Do they have the same function ?
From what Ive read on their website, linkscanner as it name suggests scans network traffic for known exploits. But Im not sure if it protects against BO attacks or locally executed exploits (ie initiated by a malware). And it seems that linkscanner is based on predefined rules. CMG instead doesn’t scan anything nor has any signature of known attacks (AFAIK) it just “simply” prevents the execution of programs in the wrong memory region. But their porpoise I think is similar: protecting you from drive-by downloads. Personally I prefer CMGs approach though I havent tried linkscanner.
Thank you , Blas .
Maybe I would not need windows updates anymore if I use both CMG and linkscanner (:KWL)
That would be great though I do recommend to have the latest patches to your apps. But these days…when the infamous windows genuine advantage tool is distributed as a patch to a serious security problem…well maybe we can live w/o it. What I’ve seen so far linkscanner marks you the links where you shouldn’t click, and CMG goes into action whan you have already visited such malicious links.(very simplistic point of view about the differences btw…I cannot comment about the technical part)
I think this problem has been resolved, I’ll lock the thread and mark it as resolved. Many thanks to the helpers. If you need it reopened for any reason please PM myself or another mod with a link to this thread.
Dave