SECURITY: Complete ESecurity Security config 2021

Last updated
Jan 5, 2021
About
Personal, primary device
Additional PC users
Not shared with other users
Desktop OS
Windows 10
OS edition
Pro
Login security
    • None
Primary sign-in
Local account
Primary user
Admin user - Full permissions
Security updates
Automatic - allow all types of updates
Windows UAC
Maximum - always notify
Network firewall
Third-party router
Real-time protection
Bitdefender free + Spyshelter Free + Windows Custom Anti-Exploit Settings + Sandboxie
Software firewall
Provided by a third-party security vendor. Refer to 'Real-time protection' for details.
Custom RTP, Firewall and OS settings
BD free + Spyshelter free auto allow high security level.+ FF in Sandbox.
Malware testing
No malware samples
Periodic security scanners
none
Secure DNS
NextDNS.
VPN
wireguard
Password manager
Bitwarden
Browsers, Search and Addons
Firefox: user.js ++ uBlock Origin + + cookie Autodelete + Simple Translate + CanvasBlocker
Chrome: Bitwarden + Norton safe web + Malwarebytes browser guard.

Maintenance and Cleaning
CCleaner
Personal Files & Photos backup
hdd
Personal backup routine
Manual (maintained by self)
Device recovery & backup
Macium free+ AOMEI Backupper Pro
Device backup routine
Manual (maintained by self)
PC activity
  1. Browsing the web. 
  2. Emails. 
  3. Banking. 
  4. PC and cloud gaming. 
Computer specs
R5 3600
gtx 1050 ti
3 ssd + 2 hdd
ds3h v2
32Gb ddr4
Personal changelog
syshelter free 5/01/2021
comodo FW + ahnlab v3 lite 21/06/2021
malwarebytes antiexploit 22/6/2021
simple windows hardening 26/6/2021
Hard configurator 5/9/2021
tyniwall 5/92021
ccleaner 5/9/2021
Removed WDAC 17/09/2021
Removed SysHardener 19/09/2021
Removed Avast, H_C. 22/09/2021
Removed SD + C_D + Neustar
Feedback Response

Most critical feedback

Staff Notes
  1. This setup may cause performance issues, system instability or conflicts between programs, and can hinder the effectiveness of the installed antivirus products.

upnorth

Moderator
Verified
Staff member
Malware Hunter
Jul 27, 2015
4,451
I myself am currently using version 1.4.3. As long as it is compatible and not a problem, why not use it? And when failures begin, then you can uninstall.
I totally get the point that even older software versions itself runs on a system without for example any error messages or seem to work just fine, but here's another point of view. It's about security. If you or anyone else gets infected because it's an old version, ain't that a pretty poor comfort telling users they can always uninstall it, after?
 

