Security 2.0 review

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by interact, Apr 11, 2008.

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

    interact Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2006
    Posts:
    121
    Location:
    Paris
  2. WSFuser

    WSFuser Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Posts:
    10,632
    Interesting reviews :thumb:
     
  3. Alcyon

    Alcyon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2008
    Posts:
    438
    Location:
    Montr?al, Canada
    Oh my! They fogot a plethora of applications!
     
  4. Ilya Rabinovich

    Ilya Rabinovich Developer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Posts:
    1,543
    No policy-based sandboxes? Bullshit!
     
  5. boonie

    boonie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Posts:
    238
    :D Preach it Ilya!

    I wonder what how/why they decided on such a small selection?
     
  6. LUSHER

    LUSHER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    440
    You mean no defensewall right? :D
     
  7. LoneWolf

    LoneWolf Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    3,408
    Because it is yet another computer magazine testing. :rolleyes:
     
  8. Ilya Rabinovich

    Ilya Rabinovich Developer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2005
    Posts:
    1,543
    I mean no policy-based sandboxes at all- there are two of them as I know, DW and GW. Also, virtualization sandboxes list is very small- olny two apps, not any popular, I really doubt that right now BZ or FF is more popular that SBIE, for instance. I strongly stand for a honest competition and honest magazine's reviews.
     
  9. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,730
    Location:
    localhost
    Also the review is poor... testing beta software and than complaining that it does not load properly on VISTA... oh.. well o_O

    Fax
     
  10. EASTER

    EASTER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2007
    Posts:
    5,633
    Location:
    U.S.A. (South)
    Take it from a guy (Developer) who knows.

    It's quite obvious magazines like that review either deliberately leave out vital very responsible and secure apps or they are mostly blind to true computer security in today's 21st Century world.

    Unfortunately honesty is still a rare commodity in many public & some private circles.

    Telling it like it is, way to go Ilya!
     
  11. Dark Shadow

    Dark Shadow Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2007
    Posts:
    4,553
    Location:
    USA
    I could not agree more with you,total Bull a Review that took everybit of 5 minutes to write, what a waste of time and magazine paper.
     
  12. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    Yes they could have covered more apps, but the reviews that they DID do seemed quite valid to me. However, I do wish they had covered at least one "classical HIPS."

    One of the reviewer's high rated apps -- BufferZone -- is really an excellent security program that, for some reason, receives scant attention here at Wilders.

    Unlike many other magazine reviews, MaxPC didn't kow-tow to the likes of Symantec. Shazam!
     
  13. LUSHER

    LUSHER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    440
    Yes, if valid means, what they say corresponds with what people here generally think...

    No user champion here. Vendor does not post here regularly. Both are big reasons. Nothing more, nothing less...
     
  14. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    See cmts following...

    I wrote clearly, I think -- "to me" means to ME. I am not a mind-reader to know "what people here generally think." I have used most of the reviewed apps, & found them to be pretty much as the reviewer said. That experience formed the basis for my comments.
     
    Last edited: Apr 14, 2008
  15. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Thanks for the link. I haven´t read the reviews yet, but I think it´s always nice to get opinions from various sources. As for BZ, it´s slow as hell, I think that´s why most people don´t like it.

    Nice final conclusion. :thumb:
     
  16. LUSHER

    LUSHER Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2007
    Posts:
    440
    Still that doesn't stop us from chasing for the latest toys no? and demand to know why our latest shiny toys fail against keyloggers or the latest bots...
     
  17. Rasheed187

    Rasheed187 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2004
    Posts:
    8,046
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    LUSHER, it´s a whole lot of fun, get over it! :D

    Of course I know that if brain.exe is used, it´s very unlikely that I will execute malware myself, but still, drive-by attacks are a major threat, eventhough a good HIPS (perhaps combined with LUA) will probably stop them. But I haven´t really seen any extensive tests when it comes to this, so you can never really be sure. So it´s good to know if HIPS can stop even the most exotic attacks, it makes us feel better. :)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.