Somebody please save THREATFIRE!!!

Symantec’s really trying to kill ThreatFire. :o They said they had a beta version but it’s been so long since they said that and still no release. At least somebody make a free alternative to it. :cry:

I think immunet would be alternative.

There’s nothing wrong with threatfire.It doesn’t need any beta or something, because it works very well now.What’s this panic about?

No, Immunet is different. Very different. It’s a cloud av. Community-based yes, but not behavior-based.

The beta version was supposed to address issues that includes slow downs (in file transfers and launching), faster launching of the gui (i heard the gui was supposed to be brand new, but i read that a year ago :o), and a few other tweaks i had forgotten. During that time, they had a poll asking how easy was the configuration. Maybe they were planning to revise it.

Yeah sure. There’s hardly anything wrong with it. That doesn’t mean it can’t be improved upon. Know what I’m sayin’? :wink:

Symantec is really to kill PCTools too.

I am sorry for giving you wrong answer spainach; i said that Immunet could be alternative which it isn’t. But Immunet works together with your current AV. I use CIS together with Immunet for instance.


Symantec… Arrghh… How could we expect anything good from them? :stuck_out_tongue:

Symantec are a bunch of greedy “bar stewards” and also really stupid, in my humble opinion. Worse than PC Tools. Cyberhawk was a great tool, PC Tools did not really know what to do with it apart from renaming to Threatfire and adding some extra malware detection, but thankfully it remained a great product. Now the t@ssers from Symantec seem to be completely failing in their stewardship and further development of TF. They really do not seem to have a clue.

Threatfire can work without signatures, so you can use the latest version forever.How can Symantec prevent that?

As it was pointed above there is a big difference between TF, which is BB & any given AV whether it’s local or cloud.

Well. I’m not sure what Symantec will do with the thing , but “using latest version forever” doesn’t make sense in any case despite you were correct about “work without signatures”
BBs need updates as well (different kind of…);
It uses heuristics & other techniques in order to analyze a code & its potential actions
So using the “latest version forever” ??? is kinda nonsense


also not to mention the community based, will be no longer community… I’m sure they will change the servers etc etc


wasn’t really thinking about the things you guys just said, and now that you’ve mentioned it, I just removed the installer of threatfire. lol. XD I guess I’m off to find an alternative.

I did the same a few weeks ago. Now I have CIS 5 plus I added Malwarebytes, the real time paid version of it. It does a good job, but it does not work in the same way as TF exactly. However, it has blocked each day Skype trying to link with dodgy IP addresses where there have been reported malware attacks.

Also use Rapport which help secure the link between PC and Financial sites.

It’s a pity there is nothing quite like TF.

True. Although Emsisoft does have MAMUTU, I’m not really willing to pay for any software that is hardly a requirement for a pc so seldomly used (we go to internet shops as much as possible).

May I suggest that you are living far more dangerously by using internet shops. Their security is unlikely to be as good yours.

A behaviour blocker is only an extra layer of defense, and although useful is perhaps not critical if all other security that you have is robust, for example CIS and using Comodo Dragon, Chrome, or Firefox with Noscript addon.

If you feel scared, then you really should convert to linux. The easiest and most flexible one for me is Linux Mint. All key apps are on there immediately, and any extras anyone wants can be easily downloaded. Switch the firewall on to block all incoming and that’s the only thing you need to do for security configuration. Easy.

Hi cavehomme,

I may say that you are wrong

I have to disappoint you… It is critical!

A decent BB is an essential and “must have” layer of the security

AV’s are hopeless. You may rather dismiss & never use any
Decent BB on the other hand are more useful & can fight zero-day/hour infections that can be produced in a matter of minutes using poly-/iso- morphic changes

Emsisoft EAM or Mamutu are the examples currently since there are no others at the moment that can compete (well ThreatFire … but you know what happened to that one)

Let’s see what Comodo will come up with long awaited BB (hopefully not integrated as promised)


Yes but the point I am making is that if you know what is on your PC, have strong HIPs firewall, D+, use a safe browser with extra safety add ons, wear a condom, etc, then these are more essential than a BB.

Sure, I used and appreciated TF but it increasingly was behaving like a HIPS. Since I already was using CIS then it was to a large extent redundant…although not completely, not 100%, so I will concede to you on that.

But given a choice between just TF or CIS. then clearly CIS in proactive mode. However, for the average user, I concede that they would be safer with something like PCtools firewall, plus TF, plus a good AV and MAlwarebytes.

Yes, theirs are less secure. But how can they infect my pc when all i do there is either play or browse? ;D i do my downloads and testing some place else…oh maybe in my university’s laptops perhaps? lol

Again, yes. Behavior blockers were designed to be “added protection” and not at all as critical as the main security suite. However, I did find that configured properly (whereby Wilder’s forum would really come in handy), installed before infection (or maybe even after, but it might pull your pc to a crawl so it’s not recommended), and maintained under knowledgeable hands, it is a very, very powerful tool which prevented infection in 2 laptops a few times before the av could react, and even detected some missed by the av. Although the problem was, it did this after the malicious file has been downloaded, leading me to conclude it is not advisable to leave it to deal with malware alone.

Not that I feel scared, but it helps knowing these things. Kinda gives me something to do and keep my mind of other pressing matters for the mean time. ;D Although, I did try Linux mint albeit in another pc and I might say, it is impressive. I might consider replacing the os of our computer with it had it not been too different (the environment) with windows (believe me, people here won’t know what to do with it, and they would even bother trying to learn it).

Threatfire may look like HIPS, but really, it wasn’t as much of a nagger as my HIPS then (WinPatrol) that prompts me to do something about something and there isn’t a whitelist for it unlike threatfire. Threatfire only popped-up when there was a need for it (although this is because I’ve whitelisted everything that needed to be whitelisted which, really, was the most tedious thing I’ve done, including known windows applications just to be on the safe side). Threatfire basically almost eliminated my need to install add-ons. ;D

Threatfire only popped-up when there was a need for it
I wouldn't go that far, the developers had to do some serious compromises to reduce the pop-ups. Threatfire will make quite a bit of ASSumptions to reduce the pop-ups and thats not always for the better

Whether you know it or not, I’ll assume not. There’s a tweak topic for threatfire which you would probably like :slight_smile:
The topic is called “Threatfire custom rules setup”

Ah, yes! That was the one I was referring to. The one that I had used. And again, it wasn’t really Threatfire that reduced the pop-ups. It was the whitelist I created with it. If you set it at maximum sensitivity, it would pop-up regardless of whether or not it is a known safe file, unless it is in the whitelist, or a rule already exists. :smiley: