Printable View
Anyone ever heard of the program:
"All-Seeing Eye" by Fortego?
It's a proactive IDS that monitors: Auto Exe, DLLs, Registry, etc.
http://www.fortego.com/en/ase.html
If anyone has ever tried this before, how effective is it, and how much resource does it eat up?
Which is why IDS is inferior to IDPS ;)Quote:
The first difference is that All-Seeing Eye is not actively preventing actions from taking place in your computer,
I was wondering when you would get around to that :DQuote:
and how much resource does it eat up?
I would suggest that you seriously reconsider your choice of Norton. It is a major resource drain and frequently does not play nice with other security software.
Out of curiosity, what exactly is your hardware?
386 with 24kb ram, monochrome monitor, 2mb graphics and a noisy Floppy disc drive.:p not to mention the 800mb hdd.Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
ooh how much i missed messing in xtree.:drink:
CPU = Core2-Quad Q6600 (2.4GHz G0-stepping) @ 9x, 266MHz, 1.200-VCORE, 1.80-VTTQuote:
Originally Posted by nihil
... OCed to (3.4GHz) @ 8x, 425MHz, 1.4250-VCORE, 2.00-VTT
HEATSINK = CoolerMaster Hyper 212-Plus (air-cooled)
MOBO = ASUS P5K-E
RAM = crucial Ballistix 4GB OCed @ 5-4-5-14, 850MHz, 1.50v (from 5-5-5-18, 800MHz, 1.50v)
GFX = ASUS 8600-GT
HDD = 2x WD 500GB Blue Caviar @ RAID-0
OS = Windows XP Pro. SP3
OS = Ubuntu v10.04.3 (Alternate)
LOL, I remember back in the day our very first PC was one by AT&T (no joke!), and we were happy to upgrade the EVO ram from 4MB to 16MB, and used the PC as a telephone / answering machine! :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by HYBR|D
It was something like 83MHz and like 20MB of HDD space. XD
Ah! I see, you are running XP on relatively new kit. Resources shouldn't be that much of an issue, but do watch the Norton conflict thing.
Yeah, I would love to build a new system using the new Ivy-Bridge processors coming out this year (2012) and with SSDs... but I don't feel like wasting money on something I really don't need ATM (current rig is good enough for my needs/games).Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
Now, if I did upgrade, I would probably get Windows-7 64bit.
Not sure how Windows 8 will fare... seems more geared towards tablet PCs IMHO...
Unfortunately, XP doesn't understand multicore, so you are not getting the best out of your kit there :(
This is Windows 8. I have been using it since the Developers' Preview was released.
The front screen is touch screen orientated but behind that is just regular Windows. The beta is due out the end of February, so we will know more then. At this point I wouldn't consider upgrading from 7 but certainly would from Vista.
Oh GOD... don't remind me of Vista!Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
I remember I got a copy from my university to install to see how it was... I uninstalled that piece of junk 1-hour after it was in.
The damn thing was a resource hog, and it would ALWAYS move unneeded files to the swap partition after like 5-min post log-in... which made the system almost unusable during that time.
Just out of curiosity; Why do you use Ubuntu with XP? Most of your threads have been asking about how you can lock your XP install down better, but why Ubuntu? I'm going to suggest you try a few things here:
OpenSUSE or SUSE
Debian
Mandriva
PC-BSD
I'd say Slackware and FreeBSD, but I don't know how much you know about Unix and Linux in general, so I went with easy to install and use distros. Any thoughts?
Mainly because I'm a windows user/programmer, and I only use a *nix when I really need to... :drink:Quote:
Originally Posted by gore
Not a smart move, I know, but that's the main OS I'm used to.
I mainly used Windows and Solaris back in my university days, doing mostly academic coding on the Unix system.
I'm just not that familiar with the *nix systems, or know which one I should be using "all the time".
I just have Ubuntu installed, because it's the popular one.
That, and I play a lot of games...
Well, I'm gonna give you my opinion, and most people would probably agree with what I say when it comes to this sort of stuff:
Ubuntu, is NOT very good. I mean I'm not gonna tell you that no one should use it, because that's just silly; You should use whatever YOU like, and whatever YOU are comfortable with.
But if you were using Solaris... Dude, get BSD! Solaris, has a long line of Heritage. SunOS for example, was basically just 4.1 or 4.2 (I can't remember right now) of BSD ported to that hardware. Bill Joy, who was one of the founders of Sun, came from Berkeley with Marshall Kirk McKusick, and they basically invented BSD Unix. SunOS, was literally just BSD ported to Sun Hardware.
