CyberHawk 2.04 question

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by Kees1958, Jul 2, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Hi all,

    Because Novartix helpdesk promised that the 2.04 version would be faster due to a code revision, I dropped EQSecure for CyberHawk Pro to try.

    The installer is indeed considerable smaller.

    In the setup with GeSWall Pro (I made each of the security programs known to each other => adding GeSWall service as a trusted process and adding CyberHawk service and aps in his folder as always trusted in GeSWall console), I must say it is really faster.

    Only thing what is different, I used to be able to block AVNotify with an added rule (AVNotify.exe making an outbiund connection on port 80). When I apply this rule, the updater also goes down and corrupts the AVIRA scheduler (which is logical because Avira only gets updated half). Marking the pre updater and the updater as trusted processes did not change anything on the 'quick shoot and kill' of AV Notify nag screen.

    I can not check this, but it I have the impression that CH kills 'denied processes' faster that earlier versions.

    So my questions.

    1. Does anyone known another workaround with CB to kill AV Notify?
    2. Do other members also think 2.04 is faster (check for instance with browser start up)?
    3. Do other members also experience quicker kill response by CB?

    Regards Kees
     
  2. lucas1985

    lucas1985 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2006
    Posts:
    4,047
    Location:
    France, May 1968
    Well, if one of your security apps gets patched/tampered, the others would assume this change as normal behaviour. Food for thought :)
    As for your thread's question, I don't use CB myself, so I don't know about the behaviour of the 2.04 release.
     
  3. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Yeah I know,

    But GeSWall has pretty strong self defense and the service of CH is hard to kill also, so I will take that risk (over loosing CPU power).

    Thx
     
  4. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Avnotify can be stopped if u add it as a jailed process in GeSWall.
     
  5. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Aigle

    Current setups
    - PC1: Antivir + DefenseWall + A2 Malware (IDS) [Athlon64 3900+]
    - PC2: Antivir + GeSWall Pro + CyberHawk Pro [E6420@3,2Ghz]

    Thanks mate
     
  6. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    U like to play!:D
     
  7. cp4eva

    cp4eva Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2007
    Posts:
    127
    Location:
    TX
    I've been using CH pro for about a month and it has not slowed me down one bit.
     
  8. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Hi all,

    A somewhat arbitrary measurement of CyberHawks improved performance.

    On my wife's PC comparative startup times of IE7
    - Antivir + A2 Paid + DefenseWall = 60%
    - AV+ EQSecure + DW = 100%
    - AV + SSM free + DW = 133%
    - AV + SSM Paid + DW = 150%
    - AV + CB older version = 160%

    On the new gaming PC of my son (E6420@3,2Ghz + 8800GTS)
    - AV + EQSecure + GeSWall Pro = 10027 3Dmark2006
    - AV + CyberHawk 2.04 PRO + GesSWall Pro = 10022 3dmark2006

    Although different machines and different tests, the improvement of CB performance is spectacular, the scope of protection of CB was extended to custom rules for the registry and file protection.

    60% slower on a Athlon 64 3900+ versus 0,05% slower on a E6420@3,2Ghz

    Ratio: EQS offers more protection and is faster than CB Pro, still my son prefers CB now it has improved in speed. So security is emotion ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.