Is threatfire 3 still a viable option for protection?

I have never heard of it. Therefore I leery of it.

Hips?

Apparently Threatfire is no longer supported and there will be no further development. Personally of the many security programs/ methods that I currently use - Comodo Internet Security Premium v7.0.317799.4142 is installed but it's HIPS protection is disabled (by me) as I prefer to use Threatfire. There's an incredible amount of detail available in it's System Activity Monitor and the product still updates several times every day. Basically it does what it's supposed to do and until it ceases to function I'll keep using it.



In answer to the other part of your question - Threatfire is no substitute for a decent firewall and isn't designed to replace a firewall.

If you need to look at other HIPS protection check out the list here:

Probably the Best Free Security List in the World - Page 7

Scroll down the page for info on HIPS.

Download link for Threatfire: http://www.threatfire.com/files/tfinstall.exe

Warning: The above link is the direct download link.


Threatfire Explained

derekimo said:

Lady Fitzgerald said:

Hips?

HIPS Explained

Thank you. With the lower case letters (and my idiot allergies fogging my three brain cells), I didn't recognize it as an acronym ( ).

That rationalization said, I tried Threatfire for a short while several years ago on XP and started getting frequent BSODs until I removed it. I haven't touched it since.

As far as firewalls go, I have been extremely happy with ZoneAlarm's free firewall. Once it has been properly "trained", it has very few popups interrupting one's work.

For firewall tests, you may be interested in this:

Results and comments - www.matousec.com

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-co..._201403_en.pdf

andrew129260 said:

For firewall tests, you may be interested in this:

Results and comments - www.matousec.com

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-co..._201403_en.pdf

The first link is to a study that is useless since it is comparing security suites rather than just standalone firewalls. Based on its results, ZoneAlarm's free firewall is completely no good when, in fact, it's only the AV that is no good.

The second one is somewhat better since it does separate firewalls from security suites but it is also unfair to compare free firewalls to paid ones. At least it does point out the difference in free ones is that they do not work as well on public networks.

What wasn't compared in the tests is the ease of use between the tested firewalls and Win 7's, especially for outbound transmissions. Win 7's UI is completely obtuse whereas ZoneAlarm's is comparatively simple to use and allows the user to easily tailor the firewall's parameters to the user's needs and desires. That can have a huge difference in the effectiveness of any firewall; nothing will work correctly if not set up correctly. I never could make sense out of how to customize Win 7's firewall, especially for outbound transmissions plus it never let me know what was going on, unlike ZoneAlarm.

One probable reason the firewalls faired so well in the security suites compared to the standalones is the security suites were most likely augmenting their firewalls while the standalones had to go it alone. More important than any one security program is the combination of security programs one uses as well as good, common sense when browsing.

Just wanted to add this.
From the pdf report on the products:

This project is strictly focused on testing features related to application-based security model and behavior
blocking, sometimes such features of a security product are referred to as proactive protection features or HIPS
features.
Proactive Security Challenge 64 especially does not evaluate the quality of non-behavioral pattern based or
heuristic anti-virus or anti-malware scanning engines.

to the second link:

Windows 7 built in firewall blocks all common private and public. Zonealarm failed to do so. To me it makes no sense to add a firewall product that cannot do better then the one built into the OS. As for outgoing program management, zonealarm is great at that.

andrew129260 said:

Just wanted to add this.
From the pdf report on the products:

This project is strictly focused on testing features related to application-based security model and behavior
blocking, sometimes such features of a security product are referred to as proactive protection features or HIPS
features.
Proactive Security Challenge 64 especially does not evaluate the quality of non-behavioral pattern based or
heuristic anti-virus or anti-malware scanning engines.

to the second link:

Windows 7 built in firewall blocks all common private and public. Zonealarm failed to do so. To me it makes no sense to add a firewall product that cannot do better then the one built into the OS. As for outgoing program management, zonealarm is great at that.

I recommend using Win 7's firewall for people who either do not know how to determine what transmissions should be blocked and which ones should be allowed and when for both as well as for people who can't be bothered to actually read the popups from ZoneAlarm (which is a lot of people). As far as Win 7's firewall blocking all goes, that was not my experience. It cheerfully let all programs phone home, including those I would rather not phone home, and never let me know it was happening, unlike ZoneAlarm. It also blocked some transmissions I wanted to go through, such as Carbonite's. Now if Win 7's firewall had a useable UI...

Btw, getting back on topic, I tried Threatfire a while back on my last XP machine and I had frequent BSODs until I removed it. It seems it doesn't play well with all programs.