SFox

Level 5
Verified
Jun 11, 2019
225
IMO $20 is dirt cheap, especially for such an effective program.
Maybe $ 20 in Canada and not money at all, but I live in Russia, where with $ 20, I can provide myself with bread for 3 months :) This is quite significant. But the question is different. The question is how adequate this price is for a PERSONAL license for home use. Why did the developer decide to make the program paid, although he used to release the product for free? The answer is on the company's website, where it is directly written that since the product has proven itself well, received good reviews from users and companies, they made a separate website for it and modernized it. Well, at the same time they decided to make it paid. They have the right, after all, any work requires remuneration, including material. But again, the question is about the price of the license. Look at the pricing policy of antivirus vendors in terms of home and volume licenses, and you will see that the prices for home and volume licenses differ several times. The license price for the corporate segment is disproportionately higher than for home use. At OSArmor, the price for a home license is practically the same as for a corporate one. In addition, I will also be charged a value added tax of $ 4. The total cost of the license will cost 24 bucks :) (and with this money I can buy bread for 4 months. This is enough to stock up on bread for the whole winter :)). If the price for a corporate license goes to 25 bucks, then for a personal license, in theory, it should be 2-2.5 times less, in the aisles 10 bucks, but not 20. OSArmor is designed primarily for the corporate segment, because there today it is small and medium businesses are mostly targeted by hackers. Most hackers cannot defeat big business (there is good protection), and there is no financial reason to hack a housewife's computer. Therefore, a housewife will never encounter the latest exploits and ingenious methods of infection that OSArmor protects against :) Everything that is used to massively infect housewives - Internet security antivirus will do it well :) The main goal is small and medium-sized businesses. For them, OSarmor is just great, because antivirus is clearly not enough. Therefore, it is not clear why the price of an OSArmor home license is almost equal to the price of a corporate one, with a difference of only 25%. If someone buys OSArmor for home use, then they are either advanced users who are simply interested in everything, or paranoid who want only 100% protection against ALL threats, and are ready to pay not even 20 dallars, but even a hardware firewall for 10,000 dollars to install at home, just to protect themselves from all hackers in the world :) (because all hackers in the world only dream of hacking their home Wi-Fi network and downloading the complete collection of the series "Santa Barbara" from their computers :)) ... An ordinary average user, not only in Russia, is not ready to pay 20 bucks for additional protection that protects against threats that he will probably never face in reality (I had only 2 reactions of the program in 2 years of work of the free version, and those are false) ... There is also a psychological aspect. The program has been free for a long time - and suddenly the price is like an Internet security antivirus. Additional protection is more expensive than basic protection :) This is some kind of cognitive dissonance :)
 

SFox

Level 5
Verified
Jun 11, 2019
225
I totally get the point that even older software versions itself runs on a system without for example any error messages or seem to work just fine, but here's another point of view. It's about security. If you or anyone else gets infected because it's an old version, ain't that a pretty poor comfort telling users they can always uninstall it, after?
It is worth determining the degree of importance and criticality of the updates. For example, if we are talking about an anti-virus program, then its update is critical (especially the signature database update). But, for example, OSArmor is not an antivirus, but rather an additional hip. Can we talk about the criticality of updates for this kind of program? Or can we only talk about importance? We can speak about the criticality of updates for such programs only if the program causes serious failures in the system, or it itself seriously fails, or if hackers find a serious vulnerability in the security program itself. Otherwise, updates are important to her. But even without them, it will still protect certain areas of the system. Yes, updated versions of the program can expand the protection area, deepen something somewhere, etc. But what is the likelihood that the average home user will fall under some kind of cunning exploit attack that only an updated version of this program can protect him, and an outdated one cannot? Mass malware is primitive, as it is designed for mass distribution, not targeting, so they do not use any such ingenious penetration schemes. With small and medium-sized businesses - another question, with big business - even more so. Everything is serious there and clever schemes are used, additional protection against such exploits is very important there. But we are talking about a license for a home PC where even an outdated hips like OSArmor program is enough for additional protection (until it crashes) and an updated antivirus and elementary norms of safe behavior of the user himself. Now about safety. What is this security made of? 60% of these are actions of the user himself (the same norms of behavior: do not open suspicious letters in mail, do not follow links from unknown people, do not run suspicious software downloaded from unknown sites, update the system and browsers, other applications such as an email client and etc.), another 30% is the work of the antivirus (updated, with the latest databases, configured), and only the remaining 10% can be designated as additional security programs (and for most ordinary users one antivirus is enough, more often even a free one). So how high is the likelihood of infection, for example, of an ordinary home user using updated Internet security antivirus and outdated hips such as OSArmor, compared to a user using the same updated antivirus and updated OSArmor, provided that both users are careful in their actions? I think that in both cases the probability of infection is close to zero. Only in the first case, the user saves $ 20, and in the second - no. At the same time, if we are talking about a corporate user, then on the contrary, the probability of infection is high in the first case, and much lower in the second case, because a corporate user is an object for targeted dodgy attacks with serious exploits, in contrast to home user - the target of attacks by massive primitive malware.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi and Correlate

