Trustport 2015 line released

As what I see from elsewhere, Xenon is BitDefender engine. So I assume Aeon AVG.

From the logs users posted, I can see that also all detections are done by Xenon.

 

According to this: ~Link removed. We don't recommend this site for reviews.~ it uses AVG and BitDefender engines.

 

It looks like Primary Bit Defender, Secondary AVG, then the HIPS. The developers have told me the entire product is highly optimized C++. Right now my focus is to work on the AppGuard like HIPS in it, with custom rules, and enhanced protected space functionality. Heuristic wise, the product defaults to normal heuristics, but you can enable synchronous advanced heuristics within the advanced settings.

Security through obscurity, I highly doubt any malware would know how to bypass TrustPort's HIP as it wouldn't be targeted as the big names are. Once I get it in the lab it should be interesting.

 

I spoke with the Trustport producer last night. The next major release is about 3-4 weeks away, and will feature bug fixes, and improvements in speed. Even though I feel it's the lightest AV I have ever seen, he said they are working to make performance improvements with each patch.

He provided me a link to a pretty nice document on how to configure the product, and some detailed information. Some nice data in it, and some cool command line switches;

http://www.trustport.com/manuals/2015/files/enu_antivirus_user_guide.pdf

 

Strange you actually got a reply from them when they ignore all my emails to refund my license which I never activated. Paypal case lodged

 

Why on earth would you buy a license without trialing it? I'd stop worrying about desktop AV's if I were you, and just install something and move on.. It's not really worth all of the headaches, time, and frustration. I know we all like to test new versions of stuff, but switching AV's every 24-48 hours is nuts! (and a waste of money)

 

Nooooo..... It's entertaining at this point to hear about Mortal's AV purchases, cancellations, love, hate... a regular one-man Wilders soap opera. Plus, I've gotten a few good nuggets of information in Mortal's 'reviews.'

Now probably trialing rather than buying would be easier on Mortal... but it's all part of Mortal's colorful trip down AV lane.

Mortal, have you tried every AV on this list?

http://www.av-comparatives.org/av-vendors/

Don't disappoint us and skip any..

 

I bought it without trialing because of how high you spoke about it bro, you made it sound like the best thing since sliced bread, and it is in terms of performance really great. Only quirk is the DPI scaling which I can live with, but their bad customer service now is proving me that I did the right thing by asking for a refund.

The main reason I refunded it is because after a few reinstallations, they would blacklist the last activated machine. So I have a 6 user license right...... let's say I activate it on 5 computers and leave my computer to the end......if I would reinstall a few times, they would blacklist the oldest computer it was installed on, so it might be my mother's computer, my sister's, or who knows who........they wouldn't even realize that their AV stopped working to tell me and would be under the risk of being infected, very stupid way of managing licenses.

 

I have to agree, Mortal sure keeps things more interesting around here on Wilders. And keeping PayPal busy for dealing with reports/cancellations.

 

thanks for the compliment bro

 

LOL!!!!

 

At least I do us all a favor as I'm a perfectionist and spot any hug or performance issues, give t3H m3H s0m3 cred!t

 

You're welcome.

In my honest opinion, I think that you should skip AV on your systems altogether. Along with Mayahana's theories, make your networking/security hardware do the work for you. Having the other hardware doing the heavy lifting, your systems will run at absolute full performance. You pay good money for your systems and you should have full performance. And I know for a fact that performance is huge on your priorities. Save the money and yearly renewals on software and put it into hardware. And again, you save money since you've got good quality hardware already in the ASUS. You could add in another piece of hardware and see what Mayahana would suggest in your case, but I'm sure the ASUS would be sufficient.

If I were you, I would enable the AiProtection in the ASUS and deal with that tiny performance difference. Surely that will get better in future firmware anyway. Get rid of any AVs, so that will save you a lot of time that you spend testing AVs and dealing with getting refunds and save on future psychiatrist bills (kidding on that point, of course). On your systems, I would suggest just going with Application Whitelisting to control what programs can run and where they can run from. You should be in the driver seat and in control over your own security. I would throw an anti-exploit into the mix as well, MBAE or EMET should be fine.

I decided to give Trustport a run on my test machine just to see if it's something that I would recommend on any of my client's machine. But I wasn't too convinced. Plus I trust Frank's opinion.

