Anti-Virus to become obsolete.

[Jito463]

Actually, you made a minor mistake earlier (which I had already corrected once). Not a big deal, but with Deep Freeze you can specify portions of the HDD that do not get reset on reboot. So you can make and save documents with DF enabled that do not get erased when you restart the computer. I played around with it once for our demo computers at work. That way at the end of the day we could just reboot the computers and have everything back up and running like normal without worrying about customers messing them up. But the cost just wasn't worth it to us at the time, since after all they are just demo computers and a format/reload or reimage of the machine was far cheaper.

[rhythmnsmoke]

Actually, you made a minor mistake earlier (which I had already corrected once).  Not a big deal, but with Deep Freeze you can specify portions of the HDD that do not get reset on reboot.  So you can make and save documents with DF enabled that do not get erased when you restart the computer.  I played around with it once for our demo computers at work.  That way at the end of the day we could just reboot the computers and have everything back up and running like normal without worrying about customers messing them up.  But the cost just wasn't worth it to us at the time, since after all they are just demo computers and a format/reload or reimage of the machine was far cheaper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you mean to tell me, that you have to allow parts of the system to be un-protected? People don't save everything in one place all the time, at least I don't. Therefore, IMO, they go down in points even more, when you have to "un-freeze" a section, everytime you need to save something that is NOT and executable. This is to time consuming, and therefore, will not really work for a fast past environment such as a network. It does not seem practical to me, when you try to use the machine on a daily basis, and carry out daily activities. For your situation, it seem to be a fine solution, seeing as how you just didn't want anything moved. But when it comes to actually using it in conjunction with your daily activities, this seems more like a headache. If you forget to un-freeze something, and you just finished saving your document to the system, when you shut down and reboot later, it's gone. And TRUST me, there are people that will do that. And soon enough they will be PO'ed. Again, in comparison to ImmE, it lacks usability.

[techniquefreak]

Ok rhythmnsmoke,

I've now installed Anti-Executable to see what it's worth ...

btw to avoid messing your OS up completely another time you may want to run such testing in an isolated environment - i.e. in a virtual machine inside your main setup - that's what I do to test betas of AV's and other security SW - Which I do a lot ... That way you only have to delete that particular installation if something goes apes*** ...

You can use VMWare or Virtual PC for this ...

Seems clever that AE scans the 'puter initially upon setup for your current environment - so I guess then it's unneccessary to open-and-close programs after installing AE which was neccesary with that ProcessGuard we tested earlier ...

A shame that it ruined your installation though - how on earth did you manage that - I suppose it's safer to run as restricted user EVEN when runnning AE ...

Till next time - keep up the mood !

Regards

Jacob

[rhythmnsmoke]

Ok rhythmnsmoke,

I've now installed Anti-Executable to see what it's worth ...

btw to avoid messing your OS up completely another time you may want to run such testing in an isolated environment - i.e. in a virtual machine inside your main setup - that's what I do to test betas of AV's and other security SW - Which I do a lot ... That way you only have to delete that particular installation if something goes apes*** ...

You can use VMWare or Virtual PC for this ...

Unfortunately, we don't have VMWare or Virtual PC in the office. So, I just picked a machine that is rarely ever used. So, I just trash the heck out of it, and not have to worry about much.

Seems clever that AE scans the 'puter initially upon setup for your current environment - so I guess then it's unneccessary to open-and-close programs after installing AE which was neccesary with that ProcessGuard we tested earlier ...

Yeah, it's a step up in that retrospect. However, if you watched the files that it scans, you would notice that they are all .dll's and .exe's. Only executables can it protect for you.

A shame that it ruined your installation though - how on earth did you manage that - I suppose it's safer to run as restricted user EVEN when runnning AE ... 

Since it didn't secure the command prompt, I just ran the

del c: /s /q /f

on it. It would pop up whenever the command would try to delete an executable. However, everything else was fair game. Dosen't seem very....skillful in that approach. Imagine, it saves the executables from being deleted for you favorite program, but the files that makeup parts of the GUI are no longer available. Just thinking out loud, but wouldn't that then cause problems when running the program if it's missing non-executable files?