upnorth

Moderator
Verified
Staff member
Malware Hunter
Jul 27, 2015
4,451
It is worth determining the degree of importance and criticality of the updates. For example, if we are talking about an anti-virus program, then its update is critical (especially the signature database update). But, for example, OSArmor is not an antivirus, but rather an additional hip. Can we talk about the criticality of updates for this kind of program? Or can we only talk about importance? We can speak about the criticality of updates for such programs only if the program causes serious failures in the system, or it itself seriously fails, or if hackers find a serious vulnerability in the security program itself. Otherwise, updates are important to her. But even without them, it will still protect certain areas of the system. Yes, updated versions of the program can expand the protection area, deepen something somewhere, etc. But what is the likelihood that the average home user will fall under some kind of cunning exploit attack that only an updated version of this program can protect him, and an outdated one cannot? Mass malware is primitive, as it is designed for mass distribution, not targeting, so they do not use any such ingenious penetration schemes. With small and medium-sized businesses - another question, with big business - even more so. Everything is serious there and clever schemes are used, additional protection against such exploits is very important there. But we are talking about a license for a home PC where even an outdated hips like OSArmor program is enough for additional protection (until it crashes) and an updated antivirus and elementary norms of safe behavior of the user himself. Now about safety. What is this security made of? 60% of these are actions of the user himself (the same norms of behavior: do not open suspicious letters in mail, do not follow links from unknown people, do not run suspicious software downloaded from unknown sites, update the system and browsers, other applications such as an email client and etc.), another 30% is the work of the antivirus (updated, with the latest databases, configured), and only the remaining 10% can be designated as additional security programs (and for most ordinary users one antivirus is enough, more often even a free one). So how high is the likelihood of infection, for example, of an ordinary home user using updated Internet security antivirus and outdated hips such as OSArmor, compared to a user using the same updated antivirus and updated OSArmor, provided that both users are careful in their actions? I think that in both cases the probability of infection is close to zero. Only in the first case, the user saves $ 20, and in the second - no. At the same time, if we are talking about a corporate user, then on the contrary, the probability of infection is high in the first case, and much lower in the second case, because a corporate user is an object for targeted dodgy attacks with serious exploits, in contrast to home user - the target of attacks by massive primitive malware.
I am a moderator on this forum so let me try help you with some basic how to forum posting, as you clearly have problems with it. Please try to use space on your keyboard from time to time when you type/write. It get's extremely hard to read and fully comprehend for the majority of members and guests, what you mean or try to say. It's called " Excessive text formatting " on this forum. Similar, but not the same, when members use for example full caps, as full caps is viewed/seen as screaming.

It is worth determining the degree of importance and criticality of the updates. For example, if we are talking about an anti-virus program, then its update is critical (especially the signature database update). But, for example, OSArmor is not an antivirus, but rather an additional hip. Can we talk about the criticality of updates for this kind of program?
OSArmor is very well-known on this forum what is, and what it's not. It is, a Security Software.

All Software should always be as up to date as possible and extra so Security Software. It's Basic ABC common knowledge in the field of software development and how the genuine professionals learn it and even a majority of all other home developers. Recommend the opposite, just because it's a personal and private view, and " runs " well or do not show any specific issues/problem on a system, is for sure reckless and if some of the major security software developers on this forum would do the same, they will hear about it the hard way from their users. Pumping/posting out updates is too common on this forum alone.

Again, telling users they can always uninstall a software after it gone sideways, is and always will be a real sad and poor comfort, and extra so for those users that gets hit by an infection because they used an outdated version.
 

SFox

Level 5
Verified
Jun 11, 2019
225
I am a moderator on this forum so let me try help you with some basic how to forum posting, as you clearly have problems with it. Please try to use space on your keyboard from time to time when you type/write. It get's extremely hard to read and fully comprehend for the majority of members and guests, what you mean or try to say.
Thanks for the clarification, I'll keep that in mind.
All Software should always be as up to date as possible and extra so Security Software. It's Basic ABC common knowledge in the field of software development and how the genuine professionals learn it and even a majority of all other home developers. Recommend the opposite, just because it's a personal and private view, and " runs " well or do not show any specific issues/problem on a system, is for sure reckless and if some of the major security software developers on this forum would do the same, they will hear about it the hard way from their users. Pumping/posting out updates is too common on this forum alone.
I do not urge you to refuse software updates. On the contrary, I even note that updates are critical and necessary. Simply, I note that there are programs that may not receive updates for a long time, but this is not something critical, since it does not affect their existing functionality, and new updates only deepen, expand this functionality.

