Prevx

I have been running Prevx on my second PC behind a router with only SpywareBlaster and WFW since Christmas without picking up any nasties. My teenage children also use this PC so the set up has been used in a 'normal' family set up.

To check, I have run the online scanners from Kaspersky and Bitdefender. I have also used Superantispyware on demand only.

If this set up is secure on this PC I will be using it on my main machine. To be honest it is a good feeling to realise that the PC is not just a test bed for a number of anti malware programs.

Just thought I would share this with you.

Regards.

 

Prevx is a good program that is continuing to get better. I still think a added AV helps though. But hey, in your case it is working out fine and that is what counts.

 

Hi, folks: There have been some IT professionals trying to advocate the significant presence of Prevx1 in today's anti-malwares battle. They believe that prevx1 can be added to the following defense scheme: full-duty firewall(inbound and out bound control), realtime AV and a sandbox/virtualization app. And then you will have a much better than average fool-proof defense system. My belief in this approach is richer and richer day after day.

 

I agree. I will put it as a HIPS for novice. AV+ FW (+ HIPS- Prevx) &/or a Sandbox.

 

Prevx showed rather poorly in IBKs AVC tests. Only two applications did not catch all the malware; Prevx (5) and Cyberhawk (1).

If it works for you keep it. At this point in time I would not want to trust it very much. Since KIS PDM caught them all I see no reason for Prevx.

Best,
Jerry

 

those test are fairly old. There have been 2 new releases since that version. Notok and group have worked hard to improve this product, and I think one is in beta now. I think the next time tested Prevx will bring different results.

 

October 2006 is only 5 months old, but I realize things can change in that time.

I guess my own thinking is that I have seen Prevx praised as a do-all end-all application, and once saw some heated reply by the Prevx folks that those who criticized it did not understand how it worked, and what a wonder it was. But when tested it did not live up to claims or praises.

So far, I have seen nothing to make me think it is worth using, and especially instead of an AV. If someone runs tests that indicate Prevx does what an AV and other applications do, then I will change my mind.
I have nothing against Prevx, but have not seen any reason for such praise as it gets.
Prevx users have never been infected? I haven't either without it.

Regards,
Jerry

 

It,s just my feeling that Prevx can be better in dealing with spyware( esp those installed by users thinking as legit software) rather than trojans / Viruses etc.

 

No knock on Prevx1 because i know it is highly favored for all it offers with little or no user intervention but personally i take some offense at depending solely on an always active internet connection to make decisions on certain files. AS a malware researcher it's probably not for me given that aspect of it's feature, but for countless many i know i is invaluable for them and performs well enough to identify at least most all malicious threats circulating thru out the net. I DO LIKE THE PROGRAM PER SAY, VERY NICE.

EASTER

 

At this moment I use only Prevx1 and Look'n'Stop as firewall (+ router).
The rest of the malwares is removed after reboot in my frozen snapshot.
But I have no time to improve my frozen snapshot.
I'm busy with manipulating movies on DVD, which is more fun.

 

Hey, that's my setup exactly
Where are you reading this? I'm most curious!

 

Hi, folks: hi, someone: You ask me where did I get this concept from? Frankly, I could not remember it correctly. I guess it is either from this forum or others. Since I learned this concept, I urged myself to take this approach. I am glad that I finally get it done. I know I do owe you a big favor. And I do hope viewers can at least think about this steps very seriously.

 

as a point of reference i use Prevx1 and have been for around 2 weeks. i back it up with Online Armour w/FW ver 2 beta build 1.57, Regdefend free, browsers under Sandboxie, and the venerable NOD32. i tested Prevx1 against maleware seeded websites (i hid sys files from malware through Shadowuser) by disabling OA HIPS function, and turning off NOD's AMON & IMON defenses and exiting Regdefend. it was malware vs Prevx. out of 3 known maleware sites Prevx1 reacted to only 1 sites attempt to install malware. later corroborated by me by going back to all three sites using a snapshot of only Online Armour w/FW, which alerted to and blocked attempts to install active x components onto my system from all 3 websites.

i also tested Prevx1 against known active trojans, viruses and worms, approx. 13 samples. Prevx1 correctly jailed some immediately, queried others giving me allow/block options, and flat let a couple run as they wanted. although by no means conclusive, this little test gave me more accurate insight as to what Prevx1's capabilities are. at this stage in it's development, in my opinion not ready for starring roles, but fits into supporting roles nicely. i intend to not only keep using it, but to renew it's license, and look forward to further development. to see it in action is very impressive, and may very well in the not so distant future be the King Kong must have security appliance.


Mike

 

Hi, folks: Hi, pete: Can you elaborate your findings of these different settings /different results. Thanks.

 

hey Pete,

Prevx1 was in Expert Mode during that test, and is in fact my default setting. it is much quieter than the marketing hype would have one believe. irrespective of the settings however, it's supposed to block the execution of malware. further, none of these samples were "in the wild" but of the 24 i downloaded (only tested 13-14) none were less than a year old, most were 2-3 years old. the community database and hueristics clearly failed.

but this is not a knock on Prevx1. for me it is clear that Prevx1 is not what it's handlers say it is....yet. but to watch it do what it does is very impressive. i have it set to scan processes hourly by default, but once i started executing malware, not only did it check each piece against the database, the process/file scan accelerated it's pace dramatically. in fact 2 or 3 samples were jailed upon unraring without my having to execute them first. Prevx1 is a keeper on my system as is OA w/FW.

as an aside, i happened to have a snapshot of Safe'n'Sec as my only security app, and performed a quick malware test against it. Safe'n'Sec 2.5 allowed 5 of the 7 samples to run. and according to Castlecops Wiki HIPS test comparitive chart. which is how i discovered Safe'n'Sec, it seemed to offer stronger protection than Prevx1 and Cyberhawk...on paper. the reality as it relates to Prevx1 was very different.


Mike

 

I use and like Prevx1. I would say that at this current time it is better to use it as a realtime "Expert" to analyse running files and processes. But to have it running alongside your other main security apps. I run Prevx1 alongside Windows Firewall, KAV6, Boclean and Browser Sentinel. I feel it works very well in this type of setup. I do not think it is strong enough yet to depend soley on it.

I would say that if you are a fairly safe surfer but may be inclined to get duped into downloading and installing "Free" screensaver type things then Prevx1 is perfect for looking after you. But if you venture into the darkest area's of the net on a regular basis then you need to back it up with something stronger.

muf