Configuration according to Porkpiehat...

Windows Edition
Home
User Access Control
Notify me only when programs try to make changes to my computer
Real-time security
Comodo Firewall 8 ( Proactive, and HIPS enabled ),Qihoo 360 TSE (BD, Avira disabled), VoodooShield Pro, WinPatrol Plus
Firewall security
Periodic malware scanners
Zemana Anti Malware, Malwarebytes Anti Malware
Malware sample testing
Browser(s) and extensions
Cyberfox - Disable DHE, Ghostery, HTTPS Everywhere, Privacy Settings, Bitdefender TrafficLight
Waterfox with same extensions
Maintenance tools
CCleaner, Auslogics DiskDefrag
If the Antivirus is NOT installed, you are using Comodo Firewall NOT Comodo Internet Security. o_O

If the Antivirus is installed, but disabled, why did you install the Internet Security version. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: jamescv7, scot and Exterminator
I didn't realise at the time, that the Firewall version had all of the options that the Internet Security version has but w/o the av. So I downloaded CIS, but did not install the AV.... I hope that makes sense..
 
Last edited:
I do understand about UAC set to minimum, I did have it disabled, but read a lot of comments both here and other forums, it really does help protect the system, maximum would drive me crazy. You have all the area's well covered against today's nasties.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM Safe and porkpiehat
Hi, it is a good config, because it is secured and solid.
I suggest you to install MPC-HC instead of VLC, because it is faster and better.
Thanks for sharing it ;) :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: LabZero and scot
interesting, I'll look into MPC-HC 64 bit version... cheers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JM Safe
^
my favorite media player is potplayer, you might want to take a look at it ;)

also, for archiver, i've used peazip in the past but didn't like it, i switched to simpler alternatives like izarc and bandizip

other than that, it is very solid configuration
 
  • Like
Reactions: porkpiehat
Well since you are considering to test dangerous phishing or probably malware then try to conduct on virtual machine; or conduct the system image to undo any possible changes.

You may consider another browser as backup in case of any problem, and add other on demand scanners like Hitman Pro and Zemana AM to your system but if you don't want then place on USB as arsenal tools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: porkpiehat
Tony Cole said:
I do understand about UAC set to minimum, I did have it disabled, but read a lot of comments both here and other forums, it really does help protect the system, maximum would drive me crazy. You have all the area's well covered against today's nasties.
Click to expand...
Anything above 'disabled' is a nuisance. UAC asks _every_ time I run the _same_ programs "Do you want to allow...?" That's completely daft. Whatever malware that's crafty enough to get by my web filters, AV, HIPS, BB is probably going to get by UAC.
 
UAC is the only one that works at kernel level others don't , others will fail a day or another, UAC will not.
 
Ah yes, fair enough. I don't know that that makes it 100% impenetrable though. It corrupts a UAC-approved process and it will be quiet. It corrupts a non-UAC approved process and it's the same annoying prompt the user gets every time, business as usual.

Until UAC can be used to prompt on unauthorised access only, it is worthless. (Have you ever cleaned malware off of a computer that has UAC set to default? I can't remember one that didn't have it at default since the users prone to malware aren't prone to looking at things to turn them off or understand why they are there.)
 
In fact no known exploits were able to breach UAC unless the user click on it or allow a process without knowing what is it... normally no one should allow a process comming from nowhere.

in what case you allow a process/exe in UAC:

1- an executable you just downloaded from a very trusted site and that you have checked it's genuine.
2- there is no 2 ! :D

btw, UAC is best used as default
 
Rolo said:
The problem is that UAC prompts on known processes. If it'd only prompt on unknown ones it'd be great.
Click to expand...

UAC is designed to ask the user authorization when a certain sensitive area of the system is going to be accessed (depending the setting ) it is not supposed to differentiate between good or bad files (that is the role of Windows Defender).

Many people mistakenly took UAC to be a like a BB, it is not ! to be simple , UAC is just a kernel level based Anti-executable with a "whitelist" based on the settings (tighter the settings is , more process UAC will ask for )
 
Umbra said:
UAC is designed to ask the user authorization when a certain sensitive area of the system is going to be accessed
Click to expand...
That would be 'HIPS'. Except it is a daft HIPS that doesn't have a configurable whitelist. It prompts me when I run MSI Afterburner (surely Microsoft has heard of MSI and, yes, it is digitally signed). It prompts me when I run my disk defragmenter. The response to user feedback on this? "It wasn't designed that way." OK, so, then, you have a poor design and we're just supposed to work with that? Nuh uh.

If any security product had that design philosophy ("No, you cannot trust your own programs; you have to answer the prompt every time"), it wouldn't be in business very long.

Besides, how much malware gets installed only by a user being tricked into installing it? Do you think a UAC prompt that prompts on every system change is going to be heeded? "Well, yes, I'm installing System Tuner Ultra Professional 2099, so of course I'll allow it!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: Koroke San
added Privacy Settings add-on to Cyberfox
 
Rolo said:
If any security product had that design philosophy ("No, you cannot trust your own programs; you have to answer the prompt every time"), it wouldn't be in business very long.
Click to expand...

Appguard is just that, nothing is trustful until you allow it. Appguard is quite remarkable and still alive

Besides, how much malware gets installed only by a user being tricked into installing it? Do you think a UAC prompt that prompts on every system change is going to be heeded? "Well, yes, I'm installing System Tuner Ultra Professional 2099, so of course I'll allow it!"
Click to expand...

then it is the user's fault, UAC did his job, it warned. that is it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: porkpiehat
You must log in or register to reply here.

You may also like...