Winpatrol .. Tips Please!

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Zeena, Mar 18, 2009.

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

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,098
    Location:
    USA
    WP only monitors items that BillP has determined are the ones that are most often used (or more accurately "abused") by malware writers. Thus the tabs that list New Startups, New ActiveX Components, IE BHO's and so forth. But for all that it does watch, there are thousands and thousands of things it doesn't watch. So the fact that we can install some programs and never receive a bark from Scottie doesn't really prove anything good or bad (IMO)...
     
  2. progress

    progress Guest

    I installed Winpatrol Free and then I edited the hosts file. After 3 minutes Scotty is barking :rolleyes: Yes, Scotty can remove the new line in hosts file, but the hosts file was not "protected".
     
  3. Zeena

    Zeena Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Posts:
    409
    Location:
    UK
    Hi :)

    So Far... I Really Like Winpatrol :D

    Only thing I'm worried about now :doubt:
    IE8 is ready to be rolled out!
    If WP doesn't support Firefox 3
    Will it support IE8 ? :doubt:

    Because I've not experienced any WP warnings ( Pop Ups ) - Yet!
    I've set IE7 watching and IE7 Helper watching .. To - 0
    Just until I've got IE8 safely installed :oops:

    Thanks! ;)
     
  4. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    Do you really think watchdogs are valued more for their bite or for their bark?? *puppy*

    I really appreciate a good bark (with informative tonal nuances) that gives me a chance to grab the shotgun or call 911, whichever seems more appropriate. ;)
     
  5. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    13,744
    Location:
    Canada
    i think both cause when the barking is loud that's when i start running before i get a byte:)
     
  6. crofttk

    crofttk Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2004
    Posts:
    1,979
    Location:
    Eastern PA, USA
    :blink:
    LOL

    Wow, you're in rare form today, jmonge!:D
     
  7. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    13,744
    Location:
    Canada
    too much coffee i guez:D
     
  8. progress

    progress Guest

    So it's just a system monitor, I don't need Scotty :'(
     
  9. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,234
    Location:
    Mass., USA
    Isn't preventing changes to the Hosts file "protection"?
    Hence the rationale of the "Plus" version vs. Free. Real-time monitoring.
     
  10. progress

    progress Guest

    Yes, but there was no preventing! My changes were removed by Scotty 3 minutes later! :blink:

    Yes, as far as I know the PLUS version offers real-time-protection / prevention :)
     
  11. Bob D

    Bob D Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Posts:
    1,234
    Location:
    Mass., USA
    What do you want for nothing? Polling at X minute intervals and reversing changes ain't bad for free :)
    Send Bill P. some $ for realtime protection!
    That said; if you need uber protection, i.e.: you run a high risk profile, you would be better served with one of the many flavors of HIPs (many free).
    But I'm sure you know that already :)
    Note: I had a license for one of the top shelf HIPs, but ultimately uninstalled it in lieu of the low risk factor here.
    (No click happy kids or the like)


    Cheers
     
  12. progress

    progress Guest

    It's ok for free, you are right. If Obama is printing more $$$ then maybe 1 € will become 29,95 $ :D This is the time to buy Winpatrol Plus ;)
     
  13. HAN

    HAN Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Posts:
    2,098
    Location:
    USA
    The feature you're talking about is the cookie filter. Unless MS made some fundamental changes in the way cookies are handled in IE8, it should probably work fine.

    FF 3 handles cookies very differently than earlier versions. Bill apparently feels cookie handling in FF 3 is not a priority and I tend to agree. Using either FF's native cookie tools or the CookieSafe extension (which I use) is probably a better solution than anything Bill could design.
     
  14. Zeena

    Zeena Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2008
    Posts:
    409
    Location:
    UK
    Hi HAN :)

    Thanks!
    You've put my mind at rest :thumb:
     
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.