, Pro with the latest Windows Update.

Yes, there are some fake sites offering fake versions of VS, and they do not actually install VS. The first clue is for me was when you said that our installer did not detect UAC, well, and that basically nothing worked. Please email me the link to the giveaway site you downloaded "VS" from, you can reach me at [email protected]. I found a fake one the other day, and it did the same thing. The fake installer was about .899 mb or something (and it was flagged as a threat by VS), whereas the real installer is 3.06 mb.

See why we need VS ;).