Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
An OSArmor Overview
Message
<blockquote data-quote="cruelsister" data-source="post: 1007791" data-attributes="member: 7463"><p>Andreas- Thank you for a thoughtful response! I agree with agree what you state, but I should clarify a few things- First- I decided to use the Advanced setting as I took an informal poll on Wilders and that was the consensus opinion of what was being used by OSA fans</p><p></p><p>Second- The executable files could have come from just about anywhere and moved into the user space; this would include a torrent or an email link for a download from my cat's website (wouldn't suggest anyone go there! And I thought it important to make sure that a SmartScreen alert was included for just that eventuality). There are indeed many ways this could be done. but almost all would indeed involve user issue or unawareness. Although you kindly did not do this, but many when confronted with a security application failure due to malware infection will place the blame squarely on the user. This is for me really unjustifiable and reminds me of the joke about the patient seeing a Physician for an issue:</p><p></p><p>Patient "Doctor- my arm hurts when I do this!"</p><p>Physician- "Well, don't do that"</p><p></p><p>Much better would be a proper diagnosis and remediation of the issue.</p><p></p><p>Third- Personally I feel that increasing the protection to the Extreme and/or putting the additional controls in place to be too draconian for me. It restricts freedom while increasing potential FP's. Caser in point would be the SeaMonkey browser which is legitimate, been around for years but never ever has been signed. Extra work would be needed to verify its legitimacy upon an alert which the user may or may not do.</p><p></p><p>Finally- I like OSA. It did a nice job on a number of things that I didn't have time to add (as the song wasn't that long) like preventing dropped dll's from RATs from becoming active even if successfully deposited. As you have pointed out it would indeed be a compliment to a Primary AM application which actually was also the theme of the video.</p><p></p><p>m</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="cruelsister, post: 1007791, member: 7463"] Andreas- Thank you for a thoughtful response! I agree with agree what you state, but I should clarify a few things- First- I decided to use the Advanced setting as I took an informal poll on Wilders and that was the consensus opinion of what was being used by OSA fans Second- The executable files could have come from just about anywhere and moved into the user space; this would include a torrent or an email link for a download from my cat's website (wouldn't suggest anyone go there! And I thought it important to make sure that a SmartScreen alert was included for just that eventuality). There are indeed many ways this could be done. but almost all would indeed involve user issue or unawareness. Although you kindly did not do this, but many when confronted with a security application failure due to malware infection will place the blame squarely on the user. This is for me really unjustifiable and reminds me of the joke about the patient seeing a Physician for an issue: Patient "Doctor- my arm hurts when I do this!" Physician- "Well, don't do that" Much better would be a proper diagnosis and remediation of the issue. Third- Personally I feel that increasing the protection to the Extreme and/or putting the additional controls in place to be too draconian for me. It restricts freedom while increasing potential FP's. Caser in point would be the SeaMonkey browser which is legitimate, been around for years but never ever has been signed. Extra work would be needed to verify its legitimacy upon an alert which the user may or may not do. Finally- I like OSA. It did a nice job on a number of things that I didn't have time to add (as the song wasn't that long) like preventing dropped dll's from RATs from becoming active even if successfully deposited. As you have pointed out it would indeed be a compliment to a Primary AM application which actually was also the theme of the video. m [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top