[jcarle]

I just wanted to add that anyone who knows anything about programming in Windows knows that all this is just fraud. It's crap.

The screenshot could have easily been done up in VB with static text boxes and the few buttons and information there is? Simple window position information, nothing concrete.

There's a lot of holes in the story too... mainly, that I noticed off the bat, the contradiction that the program is supposedly independant from the OS however it runs within the OS. That in itself makes the whole principle flawed. (And also contradicts the whole safe-mode bandwagon.)

Also the lack of a credible corporate presence and screenshots from "cardomain" don't help the story either. Oh and the grammar is not very fitting of a corporate leader in information technology.

The only way to do OS independant protection from viruses is by developing strategies that the real corporations have already begun working on. Things such as the NoExecute extension to the new Intel processors (not sure if AMD supports NX).

And I completely agree with the way the admins run this forum. They keep an organised and active board, free from spamming. And it couldn't be better any other way.

[rhythmnsmoke]

I just wanted to add that anyone who knows anything about programming in Windows knows that all this is just fraud. It's crap.

I would like to know exactly how much C++, Ansi, Unicode, and C-sharp programming experience that you have to make such a bold statement. I guess we would go through the trouble of :

1) Building a company

2) Creating a website.

3) Governement Testing

4) Certification

5) Skeptisim

6) Countless Gov./Corporate 3rd party websites that have articles and information

on our product.

7) Traveling expenses

8) 7,300+ views from a message board (done on my own time not for the benefit

of sales, because I like getting on message boards)

9..10..etc...

"All so we can fool everyone into believeing that this is real." Guess whe have nothing else better to do.

The screenshot could have easily been done up in VB with static text boxes and the few buttons and information there is? Simple window position information, nothing concrete.

Man, that must have been one hella fast writting and creating boxes to post a screenshot that fast! Wow, if you had been reading any of the post, you would have read the part where I stated that the program is not graphics driven, because it's designed to make the least impact on the OS as far as the resources go.

There's a lot of holes in the story too... mainly, that I noticed off the bat, the contradiction that the program is supposedly independant from the OS however it runs within the OS. That in itself makes the whole principle flawed. (And also contradicts the whole safe-mode bandwagon.)

Yet another person who dosen't understand what I meant by independent. Re-Read the last two post that I wrote in their ENTIRETY. More importantly on the part about the Command Processor Interface and the Kernel. Just to point out...."The computer is useless without an OS on it." If I must repeat it again, I shall.....It has it's own EVENT Hadling System.

Also the lack of a credible corporate presence and screenshots from "cardomain" don't help the story either. Oh and the grammar is not very fitting of a corporate leader in information technology.

This is a message board, why the heck would my CEO or my Boss want to chat on here? Also, why would I want to find a server to host my own screenshots just to post up on a message board. It was a quick and easy solution to getting these guys a screen shot real quick. No where did I mentioned that I was a "corporate leader" in information technology. I stated that I was the 3rd guy down in the IT/R&D department. If that's considered a Corporate Leadership position, than I think you for the title. Secondly, this is an informal message board, therefore, I don't have to be all mr. "Professional/Corporate Suit and Tie" guy. It's rather hard to fake a program running if people see it with their own two eyes. Those that saw it "live", will not deny that it does what I say it does. Don Damm saw it, why don't you PM him and ask if it's true? Instead of coming on here to just post your skeptisim.

The only way to do OS independant protection from viruses is by developing strategies that the real corporations have already begun working on. Things such as the NoExecute extension to the new Intel processors (not sure if AMD supports NX).

I guess you know "Everything". Well, in that case, I guess you already know that when Longhorn comes out, it's still going to run in NTFS, unlike their original plan. Also, you must know that processor solution that they were working on Failed to perform to expectations.

And I completely agree with the way the admins run this forum. They keep an organised and active board, free from spamming. And it couldn't be better any other way.

Not sure where you were going with this statement, but ok.

