Is Prevx good?

Hey we all need to say a bad word, now and then.

Installed on Vista and XP and working fine with no FPs after full scan. I always loved this program. But you need to keep working on it. It has always had potential and I agree support is needed here Marcos. But you already know that.

 

Ok, thank you everyone for all your answers to my question.

Let's consider this topic closed. Thanks again.

 

My alien system is an Intel E8400 running windows XP SP3. I only use the on line version to check every now and then. Never finds anthing false or otherwise. Your point that Prevx was blocking virtually EVERY update hints at the possibility of something more seriously wrong with your system than a simple false positive problem with Prevx. Are you running a simple system or one bogged down with multiple layers of protection and excessive numbers of programs ? Recently installed or due for a reformat ? Perhaps the problem lies with Vista - which is hardly out of beta yet ? I would doubt that if you installed a clean system image or re-installed your system and programs that you would have any problems with this program.

 

Also is your setting at ABC, Pro. or Expert, that can have a marked difference. I prefer, Pro.

 

No I'm afraid that simply wasn't the case. Both my systems are extremely well-maintained and I have had no malware of any description in 5 years.

Again, no. On WinXP SP3 with Comodo FW, AVG and BOClean via a Wireless Router with NAT FW - no other realtime protection.
On Vista Home Premium - same security set up as above.
Masses of free space on both, 2 and 4gb of Ram respectively. No programs installed I don't use. Both lean and configured for efficiency.

No. Both extremely well-maintained systems - no system is ever 'due for a reformat' unless it is badly maintained.

That is simply nonsense. Vista is a very long way past beta so you obviously know little about it. It is past SP1.
In any case, the problems of Prevx this past few months have appeared on all OSs it was installed on not just mine (XP and Vista) but on the XP machines of at least 6 friends and colleagues and 3 Vista machines. All of whom have been using it for the past 20 months under my recommendation.
You need to re-read my post you replied to - I have been using Prevx since the original Betas, long before most people here even knew it existed.

 

Hi SteveEast9,
We directly addressed your problem, 7 months ago, and responded as such on CastleCops.

In my last Wilders post, I said: "We had a big run of false positives a while back in CSI because CSI was seeing a certain class of files hidden/locked (generally a suspicious characteristic), but it was really other AVs interfering with CSI accessing the disk. These FPs are fixed now, and P3 includes Direct Disk Access and raw memory/registry analysis which will prevent them from ever happening again."

This was in direct reference to your false positive issue, which you posted on CastleCops back in February. As we said, this was an incompatibility between CSI and Comodo. Comodo was blocking CSI from reading areas on the disk, and we were falsely detecting the files which it was hiding from us as rootkits. This was fixed in the 1.5 version of CSI - now we are in 1.9, more than 300 builds later. It is an ancient issue which we reported to our users, the CastleCops forum, and even the Comodo forum: http://forums.comodo.com/empty-t19712.0.html. As you can see, we did work to address this as fast as possible.

There are always going to be issues running multiple security products at once - using Comodo and AVG and CSI v1.5 was not a good combo, but now, in 1.9 it works fine. Prevx2 should be immune to this problem, and so is P3.

 

Certainly it may be unacceptable to detect every packer in sight as suspicious, but it is the authors' choice to detect packers or not. I know it doesn't matter if it's a hello world application or not, but for the most part, applications which are packed: Malware, software developed by those who don't trust their own code for security, or programs developed by those that felt they needed it to be compressed.

 

Not true I'm afraid - that issue was about 129 FPs in one scan of Prevx CSI and nothing to do with the fully paid Prevx 2 version and the most recent problem I posted about in this thread.
It really is tiresome, at the very least, that you are incapable of reading the words in posts in *this* thread that clearly and explicably relate to the Prevx2 software and *not* Prevx CSI. And furthermore, had you read carefully you would see my systems' security set ups did *not* include any install of CSI, which was used *only* in February 2008 and removed shortly after.

You go on to say that Comodo FW, AVG and Prevx2 are *not* a bad combination, so your earlier statement about the combo with CSI was a nonsense one based upon your inability to read what I had posted.

You really need to read more carefully and that is perhaps related to the fact that you provide no real support on CastleCops, let alone here.

The problem with Prevx2 has occurred in the period since early July and you have definitely not responded to that.

I am astounded that you are surprised that so many users of Prevx2 - past and present - have so little confidence in so-called Prevx 'support' professionals like you, when you show yourselves incapable of reading and correctly comprehending 11th grade English.

 

Did you set "query for unknown programs"?
PX database is not updated quick enough, so updates of firefox, eg, are often flagged.

 

we can agree on this at least. I misunderstood thinking that you wanted help to fix a problem. Re-reading your posts it appears that you are simply having fun by bad mouthing a program, you have all the answers and you like to use words such as "nonsense" and being rude in general. How does "you show yourselves incapable of reading and correctly comprehending 11th grade English." help ?

