Help Me Decide Best combo of FW, HIPS, SB & BB - Your views

Discussion in 'Compare Apps Archive' started by HarborFront, Jan 23, 2017.

  1. Lockdown

    Lockdown From AppGuard
    Developer

    Oct 24, 2016
    2,705
    11,851
    AppGuard LLC Virginia, U.S.
    #61 Lockdown, Jan 24, 2017
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2017
    You don't want to do that. Setting up the system for the Matousec tests is not simple. On top of it, Matousec never disclosed the exact settings that they used for each software. For example, Matousec states they used the "maximum" settings. That is not as clear-cut as it seems. If they used the maximum settings for COMODO HIPS then they set it to Paranoid Mode. In Paranoid Mode CIS makes the system unusable because of the relentless, non-stop HIPS alerts for every single action on the system. PrivateWall at maximum settings to pass the Matousec Challenge suite is one thing, but meaningless in day-to-day use if those settings would generate so many alerts that the system is unusable. In some respects the Matousec Challenge was completely bogus.

    When evaluating security softs using various tests you have to keep everything in perspective. It makes no sense if a soft can pass a test with flying colors, but the settings used to pass the test make its usability crap.
     
    Behold Eck, Yash Khan, AtlBo and 4 others like this.
  2. HarborFront

    HarborFront Level 34
    Content Creator

    Oct 9, 2016
    2,300
    5,763
    Far East
    Hi

    If I want a suite I would have done it without trouble. But I'll miss the chance to experiment with other software. That's why I choose an AV and the others just fill them up with FW, HIPS, SB etc

    FYI, I have VPN, Simple DNSCrypt, on-demand scanners etc on my tablet.

    As for VM it's more suitable for testing malware/software which I'm not keen at this moment of time.....maybe next time

    Thanks
     
  3. HarborFront

    HarborFront Level 34
    Content Creator

    Oct 9, 2016
    2,300
    5,763
    Far East
    Hi

    Unlikely to follow your guidelines since it's such a hassle. I might choose one from the other 2 options

    Thanks
     
    Yash Khan and shmu26 like this.
  4. HarborFront

    HarborFront Level 34
    Content Creator

    Oct 9, 2016
    2,300
    5,763
    Far East
    Agree. I might choose one of the other 2 options

    Thanks
     
    Yash Khan, AtlBo and shmu26 like this.
  5. Wave

    Wave Guest

    As well as this, every suite has it's strengths and weaknesses... Therefore puzzing together a configuration using multiple pieces of software which are compatible with each other to produce custom layered protection can be beneficial to keeping you better protected, where each software is there for a purpose and has a strength at what it's supposed to do.

    E.g. Some AVs have good signatures but bad BB/HIPS, some IS suites have a firewall which may not be as good as another vendor's, some AVs have good web protection but bad signatures for samples, etc.
     
    Yash Khan, HarborFront and AtlBo like this.
  6. AtlBo

    AtlBo Level 22

    Dec 29, 2014
    1,144
    4,515
    Qihoo 360
    I agree about the test being useless, but the test scripts are not useless if someone wanted actually go to the lengths required to determine what they would be getting from PF while using their desired settings. It's actually interesting learning and knowledge. If you can find the holes in PF, you have a fairly good handle on the deeper challenges of protecting a PC. Matousec test scripts (actually .exes) can help with this.

    This can be said about Private Firewall. Private Firewall at its maximum settings is actually the only choice for using the program to speak of. There aren't very many settings. You can turn HIPs on or off, and you can see the center screen pop ups or work from the system tray ones. Beyond that it's auto block (no pop ups) or choose. Matousec tests didn't raise PFs game with maximum settings.

    Honestly, Matousec's test scripts aren't bogus. However, the presentation of the results concerning PF is ludicrous and meaningless, because PF blocks every executable when it first detects it running. Most certainly PF would block everything except script bypasses. And this is exactly where the problem with the program lies. Private Firewall is weak, that's the bottom line. It doesn't adequately protect the registry, dlls, or personal files, and it's way too easy to weaken CMD.exe and other script agents with allows that lead to infection. PF simply is not equipped with adequate submeasures for these issues.

    I think it's important to note that the Matousec test scripts are handy to have around for testing. They're safe as far as I can tell, but I would still test with them in a VM.
     
    Yash Khan likes this.
  7. Lockdown

    Lockdown From AppGuard
    Developer

    Oct 24, 2016
    2,705
    11,851
    AppGuard LLC Virginia, U.S.
    If the tester sets everything up correctly on a W7 64-bit system, then they should get the same identical results as what Matousec reported in their most recent published test. PrivateFirewall has not changed since the last Matousec challenge. Re-testing it using the Security Challenge Suite would be pointless. Also, the suite was designed for Windows 7 64-bit and is likely to have issues with W8+ - so it is pointless to test it on W10.
     
    Yash Khan likes this.
  8. AtlBo

    AtlBo Level 22

    Dec 29, 2014
    1,144
    4,515
    Qihoo 360
    True, and you can find those results if you dig around the site. I do find it's interesting to retrace a test, though. Just something I do from time to time.

    I would think that the test for W7/8/10 would be the same, considering that nothing about 8 or 10 changes the functionality of PF. It's still PF irregardless of what security measures have been added to 8 or 10.
     
    Yash Khan likes this.
  9. Zero Knowledge

    Zero Knowledge Level 5

    Dec 2, 2016
    239
    692
    Dark Cloud Universe
    HarborFront if you want to play around with security software for a bit fun/hobby that's cool.

    But no matter how many layers you install on your machine it will never be 100% secure. History has taught us that much.

    To be secure you need to rip the guts out of Windows to the point where you really can't do much through the OS.

    Even gutting windows is not going to save you. You know even air-gaped networks get pwned these days.
     
    HarborFront, Yash Khan and AtlBo like this.
  10. Lockdown

    Lockdown From AppGuard
    Developer

    Oct 24, 2016
    2,705
    11,851
    AppGuard LLC Virginia, U.S.
    PrivateFirewall can be installed on 8 and 10, but it was designed for 7. There are definite changes from 7 to 8 and 10 that will make a difference.

    Same applies to the Security Challenge test suite.
     
    Behold Eck and Yash Khan like this.
  11. AtlBo

    AtlBo Level 22

    Dec 29, 2014
    1,144
    4,515
    Qihoo 360
    That could be true, although I would think there would be some notice of this from Windows or Defender. :)
     
    Yash Khan likes this.
  12. Behold Eck

    Behold Eck Level 9

    Jun 22, 2014
    431
    1,033
    Great rock solid combo CFW + EAM :cool:

    Just to let you know that I recently tested Avast free on a very puny notebook(atom processor plus 2 gb ram) and not only did it deal with every thing I threw at it, it didn`t slow the system down at all.(on stock settings,no tweeks)

    I would avoid Privatefirewall as already stated here it`s well over the hill. Last time I used it a rogue firewall test ate my Firefox with not a peep from PFW.:(

    Ever considered Voodoo Shield to run along with your AV of choice ?

    Regards Eck:)
     
    HarborFront and Yash Khan like this.
  13. HarborFront

    HarborFront Level 34
    Content Creator

    Oct 9, 2016
    2,300
    5,763
    Far East
    Hi

    I have VS in my system.

    Yes, the new Avast (with BB) is another good alternative combo with CFW (CF + SB + HIPS) besides the CFW + EAM combo

    Actually, I'm still evaluating my next 2 setups of FW + HIPS + SB + BB for my MS SP3 tablet and probably another laptop (a few months down the road). I'll leave CFW out here. As below

    1) Avast IS (FW + BB + SB) + adroxideHIPS (HIPS + BB) - disable BB in adroxideHIPS if incompatible

    2) Xvirus Personal Firewall (FW) + BD AV free (BB + SB) + adroxideHIPS (HIPS + BB) - disable BB in adroxideHIPS if incompatible

    3) Norton Security Deluxe (FW + BB + SB) + adroxideHIPS (HIPS + BB) - disable BB in adroxideHIPS if incompatible

    Oh! Where's that adroxideHIPS?
     
    Behold Eck and Wave like this.
  14. LukeNukesEm

    LukeNukesEm Level 5

    Sep 14, 2016
    203
    508
    The Moon
    Windows 10
    Default-Deny
    Avast has BB for android? HIPS exists for android? This is new to me...
     
    Wave likes this.
  15. giants8058

    giants8058 Level 4

    Jan 26, 2016
    149
    223
    US
    Windows 7
    Emsisoft
    I currently have Emsisoft AM, Hitmanpro.alert and SpyShelter firewall (trying to cover all my basis..malware, exploits, loggers) and it's very smooth and I feel offers a high level of protection. But at the same time, I'm always careful what I click on.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
Q&A Best AV + other software combo General Security Discussions Aug 1, 2017
Best Free A-V and Firewall Combo by Resources/Protection General Security Discussions Apr 3, 2017
Can Combo Comodo IS +SpyShelter be considered the best free combination General Security Discussions Mar 12, 2016