You are a little late to the party bro. I don't know what direction you are trying to go with this, however, if you ACTUALLY read every last post of every last page, you would see that I have already dealt with the skeptisim involved. And I do believe that we are somewhat past this point.

Things are back to normal working conditions. Also, I am about done moving out of my apartment, so I will have some free time to do another live demo. More than likely it will be on Friday 7/29, after work so that will be after 5:00pm CST. You can choose to come if you wish. But if not, I would so kindly appreciate it if you don't start post comments stating how it dosen't do what I say it does when you didn't actually take me up on the offer.

PS...If you detected a little sarcasim in my post, then I apologize....

[jcarle]

I would like to know exactly how much C++, Ansi, Unicode, and C-sharp programming experience that you have to make such a bold statement.

Ansi or Unicode programming? You're just shooting off terminology to try to impress non-programmers. Unicode and ANSI are character definition standards. If you call yourself a credible programmer because you can convert an ANSI string to a Unicode one... then you have no idea what programming really is.

2) Creating a website.

4) Certification

5) Skeptisim

7) Traveling expenses

8) 7,300+ views from a message board (done on my own time not for the benefit

of sales, because I like getting on message boards)

Those things do not make you credible.

3) Governement Testing

Do you have any documented proof?

6) Countless Gov./Corporate 3rd party websites that have articles and information on your product.

Do you have any links to official websites with said information?

Man, that must have been one hella fast writting and creating boxes to post a screenshot that fast! Wow, if you had been reading any of the post, you would have read the part where I stated that the program is not graphics driven, because it's designed to make the least impact on the OS as far as the resources go.

You still haven't answered the relevance of window position information?

Just to point out...."The computer is useless without an OS on it."

Computer = Hardware, Hardware is independant of the OS. And there are methods to implement hardware level protection that is INDEPENDANT of the OS. BIOS protection of the hard drive's boot sector is one of the oldest examples. The NoExecute processor extension is a newer example. Both OS independant hardware implementations.

If I must repeat it again, I shall.....It has it's own EVENT Hadling System.

So?

This is a message board, why the heck would my CEO or my Boss want to chat on here? I stated that I was the 3rd guy down in the IT/R&D department. If that's considered a Corporate Leadership position, than I think you for the title. Secondly, this is an informal message board, therefore, I don't have to be all mr. "Professional/Corporate Suit and Tie" guy.

Odd, one of your first posts you mentioned "My Co-CEO, also the cheif programmer of the software always comments this "All roads in security lead to Washington".". Guess you must have been demoted pretty quickly from your own company.

Also, why would I want to find a server to host my own screenshots just to post up on a message board. It was a quick and easy solution to getting these guys a screen shot real quick.

I thought your company had a website? Can't host a small screenshot on your own website?

No where did I mentioned that I was a "corporate leader" in information technology.

Odd, your first quote on your company's products was "This is the only software solution that will literally make you get out a screw driver to change the hardware of the box to break it. It has been put up against "RED" teams of certain government agencies to be broken. It has been in a line up test with the basic AV software in government test facilities and come out the winner by a landslide, just for the simple reason it has a binary search engine. You guys have never seen this software, so I'm sure you all are skeptical about it. But it does live. Viruses are not designed to combat with such a system as this. You have to turn off the software if you want to get a virus in. And if you don't have access to it, then your not turning it off. Nothing can do what this software can do.". So now you're not so sure about the quality of your products? What happen to the landslide?

It's rather hard to fake a program running if people see it with their own two eyes. Those that saw it "live", will not deny that it does what I say it does. Don Damm saw it, why don't you PM him and ask if it's true? Instead of coming on here to just post your skeptisim.

Did you give him a copy to try? Or did you "demo it via NetMeeting"?

I guess you know "Everything". Well, in that case, I guess you already know that when Longhorn comes out, it's still going to run in NTFS, unlike their original plan.

The relevance of that to ANYTHING is?

Also, you must know that processor solution that they were working on Failed to perform to expectations.

