What does Cyberhawk protect against?

[spindoctor]

Does anyone know what the free version of Cyberhawk protects against? I'm looking for a complete list of "exactly" what Cyberhawk free does. Anyone know of such a list?

For example does CH stop driver installs? Will it prevent new services from being added? Does it detect any changes to the registry? Will it stops new start up prgrams from being added? etc. etc...

Thanks for any info.

[Pedro]

Have you looked here: http://www.novatix.com/Cyberhawk/Features/
"NEW! Pro only" allows you to see what's different.
You just reminded me, i have to try it out. Wilders syndrome...

[spindoctor]

Thanks for the suggestion Someone, but i aready looked at that link and it doesn't really give much detail as to exactly what CH does.

I'm looking for a complete detailed list of exactly what CH does.
(see my above comments: For example does CH stop driver installs? Will it prevent new services from being added? Does it detect any changes to the registry? Will it stops new start up prgrams from being added? etc. etc...).
Does it do any of these things? What else does it do, if anything?

Just saying CH stops viruses or zero day threats is great, but not very informative.

[duke1959]

There are two tests that I know of regarding Cyberhawk that might help. One was mentioned on the www.techsupportalert.com website that was done by someone called Gizmo. And one done by AV Comparatives. Google either one and you should be able to find them. AV Comparatives though is by far the more trusted of the two. Hope this helps a little. I use Cyberhawk with my AVG Internet Security Suite currently and all is running well. CH seems like a fine program.

[Pedro]

Maybe the user's manual, or as duke1959 mentioned, Tech Support Alert.
It is another product with an interesting concept. But i have to try it to see for myself. Downloading

[Longboard]

This might help
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seite...HIPS-BB-SB.pdf

Originally Posted by Longboard

This might help
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seite...HIPS-BB-SB.pdf

Even though that test was with Cyberhawk 1 not 2, it does pan out fairly well with comparisons i noticed in latest release.

One thing really stands out for me is that Prevx1 that is so highly spoke of fails considerably and it's brought out in the report about in order to get any real benefit from it you have to allow it to constantly access the internet to it's community database which is a concept i could never recommend or approve of given today's easy taking down of websites not to mention an obvious privacy issue.

[JerryM]

I notice that in the AVC test I note that KIS PDM detected all the samples. Accordingly, I wonder why one needs other applications, such as Cyberhawk? If I am just adding more of the same, it is not profitable in my view.
Best,
Jerry

[lucas1985]

Originally Posted by JerryM

Accordingly, I wonder why one needs other applications, such as Cyberhawk? If I am just adding more of the same, it is not profitable in my view.

You are right Jerry. Cyberhawk is a nice add-on for those that have AVs without behaviour blockers like Kaspersky´s PDM.

[spindoctor]

Thanks for the info guys. I ended up dumping CH though. I've tried it in the past and they still haven't fixed some of the problems it had when I tried it months ago. Plus it slows my system and uses too much mem imo. I'm looking for other alternatives. Any other good behavior blockers besides CH and Kaspersky's pdm?

[Longboard]

PrevX
Defencewall
SSM
ViGuard

[mercurie]

duke,
How much MB does CH use by itself? Thanks.

[Longboard]

@Mercurie: CH V1.2 specs
Haven't got araound to V2 yet waiting a few bugs to be sorted

@Easter
That pdf from AVC was discussed extensively wrt PrevX. There was considerable angst about PX's results and there was a lot of to and froing.
PX has moved on from there, but at the time a big wake up call. !

Heh no angst from other vendors at the time
The test did exp[ose a weakness in Vi Guard which has been addressed acc to AVC.
Regards,

[duke1959]

mercurie. Latest version of CyberHawk uses around 15MB unless a third party firewall is running. Then it goes above 20MB of memory. CHService exe. is the high process at 11 to 15MB. and CHTray exe. is around 4 to 6MB. Hope this helps. I do think CH causes a slight slowdown on my 512MB PC.

@Easter
That pdf from AVC was discussed extensively wrt PrevX. There was considerable angst about PX's results and there was a lot of to and froing.
PX has moved on from there, but at the time a big wake up call. !

Good to know. Thanx for that.

I like to see Novatix get real serious in resolving these issues i keep seeing more numerous lately. It is really been an extremely effective behavior blocker depending on what version worked issue-free on your own particular config.

[Pedro]

I had to uninstall CH, there were problems with SandboxIE. Since i was running Prevx1 and Avast! too, i don't know what was the problem.
It looked ok, but i can't see much. I would like to see more, but i had to uninstall. Only with more time can i say more. Maybe i'll revisit.

I like the concept, and even though i understand somehow why the community, at the same time i don't. It's a behaviour blocker, so what does it report? How does it gain from it?
It detects something, and i answer a pop-up, then it reports what i did. They analyse that to check. But if it reports only behaviour, shouldn't it be already be in a rule Or it reports the name of the executable? I have a hard time understanding it fully.

