Not sure if anything like this has been discussed on Wilders before, but here we go. I'm just wondering what people's thoughts are with regards to HIPS and Anti-Executable programs. What is the big advantage of a HIPS over an Anti-Executable? If an unknown executable is unable to even start/run, wouldn't that provide you with bullet-proof protection alone? Where would the HIPS play any additional role? arran also made an interesting point about controlling the behaviour of trusted applications. With regards to security vulnerability, what is the advantage of doing this? If you've trusted your executable, shouldn't you allow it to run freely? Sure, that executable should NOT be able to start/run other executables - Anti-Executable programs prevent this from happening too (default-deny). So what are people's thoughts on this? Rmus has clearly shown us that Anti-Executable programs are pretty much bullet-proof, and I'm finding this to be the case too. I've tested quite a few malware, and nothing seems to be able to bypass the default-deny of the Anti-Executable. I guess one specific question I have is whether anything can modify your computer dangerously without using an executable process (and thus would bypass the Anti-Executable). Thanks for any thoughts.