How efficient is your security setup? (comparative contest)

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Kees1958, Feb 5, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857

    Well based on my zero day testing of the new beta, it could well fall in this category with its new heuristics :blink: (what am I saying).
     
  2. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Only one HIPS makes an exception GESWALL PRO: it uses near zero CPU cycles and nera zero disk access. :thumb:

    A bummer: :D it uses windows internals, so it cheats at CPU usage and disk access (actual system load is higher, just not shown under GeSWall) :gack:
     
  3. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    I have no right to deny you or anyone else anything in this forum. But that doesn't mean that i ain't tired of seeing OA and Comodo poping up all the time. :D

    This is what i am trying to say... WHO compared Avira to OA? Who said the opposite of what you say and with which i agree? I found Avira's CPU Time to be very low, given that it was obvious his PC was on for hours and explorer.exe has shown quite an activity. I didn't compare it to "HIPS". Poor me, i said, that compared to other processes , its CPU was low. The other processes isn't necessarily OA. I myself had noted that OA has HIPS. Thank God there isn't a DW fan here too, or now i would have "DW isn't doing the same as Avira".

    Anyway, i stop here.
     
    Last edited: Feb 19, 2009
  4. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Thanks Kees, mainly pop ups annoy me when i install something. The rest can be very quiet. Also unfortunately i am against auto-trusting as a principle. When OA goes final, i will try it again.

    Now look what you 've done. I will leave you to deal with Alex on your own after this. :D Anyway, i am often bored to write it, but i intend "classical" HIPS. Once upon a time, there were only classical HIPS, so you could simply call them HIPS. Now everyone wants to be called HIPS. I can't stand it! I think i will start calling classical HIPS as "CHIPS". :argh:
     
  5. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    Nobody did, including me. This is why I am surprised by your reaction :)
     
  6. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    Any classification is flawed because any bound is artificial. But we need the words to at least to try to understand each other :)
     
  7. alex_s

    alex_s Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2007
    Posts:
    1,251
    LOL. Kinda "sneaky" guys ? :)
     
  8. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Ok, i guess i misunderstood then. I raise white flag. I am too tired to continue with this.

    Please proceed, i will ignore this thread for the future. This should save us all some trouble. :D
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.