Back to Prevx1, it's green, all is known and safe. Cristal clear

[Perman]

Hi, folks: I wish I could continue using CH. I reported a problem which may have compatiablity w/ Deep Freeze ( I use prex1 and avst as well). CH's support came to rescue by trying to duplicate my problem, but to no avail. Therefore I have no other choice but saying bye-bye to it. I just wonder whether CH has conflict w/ other sandbox/virtulazations such as shadowsurfer/shadowuser, power shadow, bufferzone etc. . CH is a good app in principle, in theory, but when it materializes to become a real thing, it bound to make a lot of uneasiness for some softwares due to its deep kernel-hooking ability. It is kind of Dam...if you do, and Dam...if you do'nt .

Originally Posted by Perman

Hi, folks: I wish I could continue using CH. I reported a problem which may have compatiablity w/ Deep Freeze ( I use prex1 and avst as well). CH's support came to rescue by trying to duplicate my problem, but to no avail. Therefore I have no other choice but saying bye-bye to it. I just wonder whether CH has conflict w/ other sandbox/virtulazations such as shadowsurfer/shadowuser, power shadow, bufferzone etc. . CH is a good app in principle, in theory, but when it materializes to become a real thing, it bound to make a lot of uneasiness for some softwares due to its deep kernel-hooking ability. It is kind of Dam...if you do, and Dam...if you do'nt .

Good report Perman, not that you find no other alternative but to have to dispose of Cyberhawk, but in spite of that if anything it should show to Novatix and Cyberhawk Support in particular just how encouraged many users are of their creation and how much we all long to see those issues at some point in it's development finally resolved.

I know i do, i wish i could go back to the first release installer myself. That one worked like a dream with all my security programs and never crashed, choked, or anything, plus it had a very formidable TERMINATOR! that kicked butt on intruder files it discovered. I like the fact it did the job of Terminating instead of identifying a location and making the user have to fight to kill off the pest, sometimes took a reboot to unlock the dad-blasted intruder.

I think your reply and many others are evidence that Cyberhawk has proven itself beneficial at various versions, and other versions seems to have taken those favors away from the user whether by design or because of circumstances beyond their control.

[Pedro]

Originally Posted by Perman

I just wonder whether CH has conflict w/ other sandbox/virtulazations such as shadowsurfer/shadowuser, power shadow, bufferzone etc. .

Could be Perman. SandboxIE had to close. Reboot and nothing new- error.
Uninstalled and SandboxIE worked again. I answered their query, and told that possible conflict. There's nothing more i can do or say.

I thought a bit more about why the community, and i think i understand more. Just can't put it into the right words. Good program, but i prefer what i have.

I'll revisit some day, if i'm still in Windows by then.

[aigle]

Originally Posted by spindoctor

Thanks for the info guys. I ended up dumping CH though. I've tried it in the past and they still haven't fixed some of the problems it had when I tried it months ago. Plus it slows my system and uses too much mem imo. I'm looking for other alternatives. Any other good behavior blockers besides CH and Kaspersky's pdm?

Primary Response Safe Connect from Sana Security

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showt...ight=CyberHawk

[Jarmo P]

I too uninstalled Cyberhawk for the reason that it had some problems when starting same time with Sandboxie 2.64 and SSM free. Not that Sandbox control really need to start at reboot.
But I figured out a possible conflict with CH plus it took a bit CPU and memory so I uninstalled CH. Might try again soon with newer Sandboxie 2.79 beta that allows reverting sandboxed Firefox bookmarks back to real FF bookmarks and running PG free instead SSM.

[poirot]

To Perman :
i am experimenting since about a couple of weeks with Cyberhawk in my pc2(without ProSec Free) and i find NO issues whatsoever with PowerShadow while CHService.exe uses 11.576 KB and CHTray.exe 4.640 KBs.
I take the liberty to think that there would be no interference with ShadowUser as well,but here i just surmise it.

When there is an alert consumption jumps up,but it could be because there's competition btw BoClean , AviraAntivir (especially the latter is quicker than lightning in alerting about trojans/leaks,its incredibly efficient and fast)
and Cyberhawk, which i am waiting to evaluate when the trial is over and the paid functions evaporate.

[Kees1958]

At our other pC we have Antivir free + CyberHAwk free + GeSWall Pro paid.
Cyberhawk is a nice add one for people using a freeware Antivirus.

Comparison chart
http://wiki.castlecops.com/HIPS/IDP_programs/services

[spindoctor]

Originally Posted by Kees1958

At our other pC we have Antivir free + CyberHAwk free + GeSWall Pro paid.
Cyberhawk is a nice add one for people using a freeware Antivirus.

Comparison chart
http://wiki.castlecops.com/HIPS/IDP_programs/services

Great! Thanks Kees1958 that's exactly the type of list I was looking for.