Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: don67 on March 01, 2009, 09:28:24 AM
-
Hi Mates, i wan't your opinion here wich one is better both of them are new version.
PC-Tools - Current Version: 6.0.0.17
Released: February 26, 2009
COMODO - Curret Version 3.8.65951.477
Release Date: February 26, 2009
-
Hard to say. But i'd probably opt for PCTools because i have good experience with them. Donno why. Only thing that attracts me with CIS is Buffer Overflow protection and heuristics that are still in the works (CIMA based) and integrated BOClean. They say it'll come around end of march. At that point i'd probably prefer CIS.
-
i'm currently using cis the problem is a lot of false positives detections :o
-
If I have to choose, PCTools.
But maybe you can look at Online Armour firewall.
-
If I have to choose, PCTools.
But maybe you can look at Online Armour firewall.
Sir i'm asking about antivirus :) same here i like the PC-Tools against OA :)
-
Neither of them is nearly as good as Avast! ;) That's why we are all here. You can do a search for comparisons vs Avast! .
-
Sir i'm asking about antivirus :)
Sorry, my fault.
Antivirus? avast ;)
Oh, take care, both you're asking are much much weaker than avast. I'm not biased. It's a fact.
-
Sir i'm asking about antivirus :)
Sorry, my fault.
Antivirus? avast ;)
Oh, take care, both you're asking are much much weaker than avast. I'm not biased. It's a fact.
ok sir i'll go back to avast free version ;)
this is my security setup:
avast free version
PC-Tools Personal Firewall
PC-Tools Threat Fire
Windows Defender
COMODO Verification Engine
is this a good security setup?
-
is this a good security setup?
You can use SUPERantispyware (http://www.superantispyware.com), MBAM (http://malwarebytes.org/mbam.php) or Spyware Terminator (http://www.spywareterminator.com/) to scan for spywares and trojans. If any infection is detected, better and safer is send the file to Quarantine than to simple delete them.
-
Hi Sir Tech, why this simple test file can not detect with avast after i rename the note pad "fakevirus.exe" if you scan in manual it will detected.
X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
then save it with the name fakevirus.exe
-
I haven't used any other anti-virus software in the last year apart from Avast which means I can't exactly take puck shots at the competition (given that I haven't used the software). However I have used McAfee, AVG, Panda, RAV (I'm curious if any one else has used this), Kaspersky and Norton a few years back. All of them had good points but mostly bad (at least from my perspective at that time). Avast is the only one that suits me best right now and will continue to do so for a long time (hopefully).
But since we are talking about Firewalls as well, I wanted to get a second opinion. I installed Commodo FW (only the firewall) which to my surprise installed flawlessly. The issue I have with it is that I somehow felt less safe.
I am an average user who has taken apart old desktops and one laptop and who uses the computer on a daily basis. But I am somehow worried when a software asks me to validate connections or create rules. This Makes Commodo a bad choice since I am not certain what I am validating when I'm being asked by the FW to confirm a connection. At the same time being constantly interrupted by the firewall is annoying. So after less than half a day I uninstalled Commodo and went back to my old Vista Firewall. To make sure I didn't miss anything I created a restore point prior to the installation, and after using the uninstall program provided by Commodo I did a system restore to that point in order to insure that the settings were as they were before installation.
Now to the actual question. Apart from offering outbound protection what else is there in Commodo FW that the Vista FW doesn't have?
Thank you.
-
Did you install the HIPS (D+) along with the firewall. This is where the anti-leak protection is in case something wants to phone home or send something out without your permission. Avast! (and other proxy-type programs) facilitates this problem by putting ashmaisv.exe and ashwebsv.exe in place as the actual internet connections, so that proxy connections to these routines via localhost do not show up as outbound connections to the firewall. Other things like "check for update" often hijack your browser to make the connection and also don't show up. Usually benign annoyance, but could also be malware. If malware should also be caught by Avast! Standard Shield when it tries to execute, but the benign stuff won't be blocked. If you are using the Vista firewall, take a look at Sphinx as a firewall control program-seems to get good reviews, but haven't used it myself. I used the Vista firewall with Avast! for quite a while when I first got Vista and had no problems.
