i can terminate avira guard [easly]

avira easyly close with ssm;

http://img135.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20080228194500an7.png

http://img258.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20080228194530db8.png

 

well K9 Web protection blocked the site as spyware for me. Great little freebie. When I over rode it the beta worked fine. So there.

 

If Avira allows a nasty to get installed, and then to hook the kernel MULTIPLE times (as does SSM) then Avira deserves to be terminated. Why worry about the continued running of any AV that has failed at such a basic protection? However, Avira does NOT fail in such manner.

A meaningless test, therefore.

 

How can you say Avira doesn't allow that but SSM does? For one thing, Avira loads very, very late in the boot process. You damn well better have HIPS that runs your computer (with your guidance and permission) and loads extremely early and fully hooks the kernel. SSM loads before Avira but ProcessGuard loads before SSM. HIPS is much more important than any antivirus program. So what is it exactly that SSM has allowed to be installed even though the user denied it? I only used SSM briefly but I can't quite fathom what you are claiming could happen as it couldn't with PG. Plus, Avira's Luke Filewalker is very weak so of course it could happen. A lot of us don't want to run an antivirus in real time. We want an on demand scanner only. Plus, what if you put Avira to sleep while you play a game and since there is no way to set a timer on it like with Kaspersky you forget it is asleep and you get infected but SSM or PG blocks the nasty from running?

 

As to your question, Mele, please specify the antecedent of "you" inasmuch as there were 3 posters prior to you.

I see NO post in this thread wherein a comparison is made between SSM's capabilities vis-à-vis those of Avira's.

In other words, what exactly are you trying to say?

 

I was referring to your statement which was confusing to me:

"If Avira allows a nasty to get installed, and then to hook the kernel MULTIPLE times (as does SSM) then Avira deserves to be terminated."

That reads to me that you are saying that SSM allows nasties to be installed.

 

My point was this: By design, SSM has multiple hooks upon the kernel of the user's computer. By design, SSM is capable of (a) "watching" any & all computer processes, and of (b) taking control of any & all processes, and of (c) blocking any & all processes at the deepest levels of a computer's OS.

If SSM could not warn the user about a real or potentially dangerous process, and then immediately BLOCK execution of that process at the user's command, then SSM would be useless as a HIPS.

It seems to me that OP is implying that there might be such a thing as a super-NASTY with SSM's full range of power & capabilities. If such a super-NASTY did exist, AND if Avira failed to warn the user when that super-NASTY initially sought admission to his computer, AND if Avira's heuristics further compounded the felony by failing to warn the user when that super-NASTY began throwing hooks into his computer's kernel, then Avira would have failed at doing its basic job as a security application.

If the user's security wall failed to that egregious extent, then it wouldn't make much difference if all or any part of that security wall got terminated or not. In fact, if it got terminated -- good riddance.

OP's test proves a fundamental but rather piffling fact -- namely, anyone with administrator access to a computer's keyboard can eventually defeat any security on that computer.

 

SSM loads a driver and any driver based application can terminate any other application. No need to even test it.

 

SSM Is there to keep Avira guard from being terminated.