[RESOLVED]Security software that will work with Avast.

[Rifkin]

Hello,

 I have seen mention of problems of using other security software with Avast, so I thought I would offer up two that I know work.

The first is Threatfire, which is made to work with your Security software and improve your protection from new, unknown threats.

The second is K9-Web Protection, it's an internet filter that runs as a service on Windows 2000 and up.  It can block malware sites, phishing sites, https sites and most any other sites you can think of.  It works with any and all browsers, so it can't be defeated by using a portable drive.  I use it for adults and kids who like it for it's ability to block ads and redirection.  While it's nice to be able to stop the malware, it saves a lot of time if you don't get sent to the infected sites to start with.

Both of these can be used with other security software as well, not just Avast.

[doktornotor]

The first is Threatfire, which is made to work with your Security software and improve your protection from new, unknown threats.

I'd strongly recommend to not touch this thing. Fireball for ThreatFire 

(Also, development of this one pretty much ceased due to Symantec.)

[gautam7]

The first is Threatfire, which is made to work with your Security software and improve your protection from new, unknown threats.

I'd strongly recommend to not touch this thing. Fireball for ThreatFire 

(Also, development of this one pretty much ceased due to Symantec.)

+1

Also u dont need K9 web protection because avasts web shield is hot and accurate. If u need additional protection try some on demand scanner like MBAM. Also spywareblaster can be used to immune ur pc.

[Probzzie]

Suggest Win Patrol, stops registry writes and auto run programs from writing to registry without your permission and its free plus compatible with Avast!
Scotty is on patrol always


http://www.winpatrol.com/

[Rifkin]

The first is Threatfire, which is made to work with your Security software and improve your protection from new, unknown threats.

I'd strongly recommend to not touch this thing. Fireball for ThreatFire 

(Also, development of this one pretty much ceased due to Symantec.)

+1

Also u dont need K9 web protection because avasts web shield is hot and accurate. If u need additional protection try some on demand scanner like MBAM. Also spywareblaster can be used to immune ur pc.

That maybe but K9 will let you track who goes where, limit when and how long you can browse, warn you if someone is is trying to go where you don't want them to, plus you have full control and feedback as how sites are rated and/or allowed.

[Rifkin]

The first is Threatfire, which is made to work with your Security software and improve your protection from new, unknown threats.

I'd strongly recommend to not touch this thing. Fireball for ThreatFire 

(Also, development of this one pretty much ceased due to Symantec.)

What does Symantec have to do with it?  Threatfire is produced by PCTools.
It is still being developed and is in version 3 currently, I get updates every day.  Your "Firewall for Theadfire" mainly comes away with that it's badly coded.  If we stop using everything that is badly coded, we wouldn't have Windows or anything Microsoft based now would we?

I'm using K9 and Threatfire on two older laptops runnning Windows Xp, for over half a year now, and it has kept them both clean and Threatfire has alerted me on some dodgy software.
Neither machine is running any other active security software except for the firewall.

Once a month I do full scans with Avast, AVIRA, plus on-line scans for spyware, etc.

Now I'm saying anyone else should run without full active protection, but my two systems are so old that if I use anything else actively, they become unusable.  The full scans alone take hours, and they can't be used during the scans, either.

K9 does the most by not letting us be redirected to "bad" sites, so there is not a lot for Threatfire to do.

[Probzzie]

Well, hopefully your not doing full scans with both of those anti viruses active.
Secondly, are you using Avast with those pc's? because Avast has a site advisor too.

[Rifkin]

I can't use Avast actively because my systems are way below the requirements for any antivirus except Avira, which the realtime protection slows the system even more that Avast.

And no I suspend all realtime protection during the scans and only run one at a time.

[Rifkin]

While we've touched on the subject of Spywareblaster (which I have used), those of you with slower systems may want to read this post before you go all out with it or Spy-Bot.


Browser issues for IT professionals - IE8 sooo slooooooow
http://www.tek-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=1546822&page=8

[Rifkin]

Oh and K9 is a web filter not an advisor, although it will advise you, too.

[Gargamel360]

What does Symantec have to do with it?  Threatfire is produced by PCTools.
It is still being developed and is in version 3 currently, I get updates every day. 

Symantec owns PC Tools.  It has since '07/'08, if I remember right.

Updates are not the same as development.  Symantec, as the "big fish", likes to buy up the little fish.  But instead of eating them, it nibbles off a little, then takes them home and typically throws them in a fish tank of stagnant water, feeds them as little as possible, and waits for them to die.  

But if it works for you, that is really all that matters.  Just a heads-up.

[doktornotor]

What does Symantec have to do with it?  Threatfire is produced by PCTools.

Symantec acquired PC Tools quite some time ago.

P.S. I have provided a link with in-depth technical review of ThreatFire. You personal experience changes nothing about the fact that the whole thing is sloppy coding which doesn't really do what it claims to do and has huge chance of conflicts with other security software because of the obnoxious hooking used.

[Rifkin]

One review can't decide the fate of any product, are there any other other bad reviews, because I have found alot of good ones.  That added to the fact that c/net, PCmag and PCWorld editors give it 4-5, out of 5 stars, with the users giving it 3-3.5 stars.

Your reviewer doesn't say which version he tested, PCTools bought Cyberhawk which it released as Threatfire 3, with the current version being 4.7.0.17, most of the revisions have addressed bug fixes.

If you only have one bad review, perhaps he just has an axe to grind.

Unless you care to try it yourself as I have and then inform us of your first hand experience?

[doktornotor]

Unless you care to try it yourself as I have and then inform us of your first hand experience?

Yeah, I can inform you about my experience. Have tried this multiple times, it's been always slow as molasses, issues reported took ages to fix (some of them remain unfixed until now), and it did cause conflicts much more often than acceptable. That review is spot on from a guy who knows his s**t (and kindly note the date, no, they did NOT test 3 years old version before Symantec pretty much nuked PC Tools) - not the PC Mag kind of consumer blurb by Rubenking.  

[Rifkin]

Well thank you, now if you would have just told me that you had used it and did indeed have issues with it on your system in your first post, this thread would be much shorter.

I've been spending to much time in the video game system mod forums, and the first thing everyone does is start trashing everything the posters say or do.  All the "experts" trot out all their site links on why it's wrong and start beating their chests on how they have degrees and certifications on everything under the sun.  Problem is none of them have done what the person is posting about, much less the way they did it, so they have no first hand knowledge.

So to me the bottom line is I'll take the word of a knowledgeable user over any online expert, no matter much he knows his s**t, because he don't know jack about how or what I'm running on my system.  It still would have been nice if he would have listed the version of Threatfire he reviewed because like I said they have been bug fixing the heck out of it and a out of date review is worse that useless.  All we know is the date he posted the review, we don't how long it took him to do the tests, assemble and create the post, much less if he even used the most current version available at the the time he began.  Good reviewers admit that their reviews were only valid at the time of the writing, the better ones will update then as they publish them to the web and only the very best will update them after they are published.  I would like to see him compare his finding to the other produces that claim to work the same way, because it the other products are using the same dodgy system calls, it may prove to be more a matter of chance that multiple calls are being made to the same place, at the same time by multiple programs, instead of bad code on the part of only one of them.  The real problem is no one has taken the time to write good clean efficient code since we gave them more than 640 MB of ram to put it in.

So among us knowledgeable users you have a system that it doesn't play nice with and I have had it on four that it did.  Which I guess proves running anything on a Windows system is still just a crap shoot at best.