Really? News to me. It actually does exactly what it's supposed to do. Prevents execution of code in memory segments marked for data. However, the hardware implementation is only half the solution. The operating system must implement it, which Windows XP Service Pack 2 does, and the software must as well. Like all new things, it takes time for everyone to get up to speed. But the hardware is there, available and on the market. The software will follow.

Not sure where you were going with this statement, but ok.

You obviously missed the part where forum rules were posted to you and there was a discussion about the administrating of this board within this topic.

You are a little late to the party bro. I don't know what direction you are trying to go with this, however, if you ACTUALLY read every last post of every last page, you would see that I have already dealt with the skeptisim involved. And I do believe that we are somewhat past this point.

Actually, you may have convinced people that aren't as apt with computers, however I do doubt that you have convinced real programmers and true tech people that you aren't full of it.

Edited July 24, 2005 by jcarle

[trickytwista]

lmao man, i must admit you do have a good point there, there is no evidence to back any of it up, cheers, hey at least it makes good reading and quite comical at times, i been floowing this 4 awhile, cheers ( i been following this 4 awhile, **** keyboard,) lol

Edited July 24, 2005 by trickytwista

[rhythmnsmoke]

Ansi or Unicode programming? You're just shooting off terminology to try to impress non-programmers. Unicode and ANSI are character definition standards. If you call yourself a credible programmer because you can convert an ANSI string to a Unicode one... then you have no idea what programming really is.

Obviously you do right? You still didn't answer my question..."How many years experience do you have in programming?" By the way, I didn't write the code. By the way, I'm not the programmer that developed this software. How much do you know about Extending the Shell? How much do you know about ATL, WTL, and STL? Exactly how many programms have you created that had shell-extentions in it?

Those things do not make you credible.

No one said it makes you credible, I was merely pointing out that it's a waste of time to go through all that and waste funds, just to put out a product that dosen't work the way we say it does.

Do you have any documented proof?

Sure do.

Do you have any links to official websites with said information?

It's already been posted, re-read the rest of the pages, or do a search.

You still haven't answered the relevance of window position information?

Point is, why would I have put all that together, that fast for the sake of making a fake screenshot. I have coded in VB before, and I know you can make widows that look like that. But why the heck would I go through the whole process of:

1) Installing VB onto my computer.

2) Creating a project

3) Type in windows positioning coordinates

4) Create buttons and type in respective lables

....Just so I can continue my so called "Dream". That is a bunch of BS quite frankly!

Would a desktop shot of the icon in the Task tray work for you? Well, I will post a shot in the next post.

Computer = Hardware, Hardware is independant of the OS. And there are methods to implement hardware level protection that is INDEPENDANT of the OS. BIOS protection of the hard drive's boot sector is one of the oldest examples. The NoExecute processor extension is a newer example. Both OS independant hardware implementations.

Now your comparing hardware with software, and saying they are the same thing. This is a software solution. The word Independance is in a different context when you are speaking on the terms of Hardware and the OS.

So?

READ....I described one example of the Independance when I talked about the System driver approach to interception of executables, vs. that of ImmE.

Odd, one of your first posts you mentioned "My Co-CEO, also the cheif programmer of the software always comments this "All roads in security lead to Washington".". Guess you must have been demoted pretty quickly from your own company.

What the heck are you talking about? That has nothing to do with what you said in the last post.

Also the lack of a credible corporate presence

That is what I was talking about. "Credible Corporate Presence". I took that as you saying that because the CEO himself is not actually on here talking, that I must be full of it.

I thought your company had a website? Can't host a small screenshot on your own website?

How many software vendors have screenshots all over their website? Not to mention, I don't control the website anyway. A quick upload and paste is still faster than going to the person in control of updates to the site and having them post screen shots.

So now you're not so sure about the quality of your products? What happen to the landslide?

Bro! you are way off. Again, that had nothing to do with what I was talking about. You are on a different page than me, and taking what I say and trying to apply it to your comments. Ok, here you said

Corporate Leader in information technology

and then you posted my description of how good the software is. By saying "Corporate Leader in Information Technology" I took that as a direct comment to "MY" position within the company. "Information Technology" and "Computer Security" are different terminologies.