-
Did you install the HIPS (D+) along with the firewall.
No idea what this is. I only installed the firewall with proactive protection (this being givn as the most secure setting possible)
I used the Vista firewall with Avast! for quite a while when I first got Vista and had no problems.
So you've switched. What firewall are you using and do you consider it is better than vista's integrated FW. (another issue with Commodo FW was that My PC was discoverable on the network. With The Windows FW this is not the case. I tried the stealth setting in Commodo but these did nothing that I could see?
-
Did you install the HIPS (D+) along with the firewall.
No idea what this is. I only installed the firewall with proactive protection (this being givn as the most secure setting possible)
D+ is Defense+, the HIPS part of Comodo, or the proactive protection like you've said.
-
If you got a bunch of alerts that said they were from D+ instead of the firewall, you can tell you installed the D+ HIPS. I used the Comodo CFP firewall/D+ for about a year, but finally gave up when they pretty much abandoned fixing and improving it to work on their AV Suite. Currently have Online Armor, which is has much better usability, plus some features that I find very useful as a mobile wifi user. Along with the outbound/antileak/HIPS protection. They are also much more responsive (like Avast!) to fixing your problems. I use logging, for example, to find problems, and having that controllable in the firewall is a big advantage. If you just want to run your firewall and Avast! and be reasonably well protected without a lot of interaction, the Vista firewall is a pretty good way to go. And the Vista firewall does have outbound protection, simplified if you want to play around with the Sphinx software to set it up.
-
Currently have Online Armor, which is has much better usability, plus some features that I find very useful as a mobile wifi user. Along with the outbound/antileak/HIPS protection. They are also much more responsive (like Avast!) to fixing your problems. I use logging, for example, to find problems, and having that controllable in the firewall is a big advantage. If you just want to run your firewall and Avast! and be reasonably well protected without a lot of interaction, the Vista firewall is a pretty good way to go. And the Vista firewall does have outbound protection, simplified if you want to play around with the Sphinx software to set it up.
The users at download.com give it some good marks:
http://www.download.com/Online-Armor-Personal-Firewall/3000-10435_4-10426782.html
I am wondering though if outbound protection is worth a bit of extra work. Compared to commodo it seems to have a more user friendly approach
-
Hi Mates, i wan't your opinion here wich one is better both of them are new version.
Going back to your original question. Both of these are free for commercial use.
Is that the reason you're considering them apart from other free-for-home-use products?
-
Hi Mates, i wan't your opinion here wich one is better both of them are new version.
Going back to your original question. Both of these are free for commercial use.
Is that the reason you're considering them apart from other free-for-home-use products?
Hmh, I did not know that. As a matter of personal opinion, I find that this is odd ("free for commercial use"). generally if you have a small business that uses computers, then you are most likely going to require special support since you are dependent on keeping your computers up and running in order to make money. So what would be the point of this?
On that note, can someone explain why home users get to use Avast for free (apart from the slight differences offered by the pro version)?
Cheers
-
Hi Sir Tech, why this simple test file can not detect with avast after i rename the note pad "fakevirus.exe" if you scan in manual it will detected.
X5O!P%@AP[4\PZX54(P^)7CC)7}$EICAR-STANDARD-ANTIVIRUS-TEST-FILE!$H+H*
then save it with the name fakevirus.exe
Slightly OT, but try opening the file in notepad (rename the suffix to .txt if necessary) and check that there isn't a blank line above the text. Remove the blank line (if present), say "yes" to save the changes, rename it again to .exe (or .bat, or.com...) and see what happens.
Interestingly, neither Avast nor MBAM detect it with the line space present, but A2 does.
