Prevx, Cyberhawk or Boclean

Yes the guy there seems to see Prevx1 as basically an antivirus/antispyware cleaning service. Comparable to ad-aware.

I think all future postings on Prevx1 should be sent to the other antivirus forum, that should clarify matters!

Realistically speaking the people here love *control* and playing with stuff. You surely can't expect us not to use Prevx1 with the highest possible settings? What's the point otherwise, just sit there and watch the security program protect us? What's the fun in that?

That is why HIPS are so much more fun than antiviruses. Straight AVs are so dull, not many options you can do, though NOD32 comes close with all those modules and options.

With HIPS there are tons of settings to play with, to customize for the tightest level of security, plus prompts to answer. Security is hard work,boys
the more work we put in to tweak the settings and to answer prompts the stronger our defense.

Personally, the first thing I do when I install a new security software is to look at the various options. The more options it has, the more impressed I am.

Something like cyberhawk now is very boring. You can't really do much with it.

Prosecurity and SSM are close to the ultimate in terms of options, for the former there is one screen with 29 checkboxes (plus other infor)!

Now that's Power!!! and fun!!!!

 

Yeah!

 

One license for 5 machines, is that really possible?

 

I tried cyberhawk. Very good program, very responsive, etc. But it just seemed to conflict with other programs on my system. To clarify, no bluescreens or freeze-ups, just a slowdown of performance and what I perceived as some instability. But, hey, every system is different, I only speak from my experience.

 

The specific language of the BOClean EULA is as follows:

To me, under 5 means 4 or less, if you wish to be precise.

Blue

 

Thanks BlueZannetti, I'm very pleased with this information.

 

Go with Prevx. A little birdy tells me something good may be enhanced soon.

 

Someone said that CH is "only" ring3 security software and that should not be enough. I dont know anything about this, but maybe someone can explain how CH is built and wether there are weaknesses with "only" being ring3 based and thus being weak and easily bypassed??

Just ment as a question - not a presumption that CH is weak protection.

The Gizmo test gave CH 8 out of 8 on keyloggers and thats good enough for me, but maybe good on keyloggers doesnt mean a strong overall built?



Best Regards

 

So as to not let this become a Cyberhawk related support thread only....numerous Cyberhawk related posts were split off into a thread of their own now located here.

Let's attempt as best as possible to keep focused on the thread starters question Please...."which one of Prevx, Cyberhawk or Boclean would you choose to sit alongside your AV, and why?". If there are support related issues with programs named in the thread title....open a separate thread Please so as to help keep the specific program support reps from taking the thread somewhat off topic with responses.

Thanks,
Bubba

Edit
removed members post as requested by member

 

That comment was made by a competitor of CH. I hope it doesn't auger further such neg-slinging.

 

Not having heard of it before, I decided to investigate exactly what 'ring3' level means from Ilya's statement.

Taken from (and spelling corrected):
http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index.php?qid=20060814110755AA1TDhw

'This comes out of the history of OS development. Originally, ring 0 was protected kernel, and ring 3 was the user environment. There were plans to possibly one day make ring 1 and ring 2 maybe user extensible OS or more protected and priviliged application code, but other ways were found instead.'

So he probably meant to say that CH does not provide protection at kernel level, only at user environment.

I am not sure as I do not have CH installed at the moment, but I seem to recall that CH uses a kernel driver ... not sure, though, maybe Becky can confirm this??

 

Hi Roger--

Yes, Cyberhawk employs both kernel-level and outside-the-kernel level protections.

Becky