CyberHawk question

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by IceCube1010, Oct 18, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    Hi

    Just a quick question for any Cyberhawk users out there. I am currently using version 1.2.0.39. Do I need to have community protection and updates on? I realize that Threatfire is the replacement but I like the Deny button that TF omits. Also, is it overkill to have it running since I'm using OA free?

    thanks
    Ice
     
  2. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,632
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    As Cyberhawk is long since been discontinued as a public commercial program, you should disable Community Protection & Updates as i do with v1.1.1.3 because no updates or remote server database will feed Cyberhawk since it's transition to ThreatFire.
     
  3. Smiggy

    Smiggy Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Posts:
    209
    Location:
    The Angel Isle
    Can anyone advise a link to download an old version of CyberHawk?
    Will take advice over best version, Easter perhaps??

    Would like to test it alongside my NAV2009, currently using Defender in HIPS mode.

    Cheers in advance guys,

    Smiggy
     
  4. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    thanks EASTER. You know what's funny about this. I loved Cyberhawk when it first came out. Then they added some features that changed it a bit and I left it for dead. When TF came out, I used that and loved it. Then they added some features I didn't like and I uninstalled it. Now I'm back to one of the original versions of Cyberhawk and love it again. Go figure.

    Ice
     
  5. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    I found the download link scanning for cyberhawk in this forum (anti-malware). Sorry I don't have the link. They had 2 versions. I think it was a Canadian site or French? I'm using the older one.

    Ice
     
  6. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,632
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Exactly what i reached for when i discovered TF just wasn't going to be the Behavioral Blocker that Cyberhawk was. It was and IS for those who've reverted back to CH, a superior TERMINATOR each and every time. I personally much rather prefer dismissing a potential threat manually thru this application rather then it being moved to some Quarantine area. At least for 100% certainty, earlier versions of CH seem to be on a hair trigger when it comes to DLL injections into other programs/processes.

    EASTER
     
  7. Baserk

    Baserk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    AmstelodamUM
    At Download.com you can find many Cyberhawk versions.
    cheers.
     
  8. Firebytes

    Firebytes Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Posts:
    903
    I uninstalled Threatfire a while back due to the fact that it had began causing a problem on one of my computers. With it running sometimes Firefox would not close properly and would use near 100% CPU. Since I had heard some members here advocate Cyberhawk in place of Threatfire I decided to try the last version of Cyberhawk again since I still had a copy of the installer on my computer. I didn't have any problems with Firefox shutting down with Cyberhawk installed but I did notice a delay in some programs loading and with the window coming up after I clicked "Turn off computer". I never noticed a delay with Threatfire and couldn't tolerate it with Cyberhawk. For now I have neither installed. I am contemplating installing one of the early versions of Threatfire before the AV component was added to see if that is a fix for both issues.

    One thing to consider, while you do lose the "Deny" option with Threatfire, you gain the ability to create custom rules.
     
  9. Smiggy

    Smiggy Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Posts:
    209
    Location:
    The Angel Isle
    www.download.com shows old versions of Cyberhawk in a pull-down but you cannot download previous versions. Already been there.

    "Download the latest version | Learn more about ThreatFire AntiVirus Free Edition 3.5

    (Download doesn't provide access to previous versions of this program.)"


    o_O
     
  10. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    Here is version 2.0.4 http://www.clubic.com/r/cyberhawk/

    However, I am using version 1.2.0.39, this version does not contain the rootkit scanner and custom rules. I really just use this nice pgm as a backup to OA free. If it gets past the hips then hopefully cyberhawk will pick up the slack. The link to this version is located in a thread somewhere in this forum.

    Ice
     
  11. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    I would use version 1.2.0.39 of Cyberhawk. I also experienced some slow downs with the later versions.

    Ice
     
  12. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,632
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Good point!

    Thanks for pointing that out. I see a concensus growing more and more all the time over the same exact trend that plagued Cyberhawk before Novatix eventually transferred ownership & distribution over to PCTools. In the first versions of TF everyone seemed to think it was a gem, then as more releases came forward, more & more issues began to develop for the end user. The same trend that CH suffered.

    I dunno who holds source code for TF, but i hope they understand that they do have a very good code structure at their disposal, and they should re-examine IMO later versions when CH began to drop off in reliability and somehow piece back together that pattern and leave off the additional features.

    AFAIK, a Behavioral Blocker shouldn't be burdened down with AV-like integration. Past & recent results clearly point out that in so doing it only makes for difficulties and an eventual exodus from their product in favor of previous, more stable & reliable versions.
     
  13. wtsinnc

    wtsinnc Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Posts:
    943
  14. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    That is exactly what made me give up on TF. White list, Black list, I don't know list etc etc. etc..... A Behavioral Blocker should really be about behavior. Use some heuristics and logic to determine if something is running bad. That is why a layered defense is good. Firewall/Hips/AV and Behavior blocker.

    Ice
     
  15. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Using CH 1.1.1.3 and turning off updates and community protection, my firewall still gives me heads up that chservice wants to contact
    services.novatix.com

    I put it into the hosts file and left it be. Strange.

    Sul.
     
  16. IceCube1010

    IceCube1010 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Posts:
    963
    Location:
    Earth
    I had the same problem, but apparently every time I re-booted, the updates and community protection would be on. The change would not keep. So in OA I Denied the internet connection for CHService, that does the trick. I am using version 1.2.0.39

    Ice
     
  17. Baserk

    Baserk Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    1,317
    Location:
    AmstelodamUM
    Stupid, my bad.
    Here is a link for Cyberhawk 1.2.0.39 though.
    I've checked it with Jotti's malwarescan and it comes up clean.
    I can't say whether this version is an improvement over your current version 1.1.1.3.

    Easter, or anyone else "in the know", which of the old Cyberhawk versions is the most stable one?
    I've only started using it when already named ThreatFire...
    Thanks.
     
  18. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    all the old versions were stable:thumb: own experience:thumb:
     
  19. cet

    cet Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2006
    Posts:
    867
    Location:
    Turkey/İzmir
    I have been reading posts about cyberhawk lately.I searched my second hard disk and found 2 versions of cyberhawk which are:1.2.0.39
    and 2.0.1.2
    If anyone wants I can mail them.
     
  20. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,632
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Same here. All stable.

    However, As ThreatFire 4 is just been released, i been testing it thoroughly and so far it's a huge improvement over all the TF's previous versions. Remains to be seen though if some programmer finally flattened all the bugs in it to make it a useful product again, but i have to say so far so good.

    On some of my system's i've been quite satisfied with early CyberHawk versions. The newest TF 4 is a bit bulky but seems to be leveling out nicely.
     
  21. jmonge

    jmonge Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Posts:
    12,883
    Location:
    Canada
    i may try the new version 4:thumb: to see how it goes:thumb:
     
  22. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,632
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    It's definitely a big improvement, however IMO needs just a tad bit of sharpening/trimming of it's code to bring it up to the same responsiveness as MAMUTU which is performing excellent!

    This TF 4 is equally gaining respect and so far it seems that finally all the right pieces are firmly in place.

    I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with this newest version of TF. I am a strong critic and it's turned my opinion of it now.

    EASTER
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.