ProSecurity v1.26 released! [as of Jan 08, 2007]

Noticed the concern that has been voiced over uninstalling PS. Even though I am not currently running this program, I have a lifetime license and have downloaded, run, and uninstalled all versions from the early beta's to the current one. Although some of the early betas had problems and were unable to remove themselves even in safe mode, I was able to do it manually without the need to reformat. I believe TECHWG was just giving a worst case solution to a possible problem. I have since installed imaging software and have never regretted it. I would not hesitate installing PS if I wanted to try it out. This is a very good program for experienced users, but I wouldn't recommending it for beginners . I suppose this could also be said about most HIPPS software that will require you to authorize a number of programs and processes you may not be familiar with.

 

ok ready to install prosecurity free, but last post worry me. two questions. is prosecurity free better than cyberhawk? will pro security free protect my antivirus and firewall from being stopped by malware?

 

PS free will protect your other software, and pro version
it really is good. If you use it correctly in the begining, you will be ok, the worst you can do after the first setup is you end up with too many popups if you configure it not correct. It really is worth using. Just leave it as it is and use your pc for a whole day or 2 and do everything on your pc you usually do then remove learn mode! Simple

 

ok TECHWG i will install it, but what do you mean by set up? also is it better than cyberhawk to protect my computer do you think?

 

hi, folks; ProSecurity is an excellent app. I have no problems installing or uninstalling. Some readers like to try it but are shy away by its alleged uninstall difficulties. Why not do this way? Asking developer to develope a quick and easy uninstallation program just for his baby. I am aware that prevx1 now has its own thing, so that users are very comfortable and worryfree to try out their product. Just my peso sense.

 

it already has an uninstaller ?!?! worst case just safemode and uninstall. but if you use ps well, you will never need to do this.

Just remember if you ever screw up with a security program . . F8 is your friend

 

Thanks for your praise!
Actually ProSecurity can be install/uninstall without any rebooting needed now, it's easy to install and easy to uninstall. If user only want to update to a new version, user don't need to uninstall before installing new version, even user can use its live update function to update smoothly.

 

hello to the developer. i now have prosecurity free installed. it took some time to go through wizard but when it was done i rebooted and computer is fine. i wish i would try this sooner. not sure if i am ready for paid version but will see. thank you for free version. i like it better than spyware terminator and cyberhawk. i am told free version has better protection too. also thanks very much to all that help me with decision to install.

 

I beg to differ. Unless you start answering "Block" to all the legitimate pop-ups at login, SSM will not lock you out. Having said that, a beginner would be wise to choose "Learning mode" and keep it that way for a day or two on a known clean system. After that, ferret through the program and learn as much as you can. Google anything you don't know about, check the forums and the help file. The same, of course, would apply to Prosecurity or other similar hips.

 

Glad you like it. Been using the free version for awhile now and tonight installed the trial of ProSecurity.
Tried many of the others but like this one. Works the best for me and on my system.
Good luck with it. I'm sure you will like it!

 

Is it really needed to make the user do all this ? 2 basic methods. "1) Install 2) Allow everything 3) review the rules and remove or block undesireable rules" and the other is "1) Install, 2) Give warnings about every single thing one by one"

I prefer to allow everything and check the rules bceause you dont have too many rules to check through, you can scan rhgouth . . Umm i dont know sergeg.exe delete i dont know ggggg.dll remove that etc. In a first installed system you dont have 1000,s rules you have only what is happening in your system and after thats taken care of you can then deal with popups.

All personal preference, if it were only exe loading protection then i would prefer to make rules one by one, but multipul things no way.

 

TECHWG, do you like comodo firewall? i want to try it again, but do i need it now with prosecurity free. i use ashampoo firewall which is ok, but many feel comodo much better.

 

I like Comodo very much!
I would say yes you still need it if you are not behind a router. If you are behind a router thats configured correctly to not allow unsolicited inbound then you can lighten your system with only ProSecurity

The reason i like comodo, is the number of good firewalls has dwindled in reacent times or they have gone down hill or been bought out. I used to like sygate, they got bought. I liked tiny firewall and they really started going down hill and got bought. i liked outpost but was causing me too much trouble. So comodo is completely free and has so many features its awesome! I would absolutly suggest to disable all the behavior detection in comodo because you really should not need them with ProSecurity.

 

Actually, *sigh* it was only a suggestion. Sorry for not making that clear.

 

i was only refering to the fact that ssm does not enable learn mode by default. hence my comment "Is it really needed to make the user do all this ?"

