Do I need to replace DSA of SSM/PG?

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by mitchelson, Mar 17, 2007.

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

    mitchelson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    I have used "Dynamic Security Agent " for a while , it seems good , but too automatic to be controlled.
    Is it really working, or can it protect system effectively? DSA nearly has no alert.
    So, should I chage back to PG/SSM, instead of DSA? Which protection is stronger? Looking forword to any point of view.

    Since I have installed "McAfee Enterprise 8.5i (with antispyware module) "and "McAfee Desktop Firewall 8.5", which provide powerful FD with some AD/RD functions; do I really have to install such traditional HIPS like SSM/PG?

    Thank you!
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2007
  2. Hipgnosis

    Hipgnosis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2003
    Posts:
    297
    Location:
    Witness Protection Program
    I can't say to what complete extent DSA works, but it worked well enough(?) that I could not connect to my work VPN so I had to remove it. I liked it because it was lightweight and the premise was good, but the VPN issue was a deal breaker for me.
     
  3. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Looking at your other security aps, I would choose the one easiest to configure ProcessGuard. DSA overlaps with your firewall, SSM additional protection overlaps partly with MCFee Desktop.

    Regards K
     
  4. mitchelson

    mitchelson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    Thank u two.

    Now, I decide to choose PG instead of DSA. :)
     
  5. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

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

    I noticed that you have CyberHawk Pro running on your other PC. Do you have added a lot of custom rules (e.g. initiation of outbound internet traffic, protection registry keys)?

    Regards K
     
  6. mitchelson

    mitchelson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    kees

    Yes, I added some rules to block dangerous ports such as 135 137 139 3328 ...... Any process try to communicate internet on those ports the will be prevented. Sounds like a kind of firewall. ^_^
    Also, I have set up some files--protection rules, quite convenient . :) The CH version is 2.0.1.2.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2007
  7. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    Does CyberHawk pro has a registry browser included like SSM-free. I tried the release 1 version, which had not. I will wait for CB-Pro to develop sime user friendly editing of custom rules (the logic is clear, but the protected objects are not sophisticated to navigate to).

    With the knowledge of registry items to protect (see post SSM free additional registry entries), I will replace SSM-free for CB-Pro when we migrate to Vista.

    Regards K
     
  8. mitchelson

    mitchelson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2007
    Posts:
    69
    CyberHawk pro has no registry browser included like SSM-free, so it is a little difficult to protect registry entries with user's configuration. I don't know why the software is designed like that......Not a very vital problem, but easy for the software writers to develop.
     
    Last edited: Mar 19, 2007
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.