 

I feel that these kinds of comments are unnecessarily rude, and add much heat but very little light to these discussions.

Marco's willingness to participate in open discussions here is one of the most promising events in recent days as pertains to a future "come-back" of Prevx.

For myself, I was greatly disappointed when Prevx folks switched their emphasis to their CSI product, at the expense of their flagship program (Prevx 2). Marco's courage & patience here have served to make me hopeful that Prevx 3's beta will be released soon. I am ready & eager to put it through its paces.

 

Probably apart from the fact that recent examples aka Ufo.exe and Au_.exe are no recent examples (either static examples with no variability) except you consider recent for a period older then several months.

 

I'm sorry, but there is a problem somewhere in your set-up: Px here with FF since way back: never had an issue and I'm set on "Expert".
@stevieE9: is there any retail release of any app you are happy with?: start a thread, give reasons, show off so we can see
Despite my misgivings re marketing and public support/forums issues: customer relations, which could all do with a revamp - Marco comes and gives some time here..imho the tools are good..unfortunately some users have been teed off by apparent lack of support, hints OF PxV3..need to see some pudding soon..

 

Thank you for the personal attacks, they really are very much welcomed. For what its worth, I am not only NOT a native English speaker, but I'm
not even a support person. I believe it is an easy mistake to make to think you were talking about CSI when the exact problem, under the exact
setup, was experienced by you under CSI, so, I'm so deeply sorry that I would make the wrong assumption.

Bottom line is: if you are currently having a problem, tell us what it is. You have been quoting these "problems" and I have yet to see any real evidence of what the problem is. Tell me what version of AVG is causing the problems and send a screenshot or just tell me what I can do to help you. I might be wrong, but it seems like you have a grudge against us. What can I do to make you feel different?

If you've noticed, no one posts in the Castlecops forum (which I currently can't even access as it is apparently down), so, who would we be responding to? We get emails through our support inbox - thats where we help our users. A forum is useful, but only up to a point.

I feel like I've already responded to all of the questions posed here with adequate answers, but if you or anyone has any other questions, please let me know and I will be glad to help.

A response to Pseudo: That's exactly correct - we definitely don't detect anywhere near every packer in sight, but many antivirus companies have heuristics to detect the "suspiciousness" of a packer, especially for a preliminary answer. As I've said - we merely said the file was Suspicious. That is not a false positive, and not a false negative. It is just Suspicious. VirusTotal only runs a very slimmed down version of our (and many other) AV engine, so, we can't have all of the technology we want in there.

 

To all,

I said it elsewhere on this site and I'll repeat it again here - focus on technical content, not those who are posting. You may feel a rush when you hit that Enter key with an air of righteous indignation, but you end up looking rather ridiculous with the passage of time. Dragging personal invective into the discussion solves no problems, inflames everyone, and only serves to derail the technical discussion.

As for linguistic prowess, let's keep in mind that this is an international forum and, for many, English is a second/third/or higher language. I wish my own foreign language skills were as good as most of the international posters here, so let's drop the BS complaints about reading and comprehension. If you wish to go down that road, take it elsewhere.

Enough is enough!

Blue

 

I assume that this thread is now closed.
For those like me who have tried to have a sensible and intelligent exchange of views I would like to draw your attention to the following two posts that occurred on the anti-virus forum:

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=220233

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=96

Please read them.

The same posters caused the trouble there that occurred here which is why I stopped responding. As has been said before the only way to stop this is to refuse to be drawn into their bashing, don't answer their posts. Their not wanted here and the sooner everybody ignores them the better.

 

I agree to a point. That one could have been stopped sooner. But as LWM stated , feeding the bear only makes it come back for more food.

 

Interesting that Norton2009 release uses a feature called "Insight" which seems to be a 'community base' whitelisting tool.
Was Px the first to leverage this type of db ?
Convergent evolution..

 

and dont forget the time zone too,in some places it may be day and in others
nigth so replies take some time to be responded.

 

I was just thinking the same thing, Longboard. McAfee is also coming out with something of a community based system also, but I am almost certain that Prevx was the first to go this route.

 

Well, we've a patent pending for the Community Intrusion Prevention System as of a few years ago, but these things usually take a long time

 

<OT>
Hmm, personally I give huge to any software patents whatsoever, it's plain horrible idea which got totally out of control in certain parts of the world...
</OT>

 

I have a subscription for Prevx and like it, the only thing keeping me from using it on my Vista PC (the one i use 90% of the time) is the beta version for Vista. Which you have to disable UAC, which i want to keep on. But like i said i do like Prevx. P.S. I bought my subscription before i got my Vista.

 

Wow Dean, I thought you weren't around anymore. Good to see you Love your songs

 

In other words you had to PAWS for thought?