i want software like Prevx

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by 50000000, Jun 27, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 50000000

    50000000 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Posts:
    44
    is there any software like Prevx or better
     
  2. areply

    areply Guest

    Why not just use Prevx?
     
  3. Probably because it's crappy (at least that's my experience; slow, conflicts)
     
  4. lynchknot

    lynchknot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2004
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    SW WA
    How about winsonar?
     
  5. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Winsonar tracks running processes and attempts to highlight new ones so that they can be authorized or killed.

    Prevx doesn't really monitor processes, but it does pro-actively defend several types of system resources - e.g. the registry, system/windows files. It does overlap in some ways with products like RegDefend, and some of the anti-spyware products which also monitor system files.

    Since I do not like Prevx, right now I use a combination of ProcessGuard (for executable protection which Prevx does not provide to the best of my knowledge), RegDefend (for registry protection), and Giant AS (for limited system file monitoring which is not as good as Prevx but also not as talkative).

    Rich
     
  6. squash

    squash Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Posts:
    313
    Giant AS sucks more RAM (12MB) than Prevx and doesn't not do a good job as Prevx.

    Right now on this computer, Prevx is using only 1.2MB of RAM :p
     
  7. _/\*_*/\_

    _/\*_*/\_ Guest

    Doesn't Prevx have two running processes? PXAgent.exe & SAGUI.exe. Because PXAgent is currently using 4,784k and SAGUI 4,644k. That's about 9 1/2 MB's total. Not too bad IMO for the kind of protection Prevx provides. :) I don't know how you got 1.2MB's total mem usage Squash, that's amazingly low for Prevx.

    MSAS alone is using about twice as much memory as Prevx. I get a total of 18,464k of mem usage from MSAS!

    I guess it may be different on different peoples systems, but Prevx is usually very quite on my system.

    Some other somewhat similar programs to Prevx are Process Guard & System Safety Monitor (SSM). I would say programs like Winsonar and Abtrusion Protector are not really in the same class as Prevx but still fairly decent programs to consider.
     
  8. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    Polling is memory intensive?
     
  9. muf

    muf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Posts:
    926
    Location:
    Manchester, England
  10. Infinity

    Infinity Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    2,651
    yes...if you can create an intercepter I believe it would be less memory intensive...RegRun (not kerneldriven/selfprotection capacities) can poll every 1min. maximum...:) but you have to set ip up to 1min (default is 10!!!m)

    regdefend, prevx, tiny uses another algorithm means kernel driven or using some kind of hook that also intercepts.

    and I don't think there are a lot of others however I was very very pleasantly surprised with StarForce new creation : SafeNSec
     
  11. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Hi Infinity et al,

    Thanks for the link to SurfinGuard. I read the features and brochure and it would seem that SurfinGuard is more like a combination of ProcessGuard and WormGuard. Correct me if I am mistaken.

    Also, have you been running SafenSecure on your production machine? If so, have you noticed any differences between the SnS's protection and that which is provided by ProcessGuard - more or less.

    In regards to Prevx, I believe that the two primary areas of protection (as near as I can remember) were the registry and system/program files as well as buffer overflow protection. I do not think there is a program that provides this particular mix. Products like RegDefend and RegMon provide comparable registry protection, Parador provides comparable file protection (but the one review on download.com was pretty negative so the current version may not be reliable enough for users), and BufferShield provides comparable (though most probably quite different) buffer overflow protection. ProcessGuard provides executable protection which Prevx (as far as I remember) does not and to a degree it provides some system file protection since it is monitoring whether authorized programs have changed. So there is plenty of overlap and differences between all of these security programs.

    The bottom line is that no one of these programs is equivalent to any other so it is a question of mixing and matching to achieve the protection that one is looking for and having enough control over the programs so that overly redundant (and possible conflicting) features can be suppressed.

