Threatfire instead of UAC?

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by masqueofhastur, Oct 22, 2009.

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

    masqueofhastur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Posts:
    109
    Threatfire seems to do some of the same things as UAC, although by my estimation Threatfire is a little less annoying and more useful.

    Is Threatfire a reasonable replacement for UAC, allowing me to completely disable it and let Threatfire handle everything? If so, why? (I'd like to have a solid reason for doing it, rather than just a hunch) If not, why?

    Thanks
     
  2. acr1965

    acr1965 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2006
    Posts:
    4,954
    I just use the Norton UAC tool and it works great. It can kinda whitelist the programs you want to run without the UAC prompt. It does not disable UAC just intercepts it.

    http://www.symantec.com/norton/theme.jsp?themeid=labs_uac&header=0&depthpath=0

    If I was going to run Threatfire (can't on my Vista as it diabled my keyboard) I would just add the Norton UAC Tool instead of disabling UAC altogether. You will still get prompts when programs upgrade but when you get a prompt you can add it to the whitelist. And when you get a UAC prompt it works like it should have been designed in the first place- it gets your attention instead of just having people click on it out of habit.
     
  3. masqueofhastur

    masqueofhastur Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2005
    Posts:
    109
    Any idea on how compatible it is with Windows 7? With other software I'm quite willing to play with something that doesn't have guaranteed compatibility, but with security software it's something of a necessity. I'm also assuming that I don't need any NIS software (as opposed to the security settings tool)?
     
  4. chris2busy

    chris2busy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    477
    no...threatfire is light years inferior to UAC and if you put your mind to work when alerts occur UAC will save at least your system from ever being down..Threatfire has failed at threats like killdisk and such biggies before..plus UAC isn't buggy *cough threatfire* and does not suck your system dry *cough threatfire*..If you want a beheavioural blocker go with mamutu..threatfire has caused millions of problems,just do a search around here.
     
  5. Kees1958

    Kees1958 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2006
    Posts:
    5,857
    I respect everyone's opinion, but

    Mamutu just recently protected against Direct Disk Access, while TF implemented this earlier (regarding Killdisk).

    TF's latest uses less CPU, although Mamutu was en is designed for speed, so agree on this.

    I would not entirely shut down UAC, use TweakUAC to at least keep the virtualisation goodies and protected mode for IE, when you would consider TF or Mamutu.

    When you use UAC Tool of Norton, with UAC and Sully's PGS for SRP, you have a light and powerfull rights protection on your rig.

    Regards Kees
     
  6. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    It doesn't support Windows 7 and isn't really necessary since it was developed to address the annoyances of Vista UAC which MS have gone some way to sorting out in 7.

    http://community.norton.com/norton/board/message?board.id=uact&thread.id=292
     
  7. TheIgster

    TheIgster Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2009
    Posts:
    645
    Location:
    Edmonton, AB
    Like a previous poster in this thread, I can respect that everyone a different opinion.

    With that being said, I have been using TF since the 64-bit beta for Windows 7 and am quite pleased with it. It has saved my butt several times, is a nice addition to my running AV and is free. Who can go wrong with that? I have never had a single issue with TF.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.