pcIP - new name, big claim

Does anyone know how Authensys (from the makers of pc Internet Patrol) got the balls to claim the following... "Protects your security programs (Anti Virus, Firewall, Anti-Spyware etc) from termination or modification by malicious code better than Process Guard"

It's available at http://www.authensys.com/.

Regards,
Spiff5000

 

i think its bs, i dont like it.

This software is for the norton lovers out there that have no brain and want a point and click "Oh click this to protect your pc"

 

It's a little unclear whether they are touting their white list approach in which user intervention is not heavily required, or if they are claiming that their internal process protection code is more robust. In former sense, it could be more robust for novice users than an approach which requires dedicated user decision and input. As for the latter, I have no idea.

As for it's appropriateness as an application, please bear in mind that users of Norton et al. are the economic drivers in the PC security market. You might not like that fact, but when you get down to it, everything else, except for a couple of like-positioned vendors (McAfee, etc.), is currently a niche cottage industry. Vendors/resellers with a perspective like your own often go down the tubes because they launch a product that the overall market does not want or value and will not support.

Blue

 

Unfortunately, this kind of consumer dominates the market. People seem to want easy-to-use security. If they can't get it, many will go without.

 

Well what about making good security with extencive help files and tooltips with information to teach them what they need to know. A monkey can be trained to push the red button every time someone knocks on the door but he does not know whos knocking and what do they want . . . Users need to know more about their pc's and they will also feel better about them self and feel more confident on computers. am i right or wrong ?

 

You're wrong for the vast majority of users. The PC is an appliance to do things in a person's life. Many are really not interested in how it works, only that it does work. While the analogy is somewhat overused, it is appropriate - how much do you thing ordinary drivers know or wish to know about the inner workings of an internal combustion engine? Precious little if you ask me. There are afficioandos who go the distance and learn the details, and many of them will assist us when in diffculty. However, the vast majority of drivers would be at a complete loss if they had to fix an automotive problem on their own.

As a means to an end, how does a PC differ?

Blue

 

Not really new . pcInternet Patrol is just an earlier version in a basic sense .
HOW can they say it protects better than PG ? Because it does . pcInternet Patrol did a great job at keeping all types of malware out . And , it passed all the leaktests with ease . ALL of them . Simple ? Yes . Why should that matter ? I am very advanced in this field yet , i use pcIntermet Patrol and it has protected me from things that NOD and two firewalls missed . Great againt viruses and trojans . Authensys is a bit more advanced and , obviously , newer than pcInternet Patrol . If it is too simplified , do not use it . If , for WHATEVER reason you dislike it , do not use it . It is simple . lol . Good program for those who CHOOSE to use it . For beginners and advanced users alike .

 

Does 2 claims that it does make it so

It would be very beneficial if Authensys or your self even would take the time to explain to us how that is achieved

 

Hi,

I couldn't establish for what OS this is for, or whether it is Free or not. Anybody know the answers ?

Thanks


StevieO

 

It's not free but a 30 day trial. About the OS I can't give an answer.

Gerard

 

A properly configured Process Guard with an educated user is damn near perfect defense against viruses, worms, trojans, etc. The claim that Authensys is better than Process Guard can't go unchallenged. I can only imagine that they think it's so easy to use that it trumps PG based on usability.

As for users with "no brain", I guess that statement would have to include me too. I'm often stumped when prompted that SVCHOST.EXE is trying to execute. Even if I know the reason, who the hell has the time for that kinda crap?!

 

Hi Bubba .
Too much detail to go into here . Simply put , you cannot be better than perfect . PG CAN be perfect IF the user is perfect . How many users of PG are perfect in that sense though ? Authensys has already made the decisions based on years of research and continuing research on everyday anomolies . This , by itself , already makes it better than PG for MOST users . Because professional researchers make the decisions as opposed to the PG user . That is a simplified answer . I will ask the ISA guys to either step in here or give me something I can copy and paste to give you more detail .
Hope that helps . Please note that I use PG as well . I like PG and know it is a fine product . But , again , it is up to the user to make many decisions .

 

It seems like this company is always taking the cheap way out. I know in the beginning they blocked a small hand full of ports and called it a firewall, then there's the leaktest which they just marked "bad", now they're trying to pit themselves against DCS using ambiguous verbage. That's not the kind of company I would entrust to my system security.