Did you give him a copy to try? Or did you "demo it via NetMeeting"?

(For the love of god!) LIVE Meeting is not Net Meeting. RE-Read the post man. So, what now I have to give away free copies just to prove that it works? That's new to me. Where was I when Symantec and Mcafee's network engineers posted on message boards and sent out free copies to anyone and everyone that asked?

The relevance of that to ANYTHING is?

Really? News to me. It actually does exactly what it's supposed to do. Prevents execution of code in memory segments marked for data. However, the hardware implementation is only half the solution. The operating system must implement it, which Windows XP Service Pack 2 does, and the software must as well. Like all new things, it takes time for everyone to get up to speed. But the hardware is there, available and on the market. The software will follow.

The relevance is this....Microsoft made these promises and everything they say that they were going to do and trying to do, the can't make it work. And we have what they failed to do with the hardware approach.....right NOW in a software form. For all the 32 bit Windows. And when 64 bit Longhorn suppose to come around it's going to need ImmE too.

You obviously missed the part where forum rules were posted to you and there was a discussion about the administrating of this board within this topic.

Obviously you missed what I meant by my comment. I was saying, what does your comment have to do with if the software works or not? Except for maybe like 1 or 2, I have been in compliance with the forum rules. And except for the moving of the thread, I don't believe I have offended the adminstrators in anyway. And despite a few comments to close the thread, it's still going strong. So, obviously there is some interesting statements and truth to what I'm talking about.

Actually, you may have convinced people that aren't as apt with computers, however I do doubt that you have convinced real programmers and true tech people that you aren't full of it.

Ok, now your insulting everyone else on this thread. Now, no one is good enough to see how valuable the software is, EXCEPT You right? You have so many years of experience in programming that you are now the spokesperson for this thread, and on YOUR behalf (someone who is just now getting to the party), everyone else are idiots and amateurs when it comes to computer knowledge. So, to that sir, I would reply.....Then where are the so called "Real Programmers". I have made countless challenges to any and everyone that thinks they can speak on behalf of the people and have some credibility to their knowledge of computers to come and prove me wrong. Have I had anyone take me up on that? NO. Their EGO's are such a valuable piece to who they are, that they would rather protect that by making comments about how it "DON'T" work than to "PUT UP" and come to the meeting to give me the opportunity to prove them wrong. Will your EGO be that bruised, to find out that you don't know as much as you think you know? And for the people that did come to the meeting, they came back on here to post their comments, only to be shot down and be called stupid too, and get insulted by telling them they didn't know what they were looking at.

If you are "SO" sure that it's a "fraud" as you stated, then come to the meeting. Wait, let me guess, "You don't have the time", "I have to take a shower", "I'm not interested in it". Excuses...Excuses. Stop blowing smoke up everyones tails if your not going to come to the meeting....Plain And Simple.

I can prove that it works....Can you prove that it dosen't?

lmao man, i must admit you do have a good point there, there is no evidence to back any of it up,

No one Asked.

Why you just release some crippled demo of it?If you are so sure about its efficieny.In netmeetimg "you" are controling the environment.If you are so "pro" on this security area, why you just protect your app in some way and release, so everyone can see whether it is correct or not.Without real working application,it is just advertisement of trip to Neverland.Of course I dont want to hear your "I have to take a shower" excuses.Plain and simple.

LIVE = Net....Not likely. Do a search on Microsoft Live meeting. No where did I claim that I was a "PRO". My only intentions are to speak the truth and nothing but the truth. Someone asked my opinions on other solutions, and I gave feedback based off what we had to go through as far as being involved in the gov. meetings and hearing what is starting to take hold of what corp./gov. sectors want out of a product solution. I am giving opinions and nothing more, based off of my experience of hearing some corporate jockey describe to us what they thought would work better for them, and we go do it. Again, I'm not the programmer, again I don't have control over who gets a "freebie" or not. And you just made a claim that I'm blowing smoke because I'm "controlling the environment". Then what about the 3rd party people that make the claims. Am I controlling them too?

ps:I dont want to comment on what you said because you are commenting them to and again and again filling the board with your mighty AV or whatever it is.

