<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: SafeOnline Protects PCs Even If They Are Infected</title> <atom:link href="http://www.ghacks.net/2009/11/03/safeonline-protects-pcs-even-if-they-are-infected/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2009/11/03/safeonline-protects-pcs-even-if-they-are-infected/</link> <description>A technology news blog covering software, mobile phones, gadgets, security, the Internet and other relevant areas.</description> <lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:34:28 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: Abudulla Jarez</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2009/11/03/safeonline-protects-pcs-even-if-they-are-infected/comment-page-1/#comment-912440</link> <dc:creator>Abudulla Jarez</dc:creator> <pubDate>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:26:22 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=18078#comment-912440</guid> <description>@ Rarst
I use the Prevx 3.0 product for our small business just for detection and it does not conflict with any other security product as we have both norton and trend.
We have used safe online and its hardly noticeable - the more layers you can use without sacrificing usage the better!
I must say i&#039;m a great fan of Prevx  :)</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@ Rarst<br
/> I use the Prevx 3.0 product for our small business just for detection and it does not conflict with any other security product as we have both norton and trend.<br
/> We have used safe online and its hardly noticeable &#8211; the more layers you can use without sacrificing usage the better!<br
/> I must say i&#8217;m a great fan of Prevx  :)</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Rarst</title><link>http://www.ghacks.net/2009/11/03/safeonline-protects-pcs-even-if-they-are-infected/comment-page-1/#comment-911784</link> <dc:creator>Rarst</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:30:37 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.ghacks.net/?p=18078#comment-911784</guid> <description>Solution that supposedly works better than anything else with help of very smart technology and you don&#039;t have to change anything to run it... You only have to pay it to actually remove malware.
About as much of a scam as it gets. Even if well-intended this is still factual scam.
If system is infected with reasonably advanced virus first thing it will do is nuke all threats. Then it will dance on a grave of their kernel driver and proceed to doing whatever it wants with browser.
You can&#039;t have several security monitors running at the same time without issues. Drivers will conflict.
You can&#039;t set up secure sandbox on consumer-grade Windows PC without full virtualization.
Anything that claims to easily solve this is a scam.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Solution that supposedly works better than anything else with help of very smart technology and you don&#8217;t have to change anything to run it&#8230; You only have to pay it to actually remove malware.</p><p>About as much of a scam as it gets. Even if well-intended this is still factual scam.</p><p>If system is infected with reasonably advanced virus first thing it will do is nuke all threats. Then it will dance on a grave of their kernel driver and proceed to doing whatever it wants with browser.</p><p>You can&#8217;t have several security monitors running at the same time without issues. Drivers will conflict.</p><p>You can&#8217;t set up secure sandbox on consumer-grade Windows PC without full virtualization.</p><p>Anything that claims to easily solve this is a scam.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
