Battle As an Anti-Exe which is better - WinPatrol WAR vs VoodooShield?

[HarborFront]

Hi

Which would you choose if use as an anti-exe? Which is the better one like less FP etc?

Both the technologies behind are different. Would someone comment on them in details? Bells and whistles come next.

Thanks

 

[_CyberGhosT_]

How about one more silent than the other? It's similar to having 2 different AVs on the system. 1 detecting and 1 not.

To be honest I don't receive enough alerts to discern a pattern, maybe I need to trigger some and take notes.
Either way now you have me thinking on this damn you If I do notice a pattern I will mention it though.
Good question man

 

[Evjl's Rain]

sorry but VS >>> WAR. No comparison here
WAR is specialized for ransomwares and according to tests, it has been average against other types of malware
WAR is not a true Anti-exe while VS is a cloud-assisted anti-exe which can help you to decide the file should be allowed or blocked
I think WAR is a ransomware behavior blocker with application control function, similarly to kaspersky IS, but less functional
it automatically allows "safe" apps to run without any notification => much higher chance of allowing malwares

most other anti-exes just simply lock down you PC without helping your decision. They are suitable if you don't install anything every day or week

The final point is that, WAR is not free and VS is free
If you want to lockdown your PC, use always on mode. If you want some flexibility and usability, use auto-pilot mode
You don't really need the paid version

 

[HarborFront]

sorry but VS >>> WAR. No comparison here
WAR is specialized for ransomwares and according to tests, it has been average against other types of malware
WAR is not a true Anti-exe while VS is a cloud-assisted anti-exe which can help you to decide the file should be allowed or blocked
I think WAR is a ransomware behavior blocker with application control function, similarly to kaspersky IS, but less functional
it automatically allows "safe" apps to run without any notification => much higher chance of allowing malwares

most other anti-exes just simply lock down you PC without helping your decision. They are suitable if you don't install anything every day or week

The final point is that, WAR is not free and VS is free
If you want to lockdown your PC, use always on mode. If you want some flexibility and usability, use auto-pilot mode
You don't really need the paid version

If I'm not wrong

When you install both (VS and WAR) they do take "snapshots" of your system. What do you mean by "safe" apps in WAR? How do WAR determines a "safe" app? Through whitelisting?

WAR works using behavior blocking whilst VS uses virus-comparison using VT and its Ai. WAR can work offline since it don't depend on signatures whilst VS is handicapped since it depends on the initial "snapshot" taken for determining "safe" apps and, of course, as an anti-exe.

Not sure which generates more FPs using behavior blocking and virus-comparison/Ai methods

If you install a new app after the initial set up I believe both will prompt you.....I might be wrong here

 

[jerzy601]

VS is a very good program paid off.
I used some time ago Win patrol, but it did its job but the VS is too easy to use and even more of the scanner is a great product.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

If I'm not wrong

When you install both (VS and WAR) they do take "snapshots" of your system. What do you mean by "safe" apps in WAR? How do WAR determines a "safe" app? Through whitelisting?

WAR works using behavior blocking whilst VS uses virus-comparison using VT and its Ai. WAR can work offline since it don't depend on signatures whilst VS is handicapped since it depends on the initial "snapshot" taken for determining "safe" apps and, of course, as an anti-exe.

Not sure which generates more FPs using behavior blocking and virus-comparison/Ai methods

If you install a new app after the initial set up I believe both will prompt you.....I might be wrong here

WAR determines "safe" apps by its BB. If the apps are not detected by BB, they are considered as safe by WAR and will NOT generate any prompt. The apps will run straight away. The advantage is that it can work offline
However, its BB works best for ransomwares but is poor against malwares. Its app control is an extra feature where you can enter and manually block or allow something but it doesn't work like other anti-exe
Therefore, WAR is a BB. I can name you a free alternative: Kaspersky antiransomware: it can work offline and a specialized BB for ransomwares/trojans, not powerful against other malwares

VS = anti-exe + VT + Ai => if you don't have the internet, VS = anti-exe
it can still block all apps like an anti-exe + the message of "no internet connection"

If we run a safe app like google chrome, WAR won't generate any prompt
VS, if we use always on mode, Google chrome will be blocked by default. This is lockdown mode so safe or unsafe apps will be blocked
if we use autopilot mode, GC will be allowed to run without any prompt
If we don't have the internet, VS will block GC because it needs VT and Ai results to allow GC

According to users' reviews, WAR blocked many truely safe apps. The rate of FP is very high
VS also has a problem with FP due to the Ai. They are equal in terms of FP rate, IMO
However, VS has VT which can help you to decide if the app is a FP or not

EDIT: by the way, you mentioned "snapshot"
I think snapshot is to mark all installed apps as safe and generate a list of safe apps in application control. This is true for VS not 100% sure for WAR
if a malware already infected the PC, we install VS or WAR, the malware is automatically allowed => downside of having a snapshot => VS and WAR should be installed on a clean PC

 

[Plebman123]

Personally using VS, never heard of Winpatrol WAR til now will take a look into it tho

 

[212eta]

As an Anti-Exe which is better - WinPatrol WAR vs VoodooShield?

VoodooShield by all means...