The unofficial Shadow Defender Support Thread.

Yes, if Tony comes up with a SSD-compatible version, it will give me the excuse to upgrade to 16GB RAM. Right now, the 8GB i have is overkill, but Tony can help me justify the upgrade.

Come on Tony, Corsair and me love you!

 

As long as you reboot, then poof, it's gone...

 

No wait, we all know about the shadow session being deleted upon rebooting the machine. The point I was debating is that RAM memory disappears after 5 minutes once you turn off a computer, without leaving any trace, meaning that if one analyses the disk drive with special tools to recover deleted data, with RAM memory nothing will be there to recover.

Proof is that Cyber police often freeze (literally) memory modules taken from suspected cyber criminals as it is apparently the only way of stopping RAM memory from losing data. Obviously I think that Tony or whoever coded the change wanted simply to speed up SD operations.

 

Ok I installed SD on the main machine,worked well for some time in shadow mode,no BSOD's on SSD,but strangely when i exited shadow mode to add a few exceptions to folders,it reset outpost firewall pro (settings went to rules wizard) and also deleted my authenication for internet on pppoe.

I had ram cache enabled and scheduled to enter shadow mode on boot.

 

As I indicated in my prior post that just doesn't matter. When I was using SD 1.1.0.325 (i.e., no RAM buffer) I had rebooted my PC forgetting to commit a file that I copied to my C-partition so I tried using forensic tools to see if I could recover it, but I couldn't find a trace of my prior Shadow Mode session!

TS

 

As I indicated in my prior post that just doesn't matter. When I was still using SD 1.1.0.325 (no RAM cache) I had rebooted my PC, forgetting to commit a file that I had copied to my C-partition while it was protected in Shadow Mode, so I tried using forensic tools to see if I could recover it, but couldn't find any trace of my prior Shadow Mode session!

TS

 

Hi Osaban

What you say is true, here are some [IMO] good reading in this old link I kept about Security! Data Remanence, i.e. Cold Boot Attack and Side Channel Attack, etc.

Take Care
TheQuest

 

I think a lot of people are evading the real issue here (intentionally, or otherwise). I don't think anyone here cares about Tony's private life... or what he's been doing all this time, who he's been dating, etc... The issue is that they are not sold on the notion that the person running the operation now, pushing out these updates, etc... IS Tony.

And given the state of their site, how it was taken over by spammers, and evading questions in emails from people trying to ascertain whether it's really him... I feel that people are justified in being apprehensive about trusting any new versions being pushed out. Especially ones that hook themselves into your memory.

And especially when the one they're using right now is functioning perfectly fine (.325)

 

The Shadow, what I reported is the theory. A reboot lasts a couple of minutes, in order to erase (not delete) a few GBs of stuff it takes some time, certainly more than 2 minutes + boot time. I also heard that real forensic tools are very expensive and with some of them one needs to have a license which is not freely available to the public.

As Windows cannot see the shadow volume it could be located anywhere on your hard disk (my guess). There was a member who used to erase all empty disk space during the night for this very reason. He doesn't post anymore, but I remember that already then (about 5 years ago) he was suggesting that having the shadow session in RAM would make life a lot easier.

Now as far as I'm concerned, whatever happens to the shadow session, I prefer to have it in RAM memory than somewhere else on disk, IMO a great improvement over version 325.

 

Luciddream, I honestly replied to n8chavez as a way to put to rest an issue that has become almost an obsession on this thread. Everyone is free to believe whatever, I have never said people should upgrade to the new version or should trust the new Tony.

I really think people should follow their own instincts and judgments on the matter. I'd like to point out though, nobody thus far has been ripped off, and even with this in mind, I can understand why some people still feel suspicious about the whole thing.

Version .325 remains excellent particularly for machines with low RAM if the new version will prove itself a worthy successor. I'm confident...

 

Thank you for confirming my post. I've actually read about it within the context of investigations over computers owned by pedophiles. They have caught suspects using this method of cooling the memory modules.