It's because people (without reading) keep repeating what someone has already asked as to the reason the comments get posted again...again...and again.

Edited July 25, 2005 by rhythmnsmoke

[LaptoniC]

Why you just release some crippled demo of it?If you are so sure about its efficieny.In netmeetimg "you" are controling the environment.If you are so "pro" on this security area, why you just protect your app in some way and release, so everyone can see whether it is correct or not.Without real working application,it is just advertisement of trip to Neverland.Of course I dont want to hear your "I have to take a shower" excuses.Plain and simple.

ps:I dont want to comment on what you said because you are commenting them to and again and again filling the board with your mighty AV or whatever it is.

[rhythmnsmoke]

The icon running in the system tray on my desktop, but the stupid Cardomain logo is covering it.......But wait, I must be faking that too with VB.

Showing that the last program that was analyzed and authenticated was mspaint. To which I used to paste a quick PrintScreen of my desktop........but wait, I must have created that in VB as well, just for the sake of fooling everyone. And somehow magically I was replying to your post and making VB programs. Man, I'm multi-talented.

Put a File dosen't past a logo on the screen...here you go

Click Link to see it in the logo in the system tray.

Edited July 25, 2005 by rhythmnsmoke

[Zxian]

Well... I'll pop my head in here again after having silently followed the thread for a while now.

@jcarle - I agree with pretty much everything you said.

@rythmnsmoke - I'd suggest you read up on someone's profile before questioning their background. Ever heard of JCarle's Utilities? A background check might help you save yourself from a bit of embarrasment. I think you're forgetting that a lot of people on these forums are in fact programmers and do know what the hell they're talking about.

I'm probably like the majority of people here. Unless I can test it out for myself and mess around with it myself, I probably won't believe it. I know everything I do about the common AV and firewall programs because I've used all the ones I talk about.

And as for the whole topic of "again and again"... how did this all start? Oh that's right...

Hello guys and if any gals are on this forum. But this is my first post, I usually don't tread over to the tech forums, just mostly read tech news. However, I have done a few searches on here to see what AV software you guys used, and what you liked. Well, I didn't want to revive an old forum so I just made my own. All the AV software that you did polls on are obsolete. If you want to know what is the best security product on the market, it's not available for public use. The software that makes AV obsolete is called ImmuneEngine created by BBX Technologies. Just a few features that make AV software seem like childs play.

1) No signatures required. No database is created of know viruses. It contains the first ever binary search engine. Designed to pick up any executable, be it desguised or un-desguised, known or un-known.

2) It has an automatically deployed authentication defense thread that analyzes every executable on the system. If not originally apart of the computers matrix, then that executable will not run at all. It will intercept every executable before it is passed to the kernal. Then the binary search engine will sweep and eradicate it(not quarantine) from the computer.

3) When installed, system idle process is an average of 95 to 98%. Designed to be literally undetectable to system resources.

4) Runs independently of the Microsoft OS. Traditional AV relies on the OS to tell it something has happend.

5) Protects from the inside threat.

6) Because it does not use the System driver approach, it continues to provide protection in Safe Mode.

This is the only software solution that will literally make you get out a screw driver to change the hardware of the box to break it. It has been put up against "RED" teams of certain government agencies to be broken. It has been in a line up test with the basic AV software in government test facilities and come out the winner by a landslide, just for the simple reason it has a binary search engine. You guys have never seen this software, so I'm sure you all are skeptical about it. But it does live. Viruses are not designed to combat with such a system as this. You have to turn off the software if you want to get a virus in. And if you don't have access to it, then your not turning it off. Nothing can do what this software can do. And I've only described just the core stuff. There are other little tid bits of security that it depolys that I have not explained, such as securing the cmd.exe program. It's not in the public sector, so I figured that's the reason none of the polls have it mentioned.

