Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 758796" data-attributes="member: 32260">:emoji_ok_hand<img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite111" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :(" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":(" />y)I remember the times when I did so. I inspected every outbound connection using Windows Firewall Control (Sphinx Software). I also used many Sysinternals and NirSoft tools to inspect the system. But, I knew much less about infection vectors as compared to the present day.I have the impression that almost all good AVs lose much energy and unnecessary impact the computer resources to inspect &amp; analyze &amp; mitigate the threats which can be simply blocked in the home computers (scripts, admin tools, SMB, unnecessary services, etc.).&nbsp; It is like they believed that computers in the home network require similar protection architecture as computers in enterprise networks.Blocking the exploit/malware is always safer than inspecting &amp; analyzing &amp; mitigating.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 758796, member: 32260"] :emoji_ok_hand:(y) I remember the times when I did so. I inspected every outbound connection using Windows Firewall Control (Sphinx Software). I also used many Sysinternals and NirSoft tools to inspect the system. But, I knew much less about infection vectors as compared to the present day. I have the impression that almost all good AVs lose much energy and unnecessary impact the computer resources to inspect & analyze & mitigate the threats which can be simply blocked in the home computers (scripts, admin tools, SMB, unnecessary services, etc.). It is like they believed that computers in the home network require similar protection architecture as computers in enterprise networks. Blocking the exploit/malware is always safer than inspecting & analyzing & mitigating. [/QUOTE]

Verification