64bit HIPS

Does anyone know of any HIPS applications that can run in 64bit machines besides Comodo's Firewall and D+? For me, this seems to be a bit too resource heavy and was wondering if there were any other options.

 

Spyshelter or Zemana.

 

Outpost.

 

Do these have standalone HIPS or is it integrated into the rest of their security?

 

Although not a classical HIPS, AppGuard runs on 64-bit systems. It's a type of policy restriction HIPS, similar to DefenseWall and GeSWall.

 

Spyshelter does not have the most of HIPS protections in the freeware version on x64.
Appguard is not a HIPS, please.

I honeslty don't know about Outpost, but OA free is certainly available on x64 and it is not included in a suite.

 

Both Outpost and OA include a firewall (HIPS and FW integrated) and don't have a standalone HIPS product.

 

actually 99% of hips softwares are HIPS+Firewall, or at least they have a basic firewall protection

 

Mamutu is a HIPS-only software, or behavior blocker if you prefer. It runs in 32-bit mode, so I'm not sure how thoroughly it intercepts 64-bit processes (I just started using it on 64-bit Windows XP because of a recent giveaway).

PE Guard 2 is another option. I think it's similar to AppGuard i.e. not a classical HIPS, but detects creation and modification of executable files and asks you whether to allow or deny (keeps malware from sneaking onto your system or replicating itself if already there). It's very light, but lots of pop-ups of course.

Also, you could install OnlineArmor Free, and disable the firewall component to get HIPS only. It might be even possible to install it without the firewall.

 

Kaspersky Internet Security, if you don't mind getting an AV at the same time.

 

If you want a HIPS with a FW, take Online Armor. If you want a FW with HIPS, take Outpost.
Outpost is more FW than HIPS, for Online Armor the opposite is true.
You can reinstall OA's FW after installation process which makes it a standalone HIPS.

I was looking for a good HIPS some weeks ago and started with OA Beta. I like it very much because it is very lightweight and has a nice UI and is the only HIPS that I tested that passed the PCFlank Leakteston 64bit.

Outpost would be my second choice after OA, but it is a little bit spartanic with it's GUI and it's x64 protection is not so good as in other products cause Agnitum seems to fight with patch guard.

 

Online Armor.

 

That depends entirely on your definition of HIPS. As I already said, it's not a classical HIPS but the term can be used in a more general way. I believe that DefenseWall which, like AppGuard, also uses policy restriction as a basic approach is marketed as 'DefenseWall HIPS'.

As the term HIPS in its broadest sense simply means Host Intrusion Prevention System, it is open to interpretation and there is no general agreement on the exact use of the term. Some people use the term HIPS as a generic term for software that is behavioural, rather than signature-based, in nature.

I was simply suggesting that if the OP is looking for non-signature based software that can run on a 64-bit system then AppGuard is another possiblity that could be of interest.

 

Spyshelter and Zemana are not very good... Lots of Leaks even if they told you they blocked something...

I would recommend Online Armor.

Or Outpost as a second choice..

 

i'm using hips from years, and i'm not interested on discussing teorically what you mean as 'hips'.

honestly i think it is more appropriate categorize them in other proper ways instead of using really vague and open definitions, just to not lead in misunderstanding:
hips are hips, behaviour blockers are behaviour blockers, antiviruses are antiviruses, policy hips are policy hips.. they have different purpose and offer different protections even if they work in a prevention area, otherwise why spent so much time creating these names, simply call everything "security software".
sometimes these terms are used in very open ways, i'm aware of it and i do not agree.

anyway, the user asked for an hips using as example Comodo D+, so suggesting AppGuard or Mamutu has nonsense for me, they're very different from the definition and way of use of D+.
Just my opinion.

Regards

 

Hey guys, thank you for all the input. I have one question for Bigabe, what do you mean by this?:

Does it mean I would install Online Armor with its firewall and then uninstall the firewall?

 

You could just install it, and disable the firewall module.

 

You can disable it as others stated above or if you are sure that you don't want it there is an option to uninstall the firewall component after you completely installed Online Armor.
There is no option to install just the HIPS, though.

I would recommend to use the FW, anyway because it is better than Windows 7 FW, or let's say it is easier to configure and to understand.

 

Use the best HIPS in the world that has passed all leak tests and its free. COMODO DEFENSE+ as part of a firewall alone. It has 64bit and 32bit.

 

Private Firewall runs on 64-bit just fine. It encompasses firewall, classical HIPS, system anomaly protection, email anomaly protection, registry protection, website/IP filtering (optional), etcetera etcetera etcetera.

Free. Light as a feather. Stable. Has a training mode, so as to keep pop-ups to a meaningful minimum. Fast, friendly, competent tech support via email. Lots of Wilders users.

 

At least you seem to agree that policy restriction software such as AppGuard and DefenseWall CAN be regarded as a type of HIPS in the wider sense of the term, albeit a different type of application to a classical HIPS such as Comodo Defense+.

The OP only said he/she doesn't want to use Comodo Defense+. It wasn't explicitly stated that only another classical HIPS would be considered as an alternative. If that is the case, then I agree that AppGuard wouldn't be of interest; but I thought it worth suggesting anyway as another possibility to consider.

 

no, please quote all my speech, not only 3 words.
i said Hips are Hips and Policy based Hips are Policy based Hips, so Hips are different from Policy based Hips.

hips are hips, behaviour blockers are behaviour blockers, antiviruses are antiviruses, policy hips are policy hips.. they have different purpose and offer different protections even if they work in a prevention area, otherwise why spent so much time creating these names, simply call everything "security software".

Of course there could be similarities in such aspects, simply because they work in a security area and (even if the world is really surprising) each software is son of an thought evolution, not a REvolution .
So, if someone asked me for Hips i won't answer Policy based Hips as i will not answer suggesting a Sandbox

This does not mean that hips are better than other solutions, simply they are different solutions, and the differences are important to understand and "respect" the philosophy of that software: DW totally leaves from pure hips user mentality, it is conceptually ahead, so even approach it to a HIPS (albeit in the distance) is wrong from my point of view..

Anyway, even if i really like this kind of discussion, we are going out of topic (request for an x64 hips)

Regards

 

Except on 64-bit XP... I use and like PFW on several 32-bit Win XP systems, but because it wasn't compatible with my 64-bit XP, I installed Look'n'Stop for firewall instead. LnS doesn't include HIPS, so I started looking for a standalone 64-bit HIPS myself some time ago. So far I like PE Guard and Mamutu. I had some issues with OnlineArmor (v4.5) earlier on my 32-bit XP systems (hence the switch to PFW), so that's why I didn't go with it, but a lot of people here say they experience no slowdown from it so that may be a good choice too.

 

I do not like Online Armor because it generates too many warnings. I prefer Comodo.