 

They have always been supportive when I have had questions . They are very professional whether you like their attitude or not . The product can speak for itself . This is the only firewall I know of that will stop ALL 15 leaktests dead right out of the box . Back when Copycat and Thermite could not be stopped by anyone , this one stopped both ! I do not like how they tout the pcaudit test on their site . It is very fishy as it will ALWAYS tell you that you have open ports . Even if THEIR firewall is installed . But , they do not stealth ports . Never have . Everyone has their opinion of why to use or not to use certain software . These folks are good people . At least , in my dealings , they have been . And I love the firewall . A bit too simple for me but , it stops trojans , virii , all types of malware . I would not be without it . At least it works and does what it is supposed to . That is important .

 

Hi hollywood!!

As we talked about PcIp last spring, I have been using it since and would not be with out it!!

Cheers Bud,

 

I have not used this Authensys program, but I do not trust Internet Security Alliance. From being a previous user of pcInternetPatrol, I have determined that they use anti-virus programs for their 'verification' and have wrongly labeled Phant0m's Rule-Set as described here: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=110637

I have used the member support (while I was still a registered paying member) to notify them of this, and even posted at their forums at www.pcinternetpatrol.com with absolutely no feedback from them what-so-ever. You can see from the threat linked above that even anti-virus vendors have updated their declaration of Phant0m's Rule-Set. It looks like Authensys is more or less basically the 'authentication' portion of their pcInternetPatrol software, which means it more than likely uses the same methods of 'authentication' as its predecesors.

This brings up an interesting thought, that they probably use AV programs to declare a program bad, but not good. This means that it is probably a safe bet to use instead of an AV, but will still have false positives.

 

Intersting AJohn .
I have had a couple of false positives in the past but , a couple in more than 2 years time ? The AV they use must be good then . And , whatever they use , it has ALWAYS stopped all the leaktests AND caught trojans with ease . Just my opinion but , seems that whatever it is they do , it works . As for no feedback from them . I am now running into that . Kinda strange . Never had any problems with them in the past . I will keep it until it begins to fail . I have seen no indication of that as of yet . I must agree that if I got no response from support after trying a few times , I would walk away . Cannot blame you for being bothered by that .
Again though , AV or not , it works . Strangely , NOD catches virii first . Trojans and some other malware are detected by pcIP first . I guess you are saying THEY use an AV to tell THEM if something is good or not right ? Either way , some will like it and some will not . The bottom line is it works though . That is my concern .

 

It would be nice if you could bring some facts to the table, hollywood.. unfortunately it seems that the only facts are against the product right now. Do they at least have a full fledged firewall now, or does it still just block a few ports and call it good?

 

pcIP's outlook has always been to be used as an addition to a firewall. I believe this is partially the reason they are now offering their Authensys program as stand-alone.

 

Hi AJohn .
pcIP has not been pushed to be used in conjunction with other firewalls . There really is no need . The reason it is OFFERED to be used with other firewalls is because many people want to be stealthed . It makes them feel more secure . For that reason , it works with other firewalls . Another reason , although small , is to give the advanced user a better feel . pcIP is load it and go . Nothing to configure .

 

From their FAQ:

(emphais is mine)

I also like how the summary on the front page states that pcIP is the *only* product that can protect you [against unknown malware]. I keep thinking of the post by the Avast! rep talking about how security vendors need trust, and how that trust can take years to build.. we're supposed to trust these guys?

 

Hmm, you are right. They market it to be a stant-alone security program. There are more other firewalls offer than stealth though. With pcIP you dont really know what attacks are covered untill they are brought to your front door.

 

Nice Patent Reading:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...L&s1=6944772.WKU.&OS=PN/6944772&RS=PN/6944772

 

Take it from someone who is also " very advanced in the field"

I don't see what the big deal is.

Prevx1R does this too with heuristics (rules) + community online database for whitelisting known files.

Safensec has it's only rules too so it doesnt alert on everything.

I predicted a long time ago (actually a few months ago lol), that this would be the trend, stuff like PG/Regdefend/appdefend are great , but they only work for a niche audience.

Even stuff like BZ and defensewall have stated policies of not creating popups, in recognition of the fact that most users just dont want or know how to handle it. Altough this is not a complete solution since stuff can fail without warning.

Okay, now Erikalbert can give him patented speech about his favourite class of users ....

 

AJohn and devily .
Agreed !!