Hello and I was wondering if anyone has tried this software? And would it be needed if now running Antiexploit , AdGuard and Norton IS 2015. Appears to be free for a few days. http://www.webcompanion.com/proforfree Or here if you don't want to share on twitter or facebook to get it. http://sharewareonsale.com/s/ad-aware-web-companion-pro-giveaway-coupon-sale I had registered along time ago at this site so now I can just type my e-mail in and get it now or they always send an e-mail with download link also.
hint: dont mess on browsers from outside! chrome (and forkes) and firefox are secure by default. if those are compromised it came by clicking and installing like a fool (adware or setups containing adware). at least i dropped ad-adware long ago - rubbish and bloated software. Cheers.
Off topic, but the member opened the door and can't remain unchallenged. The current Bitdefender-enabled Ad-Aware products are superb products. While the bdcore/B-Have Free version is OK, Personal includes BD's crown jewel, Active Virus Control, and Pro adds to that BD's firewall and IDS, the later two also integrating BD's gonzales/nimbus components into their Lavasoft Malware URL Blocker tech for all Internet facing applications. Your opinion is long ago, too. Resume on topic...
I tried it last night inside Quietzone on Win 10 Home and it seemed to work as mentioned on the web site. but once I rebooted the program was gone. I almost never install any programs out of Quietzone now just in case ;-) I also used Ad-Aware long ago when it first came out and didn't think it was worth it but this new program isn't bad at all. I am just wondering if it covers anything my current security doesn't. I am not sure all my programs work with the Edge browser so for now I still use IE 11
I have WC Pro installed in Windows 10 Pro and it works quite well in IE but not in Edge. It won't work in Cyberfox64-Intel Portable v40.0 or a QtWebKit browser. I haven't tried it in any other browsers and my curiosity isn't motivated enough to install Firefox; I'd be surprised if it didn't work in that. It's been a few months, but I recall it worked with a whole lot more under Windows 7, including an ancient utility using Microsoft HTML Viewer (mshtml.dll, et al). To make sure Web Companion is doing its thing, you need to run Sysinternals TCPView (or similar) and verify LavasoftTcpService.exe is running/filtering while browsing. With IE, in opening a series of series of about 75 links in VX Vault, Clean MX and PhishTank, with either SmartScreen or Web Companion, both did extremely well with each having a smattering of differing misses. When run simultaneously, SmartScreen is the initial filter with Web Companion hitting when the other misses. When both weren't missing. A terse posting in the Lavasoft forum reveals the difference between the Pro and Free versions is an hourly updated database in Pro. It makes no mention of the update interval of Free. Files are in C:\ProgramData\Lavasoft\Web Companion\Definitions where I have an "hourly" file and a "weekly" file. I have seen similar behavior over the years when testing other Web filtering products (Safe Browsing, BD TrafficLight, MBAM Website Protection, etc. etc. etc.). Each as stand-alone is, these days, quite effective - but ganged up, the filtering of two or more products becomes even more so. One's hardware and browser choice will determine how well that pans out, of course. As well, if you open an AP or Reuters article in the My Way Portal or the Huffington Post. With the Intel-compiled Cyberfox64, I can run it's Safe Browsing, Ad-Aware Pro's Web Protection and MBAM Website Protection on a third-gen i7/Z77 box without hiccups or slowdowns. The same setup on a second-gen i5 laptop is OK. Finally, I have to admit, SmartScreen has come a long way since last I fooled with it.
If i want to install BitDefender i install BD and no third-party crap. the major problem is that all third-party tools which interacts directly with browser files lead to trouble with no exception. i can not speak for toolbars (in common browser-plugins) or their adjacent extensions (i dont habe any of them installed) but most of them causes also problems. at least i wont accept any interaction within my used browser. includes cookie and content control which is handled here directly in browser with a security extension (ublock/umatrix). thats different from any action taken after download which is possible and sometimes wanted. so me too is verifying some files from time to time before i put it into the box. comparison ublock/umatrix vs webcompanion both extensions blocks malicions websites with several built-in lists, adblocking lists and hosts-file based. updates several times a day. white and black-lists, more granular than every tool i've seen. deny-allow instad allow-deny. blocking via hosts file kills 99.99 of all ads, tracking and malicious scripts/files. the deny-allow policy keeps the rest out. in most cases not needed. interactive and progressive web filtering eliminates afterward investigating on scripts or files which are loaded directly in browser. ofc this do not include any memory protection or 0day-exploit. but the risk to get some is close to zero or impossible. common behavior of mitm for investigation, at least without there is no ssl inspection possible. but all of those mitm solutions are still ssl vulnerable or have limited options,less than chome or firefox. further such proxy bahavior can underrun a present firewall - all traffic belongs to the web compagnion and not to the used program. it depends of the injected layer control in the OSI modell - before or after firewall layer. anyway its a kernel driver and kernel driver have root rights and those act always as root kits. so the kernel is more vulnerable. the antivirus market is hard contested. webcompagnion seems another set-and-forget-solution based on bitdefender. but set-and-forget is the worst case for security. people rely on this but "standard" mode is anytime responsible for adware or other damage on systems, minimum for browser misbehavior. what i mean with direct access into browser files - best demonstrated with ccleaner (crap cleaner) - those third-party tools destroy the integrity of those files and browser will misbehave or fail in total on that. you should not use two active engines on a system. although possible in most cases it will interact and will misbehave. eiter mbam premium or ad-adware, but not both. mbam engine versus bitdefender engine. for advanced webprotection both are pretty useless, those extensions (read above) either one or both of them is much more effective. sure, the options for internet explorer or edge are pretty poor so that tools like webcompanion are the only solution (for home use, business machines in a supervised network have more options). in general i am not 100 percent against but some took the time to show up options and how they work and to point out advantages and disadvantages. where to spend money there is time to investigate for free tools. myself is more lucky with firefox + umatrix|ublock deny-allow-policy + MBAE against 0day. i investigate unknown files on virustotal and/or MBAM. i am also able to investigate myself with a supervised sandbox or extraction of some files (MBAM is also capable to do this). another to mention - i tried err: tested all common known and current and past antivirus suite solutions (IS-products) for my usability. some of them with a bought key for a period but after all i decided to hold MBAM (with lifetime license). all were ok as long they are set-and-forget-products. but they all have limits or major bugs which are not solved until today. i still have worry with the suites because only one part of it is really good, the other part is always crap. so i reduced the active part of security and raised the passive part. i wont say that i dont care but i do it another way which keeps me proper now for over 20 years. and if i cant keep it simple i drop it. HTH