 

Shadow Defender is still a great software, with 1.1.0.325 it's solid, stress tested in many ways and well used with a committed following and the new Shadow Defender 1.2.0.346 looks promising...but... personally I'm not entirely happy with the way things have gone/are going.
Something is sadly lacking! particularly proactive input from the developer, him being missing and leaving the users without support for an extended period of time and an overall "vagueness", and no apology, explanation or even a tiny clue as to what has happened over the last years.
I've tried to be supportive and take a positive stance but it takes "two to tango" in this game
I believe that it is important to know the developer (as best as we can do online) and have consistancy of contact.
As I've said in the past, security is much more than the software itself. It helps us as potential "co-operatives" in the development. I believe that usership input is very importnant. Members/users like having a have a sense of ownership and loyalty to the product and rightly so with their massive input. Those loyalties are there (even now) but are not being recognised.
If you are just casually playing around and not reliant on the software it doesn't really matter much if you are left high and dry, up the creek without a paddle and maybe you are not all that bothered by things like proactive, quality, bi-lateral communication, consistancy of developer behaviour, support or lack of statements of intention or commitment?
This is perfectly fine if a software is at a fully mature stage, completely developed, "on the shelf" and confirmed by usage to work and is now static with a long gone developer.
This though is not the case with this software.
As far as we can ascertain Shadow Defender is ongoing in it's development but I believe users might expect a greater care and respect than they have been getting.
I think that it's extremely important for the credibility of the software and developer that Tony lays his cards on the table. I know that some members are fed up and want to put the whole "Where's Tony?" saga to rest but that is not universally the case.
I've thought a lot about this and I really don't believe now that it is all that difficult to make a simple statement, whatever your first language, just an explanation showing some intention and commitmment from the developer would go a long way to healing all wounds and get us back onto the right track.
The benefits from a good user/developer relationship are enormous (see Ronen Tzur Sandboxie)



As you all know I emailed Tony recently with members/users questions

I have not, as yet, received a reply to that email.

It seems that when I ask a direct question about the situation I receive no reply but if I ask a "utilitarian" question regarding the software itself I may occasionaly receive a reply.

A member recently posted to the forum stating that he was friend of Tony and that after a personal email exchange he could confirm that it was the original Tony and that he was back.
I sent a pm to that member as follows but as yet have received no reply.

"That's good
I thought that it was Tony, not because I am a personal friend (I was just the global moderator on the Shadow Defender forum) but mainly from the "feel" of the emails and the way he signed of as "Best regards Tony"
Unfortunately I have not had a reply to my recent email on behalf of the members, which is quite frustrating.
On Tony's return after his long absence and communication lapse, I contacted him and the way he replied "felt" like him and I said so on the forum but members had their doubts and asked me to ask questions.
I did not get a reply after the first few emails and Tony didn't really give me anything that I could pass on to the members/users apart from saying that SD would be ok with Win 8 and ssd in the next version.
I did not receive a reply to the next ten emails that I sent.
Then the new version was released and I sent an email of congratulation and received a polite but short reply, which again "felt" like him and was signed off in the usual manner.
I told the members this.
Members still voiced concerns so I sent the email that I posted on the forum "verbatim" but have not yet received a reply.
What I would like to ask you is, what do you think is happening? I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall.
Tony was always polite in emails to me and we had a few personal exchanges eg me sending photos of my home town and photos of my country and in return I received personal and positive replies.
I really would like to know what this is all about.
I am pleased that Tony is back and that Shadow Defender is still being developed but I find the situation personally very frustrating. I really need to know what is going on even if that is not for the public to see.
I would like to know why Tony hasn't really acknowledged the time he was missing or any effect that had on anyone else (members, users, mods).When Tony was missing I was up nightly for hours trying to control spam and child porn and threats on the forum, (probably thousands of posts and malicious links) until the forum software broke and then it was unusable to me.
It seems strange that he has never mentioned it (even if he'd tried to explain I'd be happy)
If you could (without breaking friendship) let me know what you think about this any type of explanation would be good for me but "personal reasons" isn't really enough.
In all my communications with Tony and members I've tried to be discrete and with Tony, non-unaccusing, supportive and non interrogatory.
I hope that you understand my feelings.

best wishes

Patrick sdmod
ex Shadow Defender Forum Global Moderator"

So to sum up, I am quite frustrated and disappointed in some ways
Yes it's great that the Shadow Defender is going forward and it is a fantastic program for which Tony should be congratulated (and I do tend to think that this is the original Tony) but with better open communication could be so much more.

