Prevx as standalone av enough?

Take your beloved AV-C tests, look who is number one in there, buy it, install it. Where is the problem?.

As for Prevx, it would make as much sense testing it without internet connection as testing a car without wheels. You know that, everybody knows......

 

You can set the heuristic in 'Settings --> heuristic settings'. The two lower levers adjust these settings. Furthermore, I've set my Prevx to scan for date/popularity before the built-in advanced heuristic kicks in, as I think this lowers the CPU-usage/disk access even more.

 

If you turn program popularity heuristics to maximum then it'll block pretty much all rogues (along with a lot of legitimate stuff too it should be said).The screen is the settings I'm currently using,but it's best to play around to find the right balance.This particular system is only populated with common applications though.

 

just to add on my false positive. it's not a well known program, it was written by the forum admins only for forum members. i got email pretty much straight back from support asking me for more details. really impressed by the support.
i have open tickets from 2 av companies over 2 years old lol.
i think it adds to buying confidence when you know the support is there when you need it.

 

Prevx is enough if u have net connection always.
There is no need for an antivirus if u practice safe browsing
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1594994&postcount=4

 

Prevx and Dr.Web work great together using win7 64.Im on a ssd now,but i notice no slowdowns

 

My point was that they (AV-C) can and do test WITH a net connection, so I fail to see why Prevx cannot be tested.

Anyway, thanks Kees for the tip.
I may just install Prevx to run alongside PCA after all.

 

I do agree with your perspective. However, in fairness, it seems the perspective of Prevx is that it is willing to engage in public and independent comparative anti-malware assessments, but it has not yet found a testing organization or a methodology that it believes will appropriately reflect the strength of the product. Precisely why the whole-product dynamic testing approach of AV-Comparatives or AV-Test isn’t acceptable to Prevx has never been clear to me.

Further information on this subject may be found in this thread and this thread.

 

When playing with PrevX this is a good practise

a) start with default settings
b) after a week or so move age to and popularity to medium
c) after another week change heuristics to apply AFTER age/popularity
d) after another week move age to high
f) after another week move heuristics to high (A) or move popularity to high (B)

You are gradually moving the focus to new arrivals and narrowing the white list (popularity), After that you increase sensity level of heuristics. When you install not so many programs increasing the white list scope to high is a good option (B), when you install some programs increasing heuristics is a workable alternative (option A).

Regards Kees

 

Very good post Kees, should be a sticky. I ended up with the settings you suggest at the end and it is rock solid. Setup this way and Prevx is very strong even by itself.

 

Perhaps Prevx doesn't want to pay the fee. AV-C charges a fee for a product to be included in its tests. The fee is not "nominal." Nor should it be -- even testers gotta eat.

 

Maximising Windows 7 security with SRP under LUA

 

Thx

PrevX will provide some sort of intelligent heuristics adoption in the future (only elevating to next phase when no intrusion occured). after all this practise cuts on two sides of the blade (problably a wrong Dutch -> English translation ) because both security and performance increases.

Regards K

 

I’m sure money is always a consideration, but Prevx has demonstrated its willingness to pay a fee to other organizations such as West Coast Labs and Immunity.

 

Prevx is more than enough.

 

Well, I've tested my own prevx many many times, and on a real live machine, its very difficult to infect my pc.

I don't use the highest settings, nor the default, but can hearby clarify that it is infact enough!

Many times in my discussions with joe, he's confirmed my samples to be unseen by the cloud and given reasons why on the rare occasions omething got through, but against the full range of products, its much harder to infect a pc using this solution, purely down to all its features that work on a 'if you miss it, I wont' type of structure.

Something that doesn't get mentioned much, is prevx will replace infected files with a clean version from the cloud after removal, its a feature that is one of my favourites and never gets a mention on here, unless I'm mistaken here.

Never had to use my hmp yet, and been using prevx with pso as a standalone for ages now.

For the people in here who say its not enough, you must be looking at something totally different to myself, even if you had several avs running, 1 single new sample could slip straight through, its prevxs multiple technologys that pushes it ahead on many levels.

 

PC Gamer, great post!

 

No bias here . Prevx is good enough as a stand alone if that is how you wish to compare . It is about as good as any other good AV . My suggestion though , would be to back it up with maybe a free scanner like MBAM or SuperAntiSpyware . Just some names off the top of my head . Always good to run one as on demand in case the stand alone ( realtime ) is by passed .
Good luck with you're choice .

 

and damn you're still safe to browse even when infected.

 

Meanwhile, back at the thread's topic...

Prevx has been my stand-alone real-time AV for several weeks -- because (1) it is good protection & (2) it is light as the down under a gosling's wings. Good enuf 4 me -- maybe 4 u 2.

For "layered protection" I suggest a partner for Prevx. Threatfire, for example. Or Outpost-free. Or OnlineArmor-free. Or Mamutu (if you have lucre to spare).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After victory, tighten your helmet cord.
(Ancient Samurai saying)

 

Threatfire's not x64. Is it still good enough?

 

I don't see any threatfire development lately.
So I can't recommend it.


If not on LUA. I'd recommend.
Prevx + Windows Defender (disabled application execution agent and scheduled scans) + Peerblock (HTTP Allowed)

its very light

 

Are you implying Windows Defender is a behavior blocker?

 

Prevx's cloud-based technology requires and Internet connection, but their advanced heuristics engine (behavior blocking technology) works offline.

People seem to ask this question a lot and the answer is really simple:

Prevx was designed to be used STANDALONE -OR- WITH ANOTHER PRODUCT.

All other AVs on the market are designed to work STANDALONE ONLY.

Read what I just said again. That's the only difference.

Prevx offers better detection over any other AV solution due to it's fundamental technology, but the reason Prevx is so versatile is if you want a layered security solution, you can install another AV with it.

The fact that Prevx was designed to run alongside other AVs doesn't mean it isn't good standalone. I would trust Prevx standalone more than I would trust any other AV standalone. But Prevx + another good AV = ultimate security.

But for advanced users that only want to run one AV and they rely on other non-standard techniques for security such as an SRP, Prevx standalone is your best option. Best bang for your buck protection with least memory usage.

 

Prevx is one of those rare antivirus programs that clean just as aggressively as it blocks. I can speak to that personally after using it to clean out a hosed PC that was resistant to other AV technologies. I'm also a firm believer in really light protection and Prevx fits that bill. So if you got money to drop on it I certainly recommend it over every other competitor out there.

I personally have too many PC's to maintain between myself and family afford the steep pricing for its licenses. Whenever I see security products go on sale Prevx is nowhere to be found. So with that said I generally stick with Security Essentials or a heavily discounted Mcafee product line.