Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagisa" data-source="post: 890141" data-attributes="member: 73722">Yeah, but does it make any difference? I thougt it&#039;s just a preset and i was applying my own custom settings anyway.Yeah, thanks for letting me know <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite130" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up&nbsp; &nbsp; (y)" loading="lazy" data-shortname="(y)" />The purpose of this config is creating the least amount of hassle. If user runs a new legit file, putting that program under heavy restriction would hit the usability. I think partial restriction would make it harder to compromise the system if user runs a zero-day malware.I thought most zero-days would be new files. And most well known AVs should be detecting old malwares anyway. Again, the purpose of this config is to create the least amount of hassle.As far as i know, VirusScope also detects files that are under restriction.[ATTACH=full]242894[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagisa, post: 890141, member: 73722"] Yeah, but does it make any difference? I thougt it's just a preset and i was applying my own custom settings anyway. Yeah, thanks for letting me know (y) The purpose of this config is creating the least amount of hassle. If user runs a new legit file, putting that program under heavy restriction would hit the usability. I think partial restriction would make it harder to compromise the system if user runs a zero-day malware. I thought most zero-days would be new files. And most well known AVs should be detecting old malwares anyway. Again, the purpose of this config is to create the least amount of hassle. As far as i know, VirusScope also detects files that are under restriction. [ATTACH type="full" alt="9.PNG"]242894[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification