Prevx as standalone av enough?

Would like to hear from the experts at Wilders since there are no reports from testing agencies.

 

Yes. I guess

 

Prevx as a standalone AV is very much enough...In the cloud technology is far more better than signature based database.

 

How's it's protection against unwanted apps like rogues?

 

It should be pointed out some cloud technologies still use signatures, but they're in the cloud & not stored locally, although some products will store a subset of that database on the client's machine for offline use.

 

It isnt the technology that is better, but how that technology is applied and with how much effort.

 

Prevx will prevent new rouge malware to infect your computer. I daily test new malware samples and up until now, there has only been one (!!) occasion where I got infected out of aprox. 1500 samples.

Prevx cloud technology is based on popularity of the .exe among the users and how new the hash of the file is. These two settings can be tweaked to whatever fit good for your own needs. Furthermore, Prevx provide it's own heuristic analysis and signatures for known malware. All things added together, it's a very, very light product with nearly no system impact.

I am not biased to anything and I try a lot of new security applications, but Prevx is by far the best anti-malware application I've seen to this very date.

 

Yes, the paid version is good enough to be used on its own, but it does require an Internet connection to be effective. All products can miss detections though so running Prevx alongside another AV may give better protection overall.

 

you can use prevx + sandboxie i think this is an good team :d

 

Yep, it's no use using another AV since it'll share the same weakness - if not more depending how traditional it's. Only proactive security in terms of software is the way to go.

 

I think it depends partly on the user, and the risks they take. Just yesterday I was on my sister-in-laws computer and noticed she was infected by "koobface". Prevx did not catch it. If you can spare the resources and want to be real safe, I would run it along side another AV.

 

If you have internet connection all the time than it is quite enough as it has the signatures in the cloud

Ya I agree with markusg you can use sandboxie and it will be a solid combo.

 

This is true for almost any other anti-malware, sooner or later any app will miss something. Layered approach, imaging solutions and being careful with your PC activity plays a major role. In my 7 years of online experience, I have been infected exactly 2 times, and both times when I was deliberately trying to figure out how do illegal software patchers work. What have I been using all these years? McAfee-> avast! -> NOD32->TrendMicro -> Norton -> Symantec ->Antivir -> MSE. Did these solutions protect me well? may be, but I attribute it to my ability to figure out when and where to click.

 

I guess i know all this, that even cloud based tech. still uses signature database and they are not stored locally but on vendors servers...and this helps customer not to update his security product again and again, which in turn helps him out greatly ....

And yeah i do know that some in-cloud products store some offline cache on the client's machine.....

You know there are number of time when we cannot express our self through words... "Language Barrier" You know.

 

Yeah i know that...BTW thanks for clearing up my doubts.

 

LUA + SRP + PrevX is damn good!

 

what SRP? thanks..

and LUA for windows 7 64 is possible?

 

LUA for Windows 7 is possible. Create a new account with limited access and you're good to go.

 

SRP is only possible for Win XP and Vista(Business and Ultimate)

More Info regarding SRP

 

I agree; Prevx can safely be run along side most AVs, so I just do that for layered protection.

 

The answer is yes and the same would be true if you asked to use any other AV on its own or even no AV. Because as somebody already pointed out the key is you the user. Some people need more some less to be safe.

 

It's not just the user in today's environment. There have been multiple things caught by my AV at philly.com lately, and that's supposed to be a trusted site.

 

To my mind it is the user and always the user. Whether that user needs this or that tool or none to be safe is really neither here nor there

To add that I like using tools

 

I disagree. I'm not going to say I as the user is responsible for all the bad stuff that could happen. Users have the responsibility to use safe habits, but site owners also have the responsibility to keep their sites clean, and the AVs should do all they can to prevent malware.

 

Thanks a lot everyone for letting me know your opinions. I'm gonna buy it.
I have also been looking at DefenseWall Firewall. Is it the same thing as sandboxie and is the firewall portion of the program effective?