A terminated, dead, or killed process cannot restart, in my context not until reboot, when the same event that brought about its termination is still occurring i.e Hacker Process terminator. Therefore, I deduced that we do not have specific word in our human languages to describe what really happened; since OSS 2009 core process was not dead, terminated or killed.
Nor has CIS, going by your logic. You just had to start it once more, from the same Win session, since CIS doesn't have that ability to restart itself AFAIK. That doesn't mean its "core" was destroyed/terminated/obliterated whatever you want to call it...
Well I went to PCflank and tested my ports and not even for a second they were not stealth. I also used regtest from Ghost Security in order to see whether or not any modification could happen. Well regtest failed there was no registry key modification.
ACS.exe restarted itself after milliseconds, so no wonder...
And how can it protect your PC if its main process is not running/restarted?
Disregarding my above Q, your PC was protected so may I ask what’s the problem?
IT IS NEITHER. I’M SORRY TO DISAPPOINT YOU, AND I’M ALSO SORRY THAT YOU HAVE STUMBLED UPON ME WHEN YOU INSINUATED THAT I HAVE A LACK OF TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE. I HAVE A LOT OF SAVOIR FAIRE IN A LOT OF SUBJECTS, INCLUDING TECHNICAL. I’M A FIRM BELIEVER OF EPISTEMOLOGY ESPECIALLY CARTESIAN EPISTEMOLOGY.
Even when all the facts were laid out it seems we couldn’t explain it any better to make it clearer. In multiple spots throughout this thread a question was answered and it seemed like you “chose” not to read it. Stating it was blah blah when it was totally valid. It’s frustrating when we’re trying to explain something to you.
I apologize for the comment I made with regards to your technical knowledge.
Your statement may be true. However, such a statement did not come true during the test that I performed. Process Hacker did not terminate OSS core process. Anyway by saying that I’m not implying that other security software could not have protected me.
Why did you post the results if you’re ignoring the responses? Your test was only the initial step. The second is the clarification offered by other members. Why even post the results if you’re not open to comments?
His statement is true so it should be taken into consideration, not ignored on the basis that it wasn’t reflected in 1 test. You have to take multiple sources into consideration when doing testing.
That is a false statement, as matter of fact I’m taking my time to answer most of them. I reserve the right to disagree. By disagreeing, does not mean that I’m ignoring divergent ideas from these posts.
