Default Deny VS traditional AVs

[cruelsister]

You Think? Dear Lord, using a computer should be about using the computer and not monitoring countless overlapping Security Solutions!

 

[shmu26]

You Think? Dear Lord, using a computer should be about using the computer and not monitoring countless overlapping Security Solutions!

That's a healthy attitude.

 

[Brie]

i was running all that in real-time. i had not experienced any problems so far.

i disabled osarmor, voodooshield and zemana antilogger realtime.

bitdefender says not to use a sandbox with it.

i suspected that i might be doing too much.

i am a computer beginner.

thank you all for the advice.

 

[Ink]

Seems too much would just go with bitdefender, VS, syshardener, k9 webfilter, netcraft, and unchecky... you might want to consider isolation/sandbox.

Bitdefender Total Security is not enough for some. It's a common trend, something to get used to around here.

In this thread, we are talking about execution default-deny. The 'default-deny' is also commonly used in the context of the network traffic.
The most common definition of execution default-deny setup would be as follows:
The crucial system processes and processes whitelisted by the user are allowed to run. Other processes are not allowed to run. Additionally, there can be some restrictions for DLLs or files that may have active content (scripts, scriptlets, documents with macros, etc.).

Understood, then I do not use any Default-Deny systems.