    Rich
     
  12. Infinity

    Infinity Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    2,651
    yes very true. the problem (my problem) is that with all those kernel applications...I cannot use Tiny and SafeNSec together, I've emailed Starforce two months back I believe and the support is second to none, I can tell you that.

    I choosed to run Tiny above the rest... that's the history. But if I hadn't Tiny, SafenSec would be my choice I guess. together with Bitdefender av this is as close as I've seen programs to what I need. /edit: I miss a memory scanner :)

    But at the end it's like you said...you got to choose and I believe it is for the better to have a mix of programs anyway ... cause it would get too big. And I don't have that good experience with it.

    Same with Prevx, home version was very stable but for some reason the pro wouldn't work in cooperation with pg. so it had to go too...

    I believe there is a limit in having kernel driven programs. that's what I've been trying to say a while back...it cannot be that all those programs can run into one of the deepest levels without going unnoticed.

    at my place the limit is three/four :) more then enough ...

    /big edit: a while back I addressed this here and I didn't received any answer either (I just hope it's not personal...) but I wonder if it's all that good for our system to have all this deeplevel things going on...how weird is that? That's the world upside down :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 30, 2005
  13. squash

    squash Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    Posts:
    313
    OK, I was initally wrong (I only saw one process), heres the correct stats:

    SAGUI.exe 1,380K
    PXAgent.exe 3,200K
    ---
    TOTAL 4,580K

    Still good... :) Still less than GIANT (MSAS) ;)
     
  14. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

  15. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    Yes you are mistaken. It's claim to fame , is it's "sandbox" that allows it to detect when Active content (javascript,activex,java) are doing malicious things.

    It seems more geared towards the enterprise market anyway. I can't think of any feature it has that makes it comparable to Processguard.
     
  16. mufster

    mufster Guest

    SurfinGuard Pro is not a piece of crap. In fact it has proved itself very capable of intercepting new malware that was not detected by all the top AV's. It runs very well, and i tried it against a number of firewall leaktesters which it intercepted successfully. If you would care to justify your comments, it would be appreciated.

    muf
     
  17. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    This other thread is discussing a free software called "Spy-the-Spy" which seems a lot like Prevx (functionally) but is an "after-the-fact" detection (as opposed to pro-active) tool. It seems interesting enough and the description on the home page lays out the products functionality and usage pretty well.

    http://www.mediachance.com/free/spythespy.htm

    Rich
     
  18. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    interesting read Rich, but I can only find one other reference to it in 17 pages of google. Gave up searching for it after that.
     
  19. richrf

    richrf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Posts:
    1,907
    Yep, I noticed the same thing Vickorr. It was just a package mentioned on another thread.

    Cya,
    Rich
     
  20. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    Well what did you expect ? It's new. The first day Processguard (Regdefend,Prevx etc) appeared there were also probably as few references.
     
  21. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    I realise that if it's brand new that it won't have many reviews, but the first thing any sensible business would do upon making a new product, is release it for testing to as many review sites as possible (that are willing to review it).

    You would think they would also release it to software download sites (which I presume would also run brief tests)
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2005
  22. Pollmaster

    Pollmaster Guest

    This appears to be a very very small "business" (small even when we compare to Diamond CS ), and it doesn't seem geared to make money off this anyway (no pro version). Seems to be a "hey I just programmed this cool tool, you want it too" kind of project, that explains I guess the less than "sensible business" practice.



    You trust those sites? LoL. In any case, wait a couple of weeks, I'm sure reviews will start poping up.
     
  23. Vikorr

    Vikorr Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2005
    Posts:
    662
    "You trust those sites? LoL. In any case, wait a couple of weeks, I'm sure reviews will start poping up."

    The download sites that link to the home pages of app's I've read reviews of <from reputable sites> ? Seems fair enought to me. I use a site called tucows. I use it occasionally to see what sort of software is out there (if I'm looking for a specific type of application). It's an easy way to see find out what's out there.

    In relation to the 'LoL' - no need to be rude.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.