Immunet Protect

[TheIgster]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but I'm currently trying Immunet Protect alongside both Vipre and ThreatFire. Immunet Protect (as they state) can work alongside existing AV/Malware products in real time and use cloud technology to help protect the user even more.

Immunet Protect gathers strength daily as the Immunet Community grows and best of all its FREE. Already have AntiVirus? Even better, install Immunet Protect alongside your existing product, and it will make the Immunet community even stronger.

Immunet - FREE AntiVirus

For those running 64-bit systems, there is currently a 64-bit beta download available at: http://silence.immunet.com/beta/protect-1.0.17-64.exe

 

[Dinesh]

can you post some more details about it like the memory usage and everything?

 

[TheIgster]

How did I know Dinesh would be interested?

Sure, basically this seems to be cloud based Anti Virus that can be used in addition to whatever else you are running and it should not interfere with what you are using now.

From the web page I posted above:

Imagine for a moment that you could leverage the computers of your friends, family and a worldwide global community to harness their collective security. Every time someone in this collective community encounters a threat everyone else in the community gains protection from that same threat in real time. You no longer have to rely on the isolated security of your current AntiVirus vendor. You will be able to protect your friends and family while being better protected yourself. Immunet Protect is designed to do exactly this. By providing a fast and light layer of virus detection and linking everyone in a global community we harness a security sum that is far greater than its individual parts, we call this Collective Immunity.

Seems fairly light on resources. I have not noticed any lag at all and nothing when surfing at all either.

Screens and system usage:

 

[Dinesh]

How did I know Dinesh would be interested?

Yep because I m Security Freak.
It looks interesting. Will give it a try.

 

[Dinesh]

Looks like they need some work on the 64bit app..
While installation, Windows said that the driver is not digitally signed.
While scan, it says that the scan failed because i m offline, which i m not.

 

[TheIgster]

Well, to be fair, the 64-bit version is a beta, so I suppose there are some issues to still be worked out. I did receive the driver warnings and I informed the company about them, but they don't seem to be effecting the performance for me at all. I did not have the issue with being online. My scans have worked fine here.

I have informed the company about your issues and await to hear back in the thread about the beta. I'll let you know what I find out.

 

[TheIgster]

So, any news on this Dinesh? I'm curious how you made out with the creator of this product. It's been running very well for me...no issues.

 

[Dinesh]

So, any news on this Dinesh? I'm curious how you made out with the creator of this product. It's been running very well for me...no issues.

Tried reinstalling it a couple of times, but the issue still persists in 64bit. So i guess i will hold on until a final release.

 

[TheIgster]

So, any news on this Dinesh? I'm curious how you made out with the creator of this product. It's been running very well for me...no issues.

Tried reinstalling it a couple of times, but the issue still persists in 64bit. So i guess i will hold on until a final release.

Did you write them though with the email address I gave you?

Strange because I had no issues installing on 64-bit.

 

[Dinesh]

I will do it today. Lets see what i hear from them.

 

[Victek]

An update for Immunet Protect is now available. Latest build is 1.0.26 - the "Ethos Protection" option is now listed in the Settings. Nice to see development continuing for IP.

 

[JonM33]

Looks like they need some work on the 64bit app..
While installation, Windows said that the driver is not digitally signed.
While scan, it says that the scan failed because i m offline, which i m not.
View attachment 29941

View attachment 29942

Being that it's a beta do you think that they have digitally signed drivers from Microsoft yet? I wouldn't think so.

 

[Victek]

Looks like they need some work on the 64bit app..
While installation, Windows said that the driver is not digitally signed.
While scan, it says that the scan failed because i m offline, which i m not.
View attachment 29941

View attachment 29942

Being that it's a beta do you think that they have digitally signed drivers from Microsoft yet? I wouldn't think so.

.
I installed the .25 and .26 builds in Windows 7 x64 without a "signing" warning or any other error. Doesn't appear to be a problem in the latest versions.

 

[zteardrop]

Immunet brings no new protection or technology to the table. Its detection rates are horrible (there is a long thread about this on Wilders). Waste of time.

 

[Victek]

Immunet brings no new protection or technology to the table. Its detection rates are horrible (there is a long thread about this on Wilders). Waste of time.

.
It doesn't need to bring anything new to the table IMHO. It just needs to work and be a viable alternative. How well it works is another question. To be fair it's still beta and under development. I wouldn't rely on it exclusively, but I'm going to reserve judgment until there's an official release and there are some reviews.

 

[TheIgster]

In my last round of testing with 25 malware links, it didn't do very well. Only saw 5 of the malware links as malware and left behind 35 infections on the test system:

7. Immunet Protect

Stopped/Reported: 5
No Reported Threat: 20
MBAM Infections Found: 35

Overall Rating: 20%

Also, if there is something in the way, the pop up in the bottom right hand corner flashes but does not appear properly. I had reported this to them directly, but they just smoothed over it as not an issue and have not done anything about it.

 

[Victek]

In my last round of testing with 25 malware links, it didn't do very well. Only saw 5 of the malware links as malware and left behind 35 infections on the test system:

7. Immunet Protect

Stopped/Reported: 5
No Reported Threat: 20
MBAM Infections Found: 35

Overall Rating: 20%

Also, if there is something in the way, the pop up in the bottom right hand corner flashes but does not appear properly. I had reported this to them directly, but they just smoothed over it as not an issue and have not done anything about it.

.
Do you remember what build you were using when you ran the test and had the pop-up display problem? Regarding your detection results I don't doubt them, but what's the point of drawing conclusions about a beta product? This is one of the big problems with public betas. I know it's human nature, but we have to resist

 

[TheIgster]

Do you remember what build you were using when you ran the test and had the pop-up display problem? Regarding your detection results I don't doubt them, but what's the point of drawing conclusions about a beta product? This is one of the big problems with public betas. I know it's human nature, but we have to resist

The build was downloaded on Saturday night, so I would imagine it was pretty much the latest.

The results are what they are. Beta products might improve I suppose, but do you really expect their detection rates to improve as much as 80% after the beta is done?

 

[JonM33]

In my last round of testing with 25 malware links, it didn't do very well. Only saw 5 of the malware links as malware and left behind 35 infections on the test system:

7. Immunet Protect

Stopped/Reported: 5
No Reported Threat: 20
MBAM Infections Found: 35

Overall Rating: 20%

Also, if there is something in the way, the pop up in the bottom right hand corner flashes but does not appear properly. I had reported this to them directly, but they just smoothed over it as not an issue and have not done anything about it.

Malware links aren't a valid test. What about active scanning? What about P2P scanning? E-mail scanning? IM scanning?

Please stop your "testing" because it isn't proven, it's biased and it's full of variables that you failed to address.

 

[TheIgster]

Malware links aren't a valid test. What about active scanning? What about P2P scanning? E-mail scanning? IM scanning?

Please stop your "testing" because it isn't proven, it's biased and it's full of variables that you failed to address.

All your opinion.

If you don't believe it's valid, then don't read any of it.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I think I'll continue my efforts.