Future Changes to Prevx

SafeOnline is actually one of the strongest parts of Prevx as it doesn't require knowing about files to block them. As for making the most problems - it is true that it is more difficult to be compatible in the browser than in other places, but as I'm sure you've seen, we've fixed every problem that has been reported

 

Maybe this is the strongest part but i see that maybe for a long week the SafeOnline making problem with messing other programs and Windows GUI, after disabling it the problem gone. And by this situation i have right to feel that this is the most trouble-making part of this program.

 

This was a temporary issue which we've now fixed - we had a workaround which is to turn down protection to High from Maximum, but now the problem is fixed still on Maximum protection

 

Is this the place to request changes? If so, I request that SafeOnline be made to function with K-meleon.

I further request that the right-click menu for Prevx's system tray icon enable turning SOL on/off.

P.S. SOL is working fine for me now. It is now compatible with KeePass's obfuscation algorithm. Also, SOL's drag on surfing is MUCH less than the drag caused by the web shield offered by my HIPS. In fact, SOL's drag on web surfing is so small as to be imperceptible.

 

Freaking great support by Prevx. My Chrome problems have been resolved! Triple cheers!

 

Glad to have been able to fix it the issue! Thanks for your time as well

 

So, any changes in the future which will include a ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ behaviour blocker and a module specifically made for rouge AVs (which are damn hard to detect)?

Gabe

 

Yes We're still developing these engines which may be back ported into Prevx 3.0 but will definitely be in Prevx 4.0.

More to come in the not-so-distant future!

 

Sounds epic as usual.

 

Yes I can't wait to get my hands on it

TH

 

Yeah, it would be the ultimate thing to only run one, single, security program like Prevx. But for that, it needs one more layer of security; behavior blocker. I'm very happy when I hear this is about to become reality.

 

i think your greatly mis-informed about Prevx if you think it doesn't have a behaviour blocker

 

Not a very good one for rouge AV. I dare to say it's non existent when it comes to those threats.

 

not really, your reading too much into it or not enough.

The problem with rogues, are most do not simulate malicious behaviour, so I fail to see how you expect a behaviour blocker to pick up on that.

I think you seem to think that simply turning up the settings, especially on age/population will give you your disired results, once again, even these 'filters' take the executables behaviour into question.

Also with rogues, they are ever-mutating to bypass security products, and I think your under the impession that nothing can bypass prevx on its highest settings, sadly your wrong.

However, as more rogues appear and they have been doing over the past few months, prevx will be introducing new technology into their p4 engine to help detection of these threats, there is yet an antivirus that I've seen who gives good detections for these fake anti viruses.

And there is probably a reason why, would you have encountered these samples and actually installed them, highly doubtful. (not through general means, I personally think they are overrated and talked about as pure scare-ware, I know there are many, but its a very small percentage to what people usually get on their machines.

 

I agree with you 100% and the one that comes out to detect these rogues and scare-ware will be the one that people will use! I look foreword to v4 of Prevx and Prevx needs to deal with this Issue and I think they are the only one's that are willing to do so!

TH

 

Basically, you're just confirming what I stated in the post above.

One a side note, scareware (aka rouge security programs) are not rare these days. Most of the friends and family member I have helped out with cleaning infections (and they are HARD to disinfect) have been infected by these. And the reason they give for installing them in the first place is usually; but the site looked so clean and sleek and the installer was beautifully made. - This is what needs to be stopped by a top-notch AV.

 

Have a look at SONAR 3...

Symantec is on a very good way to get that deal with theire Version 2011.

 

Yeah, Symantec is on its good way to solve this problem by using a sort of 'reputation' system about unknown/semi-unknown files. It is working excellent against Rouge AVs. Of course, they are probably the biggest company on the security market with above 100 million customers... so their 'reputation system' is quite reliable and hence being able to protect you against any threats.

 

The Reputation system is good, thats right. (It is called Download/File Insight.)

But SONAR is even better cause it is a real Behavior Blocker. There are not much real Behavior Blocker out there.
And good ones nearly none beside SONAR.

I hate Norton for the last years but with SONAR and the 2010 products they made a really big step forward!

 

And not to raise NIS to the skies, but they really, really made their product lightweighted. A tad bit bloated still for my taste though.

 

Sorry if I'm misunderstanding something, but what has sonar or symantec gotta do with prevx?

Prevx have been using reputation based detections since the start.

 

You're excused for misunderstanding. We're talking about a NIS 2010 protection in a way Prevx can improve even further. It would be a nice if Prevx gave you live 'statistics' of the file you've just downloaded off the Internet; like how many user in the Prevx community who've encountered the file, how they responded to it etc.

 

dont think so,

Ive already seen your other threads that you felt the need to create mentioning all the same things, aswell as Prevx and Rogue Av's.

Prevx have been using reputation detections for years, you make it sound like new technology that prevx needs to create.

Also, if you think relying on users reputation will make things alright, your wrong.

if people had common sense and 'reputation' they wouldn't get infected, fact is, there are many stupid people out there, many children and teens or people who are not just knowledgeable about the bad things on the internet, who will simply allow the file regardless of what they may think just to get it on,

.. end of the day, why wouldn't they allow the file when its themselfs who have downloaded it in the first place.


please tell me the differences of Sonar technology that you think is an advancement over what Prevx already do and have been doing for years?

 

to add further, you basically want a pretty screen to say:

x.exe has been encountered 23 times in the community, 17 considered this file to be safe, while 6 labelled it as bad.

what difference does it make knowing, Prevx automatically have rules inplace to counter such decisions, while constantly watching the behaviour of the file aswell.

again, these are not new technologys, they are already onboard and working with Prevx.

Might sound good for Norton, in past years they didnt even have a behaviour blocker so adding a cool new one called 'Sonar' with all its advertising bells & whistles that Symantec always do is a great way to sell yet another year subscription on their new product, let me add they purchased this technology and didnt develop it themselfs, all while other products such as Prevx had already been using one for such a long time.

as for Download insight offering customers to see what people actually think of a file, its just a pretty more hands-on version of technology that Prevx has also been using for such a long time, again - another feature that is behind the times that sounds awesome to the Norton users, another feature that will create more subscriptions onto the next version.

please - stop me if im wrong.

 

You add nothing new to the discussion. You're claiming Prevx got everything in place, but it doesn't.

- I think it needs a better engine for detecting rouge AV.
- Statistics for each file scanned. Say the file has been seen 400 computer, but still populariy-criteria will hit in, I would like to know the exact number of times seen to make my own judgement whether or not the file is bad (sort of an option for advanced users).