I think it should be by default as easy as possible for the user, and if they wish to take their pc into their own hands then they can untick that box and go right on and sweep their path.

 

The only problem with "learning mode" is it is either a friend or a foe, depending on the person using the HIPS. The longer it's active, the fewer the pop-ups there will be, thereby diminishing the opportunity to see first-hand all the different events that take place upon boot, launching of programs, the large degree of influence that certain processes like explorer.exe and svchost.exe, to name but a few, have on other processes and then the registry activity as well. Of course no one wants to errantly block legit, crucial activity, but it is quite worthwhile imo to exoperience and deal with some of this activity that learning mode will otherwise shield from the user's eyes if it is active for too long. You know the old saying: "No guts, no glory". You know as well as I do that as a tech you won't learn much just from reading user manuals. You have to get your hands on the equipment, play with it....even sometimes break it, figuratively speaking and put it back right, to properly learn how it works. If you let "Learning mode" do most everything for you, how will you gain a proper understanding of what is going on under the hood of your machine? Along with Google and technical forums like this one, HIPS can also be a great learning tool. They let you see in real-time what is happening until a permanent rule is created for the alerts.

 

Basically in my view, its just an easier way of doing the same thing you are talking about. There is not much difference between seeing the actions, and seeing the rules that it created. I also said part of your post somewhere else long ago you are correct in that learning is fantastic when you can get your hands dirty. But there comes a time when you can be passive about it while still having the same experience. Instead of clicking allow and block for every process and dll etc that run in your pc, you can let everything run and then look for anything that you want to remove. This is how i work and i would say for the complete newbie they will not know whats bad or good with either learnmode or no learn mode. I guess the main thing is for people to learn more about their system and take an interest in the more "technical" things of PC. It really is not rocket science, but just if people would check into the names of process and the path they are in will help someone find malware and other misc bad things

 

I just have a quick question. Does anyone know if a Software Firewall is really needed with the free version? I know it has Network Access Rules like the full version does, so I'm thinking it would be all right to use ProSecurity Free behind my Wireless Router Firewall and maybe just enable Windows XP Firewall with it too? I have ProcessGuard Free installed, but I am beginning to think PS Free is a better option now.

 

you need s firewall if you have no router or something. This is application control for network access. That wont protect you from a hacker trying to break in and exploit you.

 

Hey TECHWG. I do already have a wireless router firewall enabled and can use Windows XP as well. I was just wondering if for any reason using a third party firewall has any real advantage for someone who uses PS Free. Also would PS Free protect against a drive by download that I have heard about?

 

if you have it configured correctly yes it certainly will. Also i would suggest you enable the DEP in windows, to give you total protection

 

I'm behind a hardware firewall, i don't use any software firewall on this system. The network protection of PS is sufficient enough imo. PS would alert you when that download tried to execute.

 

Thanks fellas, and hey farmerlee how are you? I have AVG AV and Firewall but wasn't sure if I really needed the additional outbound protection of the FW. I am feeling my way around Prosecurity Free and must say I am beginning to like it more and more. One other question though if I may. Although I am a safe surfer using Firefox and NoScript, since this is only the free version, would anything else be needed for protection besides PS Free? I did have AVG Antispyware installed along with the combo I mentioned earlier as part of the AVG Internet Security Suite, but because the Antispyware Component used over 45MB of memory and caused some slowness upon reboot I removed it thinking I didn't need it anyway. I've seen some users of SSM and PS full versions use AVG AS however, and wonder now if I should install it again for any reason. Thanks again, and I want to say I appreciate the help received in these forums even for an obsessive software "trye outer" like myself. LOL. I am planning on sticking with PS Free however, since I think it offers better protection than anything I've used so far. Just covering my bases by seeing if maybe there is just one more layer needed or not.

 

If you are confident that you can answer prosecurity's alerts correctly then running the antispyware realtime is probably not necessary. I'm not even using an AV scanner at this time, just PS which i feel is sufficient enough for me.

 

Thanks farmerlee. I am sure that what you said about making a wrong decision with an alert was one of the reasons why the SSM user also had AVG AS installed. I am always debating with myself whether any AS is needed with Firefox or not, and thus my question. I did hear something however about why a Third Party FW may be needed. Because I am on a wireless PC, and my wife is hardwired into the Router, I heard it is possible to become infected by something downloaded from the internet on that PC, and a Third Party Firewall could alert me to this. Does that even sound right?