So if you enjoyed that back in those days, you'd probably LOVE either FreeBSD, or, if you want one easier to use, PC-BSD. And not only that, but you can REALLY lock down BSD.
I sometimes ask people who say Windows is just as good as any Unix OS, a very simple question, which NEVER gets answered; "Would you trust Windows with your life?" I started asking that after I bought a DVD called "20 years of Berkeley Unix" which is a talk given by Marshal Kirk McKusick, where at one point, he says that in Germany, they were using Unix to do Kidney Dialysis on Computers running the Machines.
Well, after seeing that, and someone in the Audience asking him if he would let a machine running BSD do this, and him saying "If my choice was that or NT, you betcha!" lol.
Well, I asked someone who was a member here, and a total Windows fan boi, "Would YOU let Windows run a machine that your life depended on?" He totally copped out on the answer and wouldn't give me a straight answer of course, because then he'd have to admit I was right.
But yea, if I had to have something done where my life was at risk, and the Computer doing this thing could have ANY OS I wanted on it, and I was told to pick an OS for the Computer that was going to run something where I could die, I know DAMN WELL, I'd be telling the Doctors "I want the Computer to be running FreeBSD!" because that's probably the most Stable OS on the Planet.
I've tried, and I can't get it to crash. I set up FreeBSD as a secondary FTP Server, and had it running my FTPd, and SSH, and Email, and a Web Server, and then, I started tossing HUGE loads on it. I couldn't get it to crash!
I even started transferring TBs of Data at a time on that machine; Both to and FROM the machine, WHILE Compiling **** like KDE in the Background just trying to get the load average through the roof, and then, running a little Perl script I wrote that created an Infinite Loop on purpose, and it STILL wouldn't crash.
It lagged hardcore, but it still wouldn't crash lol. FreeBSD is one of the only OSs out there that I have no managed to bring down. I've brought down almost every version of Windows, including their Server OSs, and let me tell you; That's REALLY easy.
I've brought down basically every version of Linux as well. Not very easy, but I managed.
I've brought DOS down too.... Both PC-DOS AND MS-DOS, but again, not too hard.
But BSD? I just couldn't. Especially 4.0!!!
If I was told to pick an OS to run on a Computer that was going to do some medical procedure, where I was going to have my life put at risk doing this, as I was saying above, and I had to pick ONE OS, that had to run on the Computer doing all of this, where I could die, I would, without thinking twice, say "FreeBSD 4.0".
But, anyway, I think you should also look into SUSE and Debian Linux. You'll like it :)
Haha, I remember reading one of your older posts on here from a few years aback about that Kidney Dialysis metaphor, I laughed when I first read that. XD
Interesting about FreeBSD. Nice to know an OS that can be that stable.
Then again... an OS designed to be on a server should be as stable as possible to prevent any down-time and keep productivity to a maximum.
How about OpenBSD and PC-BSD?
Every tried something like that one those two?
You need to differentiate between OSes that are designed for "process control", "embedded systems" versions of other OSes and the crap that you buy from Walmart or download off the net.
If you want something really stable then go for VMS.
And that will make gore spit his dummy and jump out of his pram to throw a wobbly :cool::D:lildevil: However, it is very true.
Incidentally, kidney dialisis would not be considered a life threatening medical procedure.
Nihil; Don't mention VMS in my presence again! I'll figure out a way to force you to use ITS or some other bastardized OS!
Some Families have a swear jar; We have a VMS one; My Wife hates it too :) That and Her Using Vi, is one of the reasons I proposed.
I don't care how VMS works, or how stable a cluster of it can be, it's NOT going to contend with BSD. And in one statement, I can prove that:
I can use BSD as a Firewall, Router, Desktop, Server, and embedded device.
You can use VMS for.... Ah yes....A Server.... Anything else? And those stupid "Operator" accounts that ship with a default password everyone knows? Come on man; BSD has the stability AND uses.
A VMS Cluster might have stability, but be Honest; You'll find that on a desktop or Workstation shortly after you find someone using ****ing OS/2 again.
For the other questions; Yes I use PC-BSD :) It's installed on one of my machines right now actually. But as for NetBSD, and OpenBSD.... I do have NetBSD, but I don't use it. It's nothing special, and since all I have is PC hardware, I don't have a real use for it, since FreeBSD is not only more usable, it has WAY more software.
For OpenBSD, I don't use that period. The guy who does it; Theo, is a *****, and basically takes code audits, and then, a BSD installation where everything is shut off by default, and claims it's amazing. You can do the same thing with basically any BSD or Linux by simply making it almost un-usable out of the box lol.