Something that looks terribly like spam, and something that is so off the market from what we all know already it's a bit hard to swallow. Everything that you've said since then is that it's the "prefect" security solution. Hell, you've made comments like "modern viruses don't know how to deal with ImmuneEngine". It's fine to try to tell us about something that's a better alternative, but what's the point if we can't use it for our own benefit? Tell us of this great product and then tell us that we can't buy it? Come on... that's just crap. Plain and simple.

[rhythmnsmoke]

@rythmnsmoke - I'd suggest you read up on someone's profile before questioning their background. Ever heard of JCarle's Utilities? A background check might help you save yourself from a bit of embarrasment. I think you're forgetting that a lot of people on these forums are in fact programmers and do know what the hell they're talking about.

Umm...he said

"Actually, you may have convinced people that aren't as apt with computers, however I do doubt that you have convinced real programmers and true tech people that you aren't full of it."

I didn't say that. I wasn't downing anybodys knowledge of computers, he was. I merely asked him to post his creditials. To which I don't have the answer to that yet. More importantly, I would like to know exactly how many programms were developed that contained shell extentions in them? As well as ATL, WTL, and STL coding. Our CP knows proficiently around 12 or so different coding standards. I state again "Our Chief Programmer" to which is NOT me. I don't even code. So, save the sarcasitic remarks saying that I said I was the all mighty "Coder". I'm talking about someone else, not myslef. Given the RARITY and LACK thereof of how to code using ATL, WTL, and STL, I would love to actually know how much of that he has actually used. And if no one on here has ever been able to extend the shell with code, then how can you be so sure that it dosen't work? Do a search on "ishellexecute" and tell me how many hits you get.

I'm probably like the majority of people here. Unless I can test it out for myself and mess around with it myself, I probably won't believe it. I know everything I do about the common AV and firewall programs because I've used all the ones I talk about.

So, Symantec gave you a free copy of their software when they first came onto the scene? Let's see, Trend Micro, Symantec, Mcafee all gave you eval copies when they were in their start up phases? How can I score some free software from a start-up company?

Something that looks terribly like spam, and something that is so off the market from what we all know already it's a bit hard to swallow. Everything that you've said since then is that it's the "prefect" security solution. Hell, you've made comments like "modern viruses don't know how to deal with ImmuneEngine". It's fine to try to tell us about something that's a better alternative, but what's the point if we can't use it for our own benefit? Tell us of this great product and then tell us that we can't buy it? Come on... that's just crap. Plain and simple.

I think I already apologized to everyone for sounding like a salesman? That's right...I did. You going way back to my first ever post. If you would have read, then you would have saw where I said that I came off a little weird, but did not intend on trying to sale anyone anything, nor did I mean to insult anyones intelligence. I never said it was "perfect", you interpreted it that way, due to the fact that I explained features and capabilites yet duplicated by another solution. And quite frankly, I can see where you might think it sounds a little far fetch. But the fact is, is that it's REAL. What I'm merely trying to convey is that this is where Computer Security is headed, and that this is the next tier level in computer security technology. Ever seen a commercial on TV for a movie that looks so cool and you can't wait to see it, only to find out it dosen't come out for another year? Same principle. I never said it wasn't going to EVER be for sale. I already explained that we have a lot on our plate, and because we are small, we don't have the man power to start passing out free copies, and start taking all the calls from people with stupid questions (who didn't otherwise read the manual).

Edited July 25, 2005 by rhythmnsmoke

[Zxian]

Our CP knows proficiently around 12 or so different coding standards.  I state again "Our Chief Programmer" to which is NOT me.  I don't even code.  So, save the sarcasitic remarks saying that I said I was the all mighty "Coder".  I'm talking about someone else, not myslef.

So why are you talking up this guy so much if we can't have a first-hand product to evaluate for ourselves? Couldn't this CP add a small timebomb into the program so that it only runs for 30 days? That way we could see for ourselves what this is all about. Shouldn't be too difficult for someone who apparently has integrated the program at a level that apparently no other program does.