-
There are specific rules for EICAR test file. You can read about those rules on EICAR download webpage.
avast! follows the rules to a letter, others do it their way by detecting EICAR variants and modifications that shouldn't be even detected when following those rules.
-
Following on from RejZor...
The EICAR test file is not a virus. It should not be detected by an AV as a virus.
It is an agreed-to-by-convention means of demonstrating that the alerting part, not the detecting part, of an AV is functional.
-
By all means give Online Armor a try. It is user friendly, and has a setup program that will run a Safety Check Wizard to scan your existing files, or simply allow them all if you are sure you are not infected, so any future interaction will be because of new stuff you have added. There is a free version that has the capabilities most needed by a casual user who doesn't want to do a lot of configuring. Also removes pretty cleanly if you want to go back to the Vista firewall. Try the latest public beta 3.1.0.26 at http://support.tallemu.com/vbforum/showthread.php?t=6706 which is very near the next release version.
Currently have Online Armor, which is has much better usability, plus some features that I find very useful as a mobile wifi user. Along with the outbound/antileak/HIPS protection. They are also much more responsive (like Avast!) to fixing your problems. I use logging, for example, to find problems, and having that controllable in the firewall is a big advantage. If you just want to run your firewall and Avast! and be reasonably well protected without a lot of interaction, the Vista firewall is a pretty good way to go. And the Vista firewall does have outbound protection, simplified if you want to play around with the Sphinx software to set it up.
The users at download.com give it some good marks:
http://www.download.com/Online-Armor-Personal-Firewall/3000-10435_4-10426782.html
I am wondering though if outbound protection is worth a bit of extra work. Compared to commodo it seems to have a more user friendly approach
-
thanks sded,
I'll try it (not the beta... not too keen on betas, but the version on Download.com is from 19 Jan 2009 so it's recent enough). I'll post back with findings/experience
Cheers
-
3.0.0.190 is actually from October 7 2008, so there are a lot of changes since then, but still last released version. Next release should be any day now, but that one should at least give you a flavor for using the program. If you run into problems you can usually get quick answers at their forum at http://support.tallemu.com/vbforum/forumdisplay.php?f=10 .
-
Ok install with the exception of one thing. I was asked to update two drivers but the publisher was unknown so I denied the operation. Online armor installed and ran, slow at first but after it did the initial scan of which programs do what, it was ok. The one hiccup that i have with it is that for one reason or another my system is set to be discoverable on the network which I don't like. I used Commodo firewall and the same issue occurred. I'll let Online armor launch the new edition and then give users a while to use it. The problem with the network discovery seems to have to do something with Vista more than with the firewall.
The uninstall seemed uneventful and went well. So kudos for that.
Thank you again for your recommendation sded. I will keep Online armor as a possible substitute but only in a few months after most of the bugs have been worked out.
-
I do a lot of mobile wifi over public networks, so have the same problem with all the firewalls. They want to help you set your trusted network up so you can do sharing, incuding SSDP (is that what you mean by discoverable, port 1900?-if you mean on the internet with GRC tests, that is usually your router), and I have to go in and kill it all. I have a network, but none of the other computers are known to me and I don't trust them or want to share with them. If you uncheck the "trust" on the Network popup in OA, it does the really serious stuff, but doesn't block everything some might want. BTW, I got them to add the "trust" box as a beta tester. :) As far as the unsigned drivers, they are still all over the place with Vista x32, and you just need to see if they are for something you recognize and allow them, or deny them and see what breaks. Supposedly x64 changes all that, but I don't use it. The new OA release is the result of another 4.5 months of beta testing, including public beta releases, so is of a caliber with the Avast! new releases. I currently have no open bug reports with it, but they tried to add something in 3.1.0.27 that didn't work right under Vista and are now deciding whether to remove it or fix it before the release. So something to keep an eye on in the nearer term too if you decide you need more protection.