ProcessGuard: #1 choice

Discussion in 'ProcessGuard' started by one111, Sep 17, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. one111

    one111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2005
    Posts:
    92
  2. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    It is very interesting indeed but whilst PG finally comes out on top I do not believe that it is a fair comparison to any of the products, as both SSM & ViGuard cover more than PG. PG has never attempted to protect the Registry, etc., but rather has always stuck to process protection (hence the name)...and it does it very well IMHO.:)

    The interesting comparison here is between SSM & ViGuard, and the result is surprising.:eek:

    I have used for a long time, am a fan of PG (used SSM initially but got fed up with the overcomplexity of it compared to PG), and am hoping that the promised new apps from DCS will address the lack of Registry protection, ie, build on the very solid base of PG but add in more features along the lines of SSM...but we will just have to wait and see.:D
     
  3. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    PG lacks two very imp things--- advanced rules that are must-- and reg protection, otherwise it will be far behind in competition.
     
  4. Alphalutra1

    Alphalutra1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2005
    Posts:
    1,160
    Location:
    127.0.0.0/255.0.0.0
    One small comment, the report was done
    which is Monday, 25th July 2005. So the results are a bit outdated, especially concerning SSM which had come leaps and bounds in that time period. (not including that it is now under the control of a company, not its original programmer max b.)

    Just some thoughts . . .

    Alphalutra1
     
  5. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Registry protection through PG is not needed for those of us who use KAV or KIS as we have that in the Proactive Defense module. KAV 2006 and PG complement each other perfectly.

    I noted that the test was done in 2005 and done on PG 3.15 not the latest PG. It would be nice if a new test was done on the latest version of PG.
     
  6. Baldrick

    Baldrick Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2002
    Posts:
    2,301
    Location:
    South Wales, UK
    Mele

    I would agree with you if you run KIS or KAV with PDM. However, to make it a more rounded product and the best of breed I agree with something that Vampiric Crow posted in another thread on a similar subject...PG does need to offer Advanced Rules & Registry protection to haul itself back to the top. It is unbettered IMHO when it comes to process protection but needs to expand to prevent it being sidelined eventually.:doubt:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.