Maybe you’re right. I agree.
But let’s see what they later to say. 
P.S. For me, this new product and I want to see it.
About VS virtually no reviews on the Internet.
Yes I can kill VS with KillSwitch. Even when VS is “ALWAYS ON”.
I’ve checked again. In SUA VS doesn’t give UAC prompt to elevate rights for secpol.msc I had to switch to my Admin acc to do this. I put a bit more detailed report in the Wilders’ forum.
guys
Who will tell. In what way is formed by the white list?
It shows the program, which I do not.
I edited. Even removed the white list completely.
But the record of appearing again.
Thank you for your help.
P.S. I noticed that when you add, VS long to process.(plug-in in browser).
EDIT: If understood correctly, the white list is available by default.
And when you switch on - ALWAYS ON - is a request, and adding to the list.
I see… The current version of VS does not work that well in Standard User Accounts. It should work well once we run the engine as a service. VS was designed to protect computers who run as admin (and typically with UAC disabled). That is why we put the following notice in BOLD in the EULA:
VoodooShield™ was designed to be a better alternative to the Microsoft Windows User Account Control (UAC). While VoodooShield™ is compatible with UAC, VoodooShield™ works best with UAC disabled, and on computers whos user accounts run as administrator. During installation, VoodooShield™ will disable UAC so it can run in an optimal state.
You can kill VS with KillSwitch, only if VS allows KillSwitch first, correct? If this is not true, please let us know! Please reset your whitelist and run killswitch from the user space, like maybe the desktop. If you can get KS to kill VS, please post the procedure!!!
Thank you for explaining your situation in detail, it really helps!
Yes, exactly! We actually have a list of default processes that are automatically added. But since we added the automatically allow Program Files and Windows systems folders feature, we can actually remove most of these now. I will remove them at some point when things calm down a little. I just don’t want to accidentally remove something that affects a lot of users when things are crazy like this.
Got it.
I could not understand why the recording restores.
Thanks for the clarification.
Success.
So anyone is using VoodooShield with CIS 6.2 + UAC? How is it? Any issues?
I use it on my office PC so far so good.
I see. Thanks ;D :-TU
Well I gave it a shot… I’m somewhat disappointed with this security application.
It blocks what CIS blocks so no surprise here. So no need for it. Also I like using UAC but this app disable it during the install for the better function.
Also it is not light and using a lot of CPU at the start-up and slow down the start-up worse than Kaspersky LOL! Maybe that’s down to the other security apps on my PC but they claim that it works fine with them. So they seriously need to work on it.
I also played around and turned off.
Because I use UAC.
CIS enough.
but this app disable it during the install for the better function.Yes. But I did not turn off UAC during installation. During removal VS to enable UAC when prompted.
I had to use it on my office PC as “wise” IT staff made my account Admin. I use it alongside CIS. VS feels very light. I like it.
One Q… Are you using the default settings in CIS? 
No I always have itching to overtweak it.
For my office PC:
AV - stateful
HIPS - Safe, verbose
Browsers - Sandboxed, Limited
AutoSandbox - off
FW - Custom, max alert, stealth ports
I installed it on fresh win 7 then made rating scan and added all unknown to trusted, then unchecked all 4 in “File Rating Settings” (i.e. Cloud and TV).
I know the feeling ;D :-TU
I see, thanks. I asked because maybe CIS on the default settings works more ‘efficient’ with VD.
Hi, VoodooShield
good thing you are here so I could ask
your comparison chart is a bit misleading, we all know of COMODO’s default deny tech, yet did I understand that you claim to be the only ones who got it ??
Good question, I am happy to further explain. The comparison chart is comparing traditional blacklist antivirus with VoodooShield. Deny by default is never needed with blacklist, since the software simply checks to see if an item is on the blacklist, and blocks it if it is. So if the item is NOT on the blacklist, why would you ever deny it by default? That is, the whole point of blacklist technology is to check to see if it is on the blacklist, and if it is not, then it is not considered a threat.
So I guess what I am saying is that deny by default methods can be used with whitelist technologies, but it does not make sense to ever use them with blacklist technologies. Also, the other proprietary features that VS implements give us the ability to offer a unique deny by default method. For example, VS can deny something by default, then make the desktop shield gadget flash to alert the user that something has been blocked. And we believe this will be increasingly important with the emerging mobile technologies.
I do however, see what you are saying. At first look, someone might think that we are suggesting that no other software utilizes a deny by default method, and that is not our intention. We are just comparing whitelisting and blacklisting technologies, while trying to explain that we have a unique deny by default method. If you have any suggestions on how we can clarify our website, we would be more than happy to do so. Thank you!