Trojan Hunter worth the purchase?

Just dumped Comodo BOClean and looking for a dedicated anti trojan program. I'm very interested in TH. I am willing to pay. Unless there is a freebie out there that is just as good or better?

 

Have been using it for a number of years and over time it has expanded to cover more than pure Trojans but a little more malware, certainly where there is overlap. Database of signatures is not the biggest but then they have the ex-TDS trojan analyst working for the company and so the database has been hugely improved. Certainly, as far as I am aware it is one of only a very few such programs out there now as alot of suppliers have blended anti trojan into either AV or antimalware apps.

Has a guard function that works well but I mainly use it for on demand scanning.

I would certainly download a trial and see what you think of it compared to BOClean.

 

Antitrojans are already dead. So will be antispywares after a while.
Let,s see what,s new comes out.

 

Hi,

you probably are referring to STAND ALONE applications.

more and more free offering of AT/AS have gradually changed the skylines/landscapes in these area.

More and more AV have adopted AT/AS capabilities. And

More and more HIPS/ Behaviour blockers are getting their feet wet in these sectors too.

Thriving AT/AS paid standalone applications in near future(after this pending Recession is over) will be reduced to 1 ? 2 ? 3 ? .the number my grand daughter is able to count. Sad, but is inevitable.

Take care.

 

Yes, infact moden AV is supposed to do the job of an AS, AT and I totally agree. Why bother for three scanners when one can do it as well.

 

With software security providers expanding their horizons into trojan, malware and spyare detection with more powerful scan engines and better heuristics the need for stand alone security apps looks pretty iffy. My opinion is also tainted by my lifetime license to the now defunct Ewido/AVG antispyware program. Now it's merged in with AVG 8...

 

I am using TrojanHunter. It was originally a lifetime license. Now there is an initial purchase price with a yearly fee after that. TH Guard is using around 12 MB of memory on my machine. Gavin Coe is now working for Magnus Mischel. Gavin was formerly with DaimondCS and was responsible for TDS-3. It seems like there are more updates these days than in the past now that Gavin is on board so that is a plus. Whether it is really necessary these days is a good question. I was using BOClean for awhile but after Comodo took it over it went down hill in my opinion.

 

hi, buddy,
read my thread at the trojanhunter forum and see what happened to my lifetime license. watch the link here at the http://www.misec.net/forum/board/LicenseIssues/1153248072

best regards

 

What is this posting supposed to mean?

 

I just dropped it myself, It never found nothing but false items for me.

 

Well, everyone is free (of course !) to choose whatever program he/she wants to use. But, only my personal opinion, I have often wondered about the criterion "it has never found anything, so I dropped it".

BTW:
For the record: I do have licences for TH. I'm happy with it. I use it on-demand in safe-mode; scanning is done very frequently.
And yes, I do have other AT(s) as well (which has never been a secret here ).

 

Hi,

Generally speaking, AT's on demand scanner is to detect/clean infected files, and its realtime scanner is to alert/remove trojan upon its activation. These functions seem to be amazing. But they can be easily replaced by:

sandbox/ virtualization application. And the plus side of this arrangement is no more F.P.

 

For all its tools TH is more than just scanner and guard, this is just an observation I don't have the program but if I remember correctly there is a tool for Process, Autostart, Strings, Window, Netstat and various plugins things av don't usually have.

 

use NORTON ANTIBOT,

 

I have concluded that no AT/AS is worth buying. I have a couple of lifetime licenses and so do run those. I am not as experienced or knowledgeable as most here, but in the 9 years that I have owned computers I have never had an AT intercept an attack.

I have had about three attacks, and the AV caught them all.

Maybe it is worth having an AT for a scanner, but again they never find anything on my machines.

It is my unlearned opinion that if one has a good IS application he does not need anything else.
If you follow my advice and get an infection don't bother to sue me, I don't have the money.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I have SAS andf MBAM and neither of them has ever found anything - F-Secure has found everything.

Save your cash!

 

With no disrespect to anyone I dont understand x has never found anything statement. We all know there are some talented guys behind the products we talk about so I'm sure usually it is not meant about the validity of x but I've heard it here a few times said too generally with not much reasoning.

 

Actually, it is normal for virus scanners to hook themselves first into the scanning chain, so it is not unusual or abnormal in any way that your virus scanner would react first to a piece of malware. The virus scanner would then block access to the file in question, preventing any other program or the user accessing it.

 

I remember the glory days where one could add his own signatures and fingerprints (that was damn cool) to th but I doubt that th alone is enough for todays threats, despite of the fact that it is a cool tool especially for trojan detection.

 

Actually, we get emails every week from customers who had a piece of malware that their virus scanner either wouldn't detect or failed to remove properly. Some even try installing other virus scanners before using TrojanHunter and finding it would remove the trojan.

As for the custom detection rules, that was a feature that very few people actually used. It might have looked good on the feature list, but you have to go with what customers actually want, which is to deal with their malware problem.

 

I don´t doubt that th is a effective tool for several threats I only meant due to the increase and explosion of new kind of malware it might be useful in combination with other tools. I think so, probably not so many people were inclined to dedicate themselves to this cool feature.

 

What I mean is that on my system, MBAM and SAS have never found anything either duting realtime monitoring or when performing a system scan, however F-Secure has picked up a few downloaders and a couple of nasties in realtime monitoring

MBAM did pop up with a few FPs, but I dont use it any more and just have SAS in realtime to back up F-Secure.

I have used TH in the past - and have a license for it - but I havnt had it installed in a couple of years as it never picked anything up and it only ever poped up once and that was a FP.

I believe that modern AVs like F-Secure and KAV are in a different league to AVs of the past which missed trojans etc and that there is only possibly a tiny benefit from having an AM scanner. I choose to use SAS as its a belt and braces approach - it is a possibility that it detects or removes things F-Secure will miss and it imposes almost no overhead on my system and has never given a FP - so for me, its worth having.

No disrespect to TH, but the product has not been updated in ages, it was not possible for it to stop detecting one of my apps with a FP and there are more modern and free AMs out there - so I wouldnt recomend it.

 

I only have one problem with this anticipation & theory suggested.

IF, and it can never be discounted either now or in the future, clever enough malware authors devise something to disable this type of suite we might say, there goes not one, but all your defenses down the hole and the machine gets hosed royally.

Not only that, but the less security programs available, unlike the many users have at their discretion to choose from now, the easier it will be for malware/bot makers to study and distort to disasterous consequences for the end user.

With that in mind, i would keep to an open option, that separate different apps are a much harder hurdle to overcome then a single combination all-in-one app that can be studied and forked to totally lose all security when successfully targetted & attacked.

EASTER

 

Agree latest FSecure makes a good impression.

Think so. A layer is mostly better.

 

Exactly.

Windows by design is constructed with a very wide range of entry options which equate to multiple points of distortion that can be in many ways easily exploited if it's security is not governed by an ARRAY of multiple security coverages IMO.

Question is: Will this trend continue in their (MS) next versions and beyond. Answer is likely yes because of the INDUSTRY created and blossomed of security protections around the globe to fill the gaps.

It's a business choice i would think.