DefenseWall vs. Online Armor(HIPS)

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by CogitoErgoSum, Dec 30, 2005.

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

    CogitoErgoSum Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Posts:
    641
    Location:
    Cerritos, California
    Between DefenseWall and Online Armor, which HIPS application does a better job of detecting and preventing the installation of malware(keyloggers, rootkits, spyware, malicious code, scripts/worms, etc...) and protecting the registry? Any comments or opinions would be greatly appreciated regarding this matter.


    Peace & Love,

    CogitoErgoSum
     
  2. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    well first u must understand how those programs work and function. (thread link) defensewall has a list of untrusted apps (usually internet browsers and e-mail, or whatever else u wanna add) which are restricted in what they can do. and processes they spawn are also restricted. if u suspect there is malware running, u can tell defensewall to close untrusted processes.

    as for online armor, it has a more proactive approach as it protects the HOSTS file and startup sections. it also has a email shield, web shield (a proxy that protects against activex and such) , and program shield (execution protection like PG). also if iirc in the next version is when OA is expected to get registry protection features.

    im sure someone can explain it all much simpler and more thorough.
     
  3. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
    Acutally they both protect those areas, the difference is in the approach. OA will alert you to each attempt, and will alert you from anything attempting to take action on those areas. DW, on the other hand, will simply block access to those areas by apps in the untrusted list, or anything that is run by an untrusted app. It will also put those restrictions on any scripts that are run, as the programs that execute scripts are already in the untrusted list.

    I fully agree with the first part of your post, however. For some people the execution protection of OA may provide greater protection than anything else, for others DW may be the best way to go. It all depends on how you use the programs.
     
  4. CogitoErgoSum

    CogitoErgoSum Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2005
    Posts:
    641
    Location:
    Cerritos, California
    Thanks WSFuser and Notok for your input.


    Peace & Love,

    CogitoErgoSum
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.