 

Actually if you were around here I would hire you for the lab just to test and break stuff. But you may give some of the solution design team guys a heart attack.. LOL

Wild makes a convincing argument.. I'd actually run ASUS w/AiProtection, then you have enough RAM in your system to run a small VM with a tiny Linux Distro, and restrict all browsing from within the VM. In fact, that's how I would roll if I were you!

 

After 3 weeks with no response from TrustPort regarding refunding my new unused / unactivated license and ignoring all my emails. PayPal finally decided the case in my favor and issued me the refund as TrustPort weren't even replying to PayPal!

 

http://www.buzz99.com/trustport-total-protection-free/

 

Nice find anon.

You're not implying that you can't trust Trustport are you? 'Cause Trust is right in the name. They were so busy dealing with all your purchases and cancellations... they got behind in definitions updates. And my computer exploded.

The End.

 

I just bought one subscription bro for 2 years / 6 pcs.

Then u guys here with some of the bad comments such as the company was using test results from 2011 and changing th elle date to now sayING they don't miss any viruses made me lose trust so when I Contacted them initially, they replied within 2 hours askin why do I want a refund if I haven't even activated the code, so I explained the facts like wrong DPI scaling + bad reinstalling method as in, when u activate more PCS than the seats available to ur license, the last activated PC would get deactivated and after got I received no replies to any of my many emails and no reply to PayPal also so PayPal decided the case to my favor. Trust Port = 0 trust

 

Trustport is a well known and trustworthy company, imo.
http://www.trustport.com/en/about-trustport/company-profile
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrustPort

 

Funny thing. They actually don't seem to 'decay' first installs with subsequent ones. In fact I have gone over my 6PC license by 2PCs, and was waiting for the decay, which never happened. My guess is they really don't keep too close of an eye on things. I have no issues buying more licenses if the need arises however. Maybe they felt you were a nuisance.. I know the MSP/IT firm I work for we actually 'fire' companies that are cheap, small, and whine too much rather than devote hundreds, even thousands of man hours to addressing their every moan.

I wouldn't read too much into people talking about old test results and other nonsense. Use simple logic: Does the program work as intended? Do your tests show it being strong? Does it have little to no system impact? Usability what you need? That's really all I care about. I place less stock on what people say, and more on the core of what they present, and then apply that as a small variable in my own evaluations and logic. I don't use one source as a sole source of information, but apply it as another small variable to consider. Still happily chugging along with Trustport here. It catches stuff, doesn't give off false positives, and has no system impact. So I can't say I am even looking at other products these days. Fine with me, now I can focus on other tasks.

 

I wonder what is it that makes you so defensive about a company that you have recently decided to champion out of the blue... It's not "people talking", it's TrustPort writing it in their opening homepage:

http://www.trustport.com/en/news/tr...e-most-effective-methods-of-malware-detection

The test quoted is from August 2011, with all the results deliberately changed to appear as the best participant.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/avc_beh_201111_en.pdf

 

to be honest I have never felt happy about a company using av engines developed by other companies,I doubt the developing company will give the licensee full access to all the development data to what they consider to be their baby,after all if there was a fall out between the companies involved who knows where that data would end up,could end up at a competitor or even worse some malware writing group

 

That sort of eliminates many products, doesn't it? As the years progress, proprietary engines are becoming less prevalent. Your caution seems warranted though, because it would potentially be easier for a malware author to have his products evade detection by focusing on the most prevalent engines. However in the case of Trustport, they maintain a core engine (Bit Defender), then have a secondary failover (AVG), and then have a very advanced HIPS as a final layer. So a malware artist would have to circumvent 3 layers to bypass this product, which seems unlikely to happen.

 

Well you should use a sole source.

And that source should be:

Frank

With you and Mortal professing exclusivity with one AV, monogamy to just one, the Wilders board suffers. Both of you studs need to come back and play the field, and share the nuggets.

I learned to love Trustport like my own mother. I brushed aside the lying and deceptive narratives on the homepage. But if they consider 'The Immortal One' a "nuisance" -- then I'm done with them.

I'm standing by the Raptor.


Thank you,

-Frank

 

Actually, the test quoted is from May 2010:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/avc_beh_201005_en.pdf

TrustPort did not change the results. TrustPort did indeed earn the top score out of all 20 participants, and it was awarded Advanced+ certification.

However, TrustPort's site does misrepresent these results as being "recent." The test results page has been live on TrustPort's site since at least June 13, 2010:

https://web.archive.org/web/2010061...e-most-effective-methods-of-malware-detection