Patrick sdmod
ex Shadow Defender Forum Global Moderator

 

That wasn't really the point of the question. If SD writes to disk then the data is still recoverable by forensic analysis. If SD writes to RAM it is not.

 

Is it allowed to install on multiple pc's within the same household with the same license?

 

Worked for me.

 

I guess that, that will work indeed. But license/eula wise I can't find anything on the site or in the 'License Agreement' when running the setup.
(maybe I missed that part somewhere?)

I mailed SD but it seems that asking here can get you answers a bit faster.

edit: got mail, stated that one license is only for one machine.

 

I contacted Tony on the 9th of October and among other things I also suggested to him the utilization of RAM for the virtual system - with the user choosing the desired amount of RAM to use for this. I also suggested for the program to automatically switch into a HDD/SSD buffer when this RAM cache is full. Tony replied within a couple of days saying that he liked the ideas. He promised to look into them, and now they are added!

I'm very pleased that Tony has managed to pull this off. I had suggested the same thing to James from the Toolwiz team back in the beginning of the year, but so far the Toolwiz team hasn't managed to implement a RAM buffer into Time Freeze. Kudos to Tony for coding this feature so quickly after my original suggestion!

 

Hi Camelia, if I were you I wouldn't use any versions older than 325. You might as well try the latest official one.

 

Personally I would keep an eye on SD's RAM buffer utilization and always reboot rejecting all changes before the buffer fills up and switches to HDD mode. This would be the safest usage for me, leaving no traces on the disk itself. I have no pagefile anyway (I have 32GB of RAM) and don't care about crash dumps (I disabled those as well).

 

When I suggested the RAM option to Tony my main reasons was the speed of the virtual system itself running from RAM, and also saving my SSD from a lot of hits. But of course an added bonus is the data security that comes from keeping changes in RAM. I had also suggested to Tony to allow the user to choose which disk to use for the buffer after the RAM buffer is full. He liked this idea too but it seems that he has opted not to add it to the program yet.

As I mentioned on my previous post: I would keep an eye on RAM buffer usage and reboot before it is full, rather than give the chance to SD to completely fill its RAM buffer and switch to disk.

 

I'm with you on this Patrick as you already know from my older posts on this thread. Tony has an obligation to supply an explanation to his CUSTOMERS, the people who have kept the legacy of his program alive for 2.5 years now despite his continued unexplained absence.

This is not some freeware app that we just download and use gratis. People have bought this and as customers they deserve at the very least some degree of transparency. Tony has responded promptly to my e-mails back in October and has managed to implement my RAM utilization suggestion into the latest version of the program. He DOES listen when he wants to, I just cannot understand why he so selective answering some things and then ignoring others.

I am currently writing an LV and IRS technology introduction article for a very well-known website and I want to include SD in the finished article. I have written to Tony today regarding this, it will be interesting to see if he responds.

 

Hi Everyone

1) SD is a fine application, acknowledged by most if not everyone.

2) It has VERY loyal supporters (Because it is a fine application)

3) Yet, the programs author treats his customers in a shockingly bad way.

a) He replies when it suits him, that is when there is possible development or advancement for his program, when however, his customers ask for an explanation for his extraordinary behaviour there is SILENCE!

4) I am stating no more than has been said many times in previous posts, yet there are plenty of those who apologies for him, because he does not speak our language well, because he is Chinese, because he may have been persecuted, yet he still takes his customers hard earned money.

Wilders is truly a benificent forum for such treatment to be excused so consistently over such a long period. Where is our pride?

Terry

 

Yes, I agree CyberMan969, some of the earlier versions had bugs that were laregely ironed out by 1.1.0.325. I've tried the latest version Shadow Defender 1.2.0.346 and as of yet found no problems.
Could you give some guide examples of the setting for the ramcache in Shadow Defender 1.2.0.346 ?

1gb ram=
2gb ram= etc

and thanks for your supportive comments
same to TerryWood

 

Patrick, it's not that easy. I'm sure it depends on how many volumes are being placed into Shadow Mode as well as the size of those volumes.

Cruise

 

Thanks Cruise...yes I didn't think of that...I can be really dumb at times