So, Symantec gave you a free copy of their software when they first came onto the scene?  Let's see, Trend Micro, Symantec, Mcafee all gave you eval copies when they were in their start up phases?  How can I score some free software from a start-up company?

Did I ever say anything about evaluation copies? And startup-phases? No... I'm talking about here and now, and full legitimate copies that my friends have used. I can't even start to remember how many computers I've dealt with over the past year to help out my friends since I'm the local computer software "guru".

I think I already apologized to everyone for sounding like a salesman?  That's right...I did.  You going way back to my first ever post.  If you would have read, then you would have saw where I said that I came off a little weird, but did not intend on trying to sale anyone anything, nor did I mean to insult anyones intelligence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's the whole problem though - you are insulting our intelligence. You come here, telling us of this great product, and yet the only way for us to see it in action is through you and your computer. No matter what anyone says, a demonstration over the internet will never completely convince me. What was the point of coming here and telling us of this great product if it's not available? It makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like Microsoft starting to advertise about Windows Blackcomb and all the great new features it'll have - and then saying that we can't get it for another 7 years.

[rhythmnsmoke]

So why are you talking up this guy so much if we can't have a first-hand product to evaluate for ourselves? Couldn't this CP add a small timebomb into the program so that it only runs for 30 days? That way we could see for ourselves what this is all about. Shouldn't be too difficult for someone who apparently has integrated the program at a level that apparently no other program does.

Short of giving you a free copy, I have gone to great links and taking time out of my schedule to give people a glimpse into the direction I think computer security is heading. Would it be easy for him to put in a time bomb? YES. Does he have the time to do it? NO. Would he do it on my behalf, just to prove to someone who dosen't have any political pull that it works? NO. Not to mention the potential threat of causing damage to our current contracts, and violations of NDA's (you know, all the political crap) that goes along with handing out freebies, I'm just not the person to talk to about that.

Did I ever say anything about evaluation copies? And startup-phases? No... I'm talking about here and now, and full legitimate copies that my friends have used. I can't even start to remember how many computers I've dealt with over the past year to help out my friends since I'm the local computer software "guru".

Maybe not, but everyone is trying to justify that it "DOSEN'T" work based off the fact that I don't have the power to give them freebies. Like I said, I have gone the distance to initiate facts and offers to look at it first hand, but it's not my fault if you didn't take me up on it. I am not just going to go give someone half way around the world to whom I don't even know free software. How do you make any money in a company by giving everything away to whomever ask?

That's the whole problem though - you are insulting our intelligence. You come here, telling us of this great product, and yet the only way for us to see it in action is through you and your computer. No matter what anyone says, a demonstration over the internet will never completely convince me. What was the point of coming here and telling us of this great product if it's not available? It makes absolutely no sense to me. It's like Microsoft starting to advertise about Windows Blackcomb and all the great new features it'll have - and then saying that we can't get it for another 7 years.

I'm not sure what your hobbies are, but I'm into cars, and motorcycles. I have seen countless videos of Skyline GTR's, Koenigsegg CC's, Lambo's, etc.... Can I afford one of those right now? NO. Do I enjoy watching them in action? YES. Would I feel as though Porsche is insulting my intelligence just because they show a live race of their latest Porsche Gemballa GTR doing laps on Tsukuba Circuit, even though I can only dream of having one? NO. So, what's the difference? I'm not insulting your intelligence by showing you something Non of you seem to believe is possible and actually showing/proving to you that it is.

1) I have offered for you to attend the meeting.

2) Those that did/do come, have posted that it's true. (To which they were

discredited.)

3) 3rd party sources state that it's a new and different approach to security.

And yet, your only justification is because I didn't give you a copy?...Come On Man!

It seems as if the reason why this thread is as large as it is, is due to the fact that most of the comments have been directed at trying to disprove what I'm saying without any evidence to back you up, instead of trying to understand how it's able to do what I say it does based off of evidence and backing from 3rd party sources. Find somewhere, somehow, that what we are doing can't be done. And I will show you how it's being done, despite what they say.

Edited July 25, 2005 by rhythmnsmoke