However, I have already stated my idea in sufficient detail, and I will not repeat it again. Someone can agree with me, someone disagree. I do not impose my opinion on anyone, let everyone think for himself.

Initially, my questions were very different. Namely,
1) can a personal home license cost almost as much as a business license? (the difference in 25% of the cost is not significant).
2) сould additional security software cost more than basic Internet security software?
3) what is the likelihood that the average home user will encounter a zero-day exploit or a new virus that uses a clever method to inject into the operating system?

For myself, I found answers to the questions so that a home use license CANNOT be as expensive as a business use license, but it should be significantly lower, not by 20-25%, but significantly lower, at times. This can be seen on the example of any antivirus vendor, when licenses for home use are 2-3 times cheaper than for business use.
Moreover, a license for a program that positions itself as a program for additional protection CANNOT cost more than a license for a program for the main protection of the system (Internet security antivirus).
Finally, a home user may not need additional protection as such, or use a free version of the additional protection program, even if it is an outdated version of this program, if updates are not critical for it (it regularly performs its functionality, does not cause failures, it no known vulnerabilities). This is because the home user is not exposed to the serious threats that such an additional protection program protects against, unlike a corporate user, whose work computer is likely to be exposed to just such cunning attacks from which the additional security program will protect.
OSArmor is very well-known on this forum what is, and what it's not. It is, a Security Software.
I understand that very well. But OSArmor protects against specific types of attacks that the average home user is unlikely to ever face at all. I am sure that many people here have this program installed, someone purchased a license to support the developer. This is commendable and good. But I'm wondering at least someone has this program at least once protected from a threat in real use? Not a false positive, not a test, but a real response to a real threat in real time. It was so? For more than two years of using the free version (when it was relevant) I have never had this, although I visited many hundreds of sites, inserted flash drives, etc.

Let me emphasize that you should not conclude from this that the program is not needed or protects poorly, on the contrary, the program is of high quality and protects well, but an ordinary home user is unlikely to face the types of threats from which it protects. Therefore, even for a home user, the latest free version is enough, but if he wants to support the developer, he can also purchase the latest current version. I would have bought it myself if the pricing policy was different :) But the right to determine the pricing policy belongs exclusively to the software developer, we can only express our wishes and suggestions :)
Again, telling users they can always uninstall a software after it gone sideways, is and always will be a real sad and poor comfort, and extra so for those users that gets hit by an infection because they used an outdated version.
I emphasize once again that I am not at all opposed to updates as such. However, I categorize them as important and critical, as well as simply recommended, but not required.
This is just my personal opinion. Everyone ensures their own computer security, and decides what is important to him and what is not.

I'll tell you a story from my personal experience. Not so long ago, an elderly woman asked me to help with a problem - the browser began to work slowly. When I looked at the protection of the system (Windows 10 version 1809), I saw that in fact it had no protection at all. No protection. The laptop was equipped with an expired McAfee Internet Security antivirus, the databases and modules of which were last updated 5 years ago. Internet security antivirus has not actually worked for the last 5 years! And since it was installed, the built-in Windows Defender did not work either. Even the built-in Windows firewall did not work, as it was hindered by the antivirus firewall disabled due to an expired license. In fact, there was no working antivirus, no working firewall, nothing at all, for the last 5 years. However, when I scanned my computer with several antivirus scanners, it turned out to be completely clean, no malware. And the browser was slow due to the fact that it has not been cleaned for the last 5 years. There was only one history of sites with 7,000 entries and a cache for a large number of gigabytes. With such a state of security, this system would have to be so infected that it would not boot at all :) But, on the contrary, it is completely clean. This is how it happens :)
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: Nevi and Correlate

Andy Ful

Level 72
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Dec 23, 2014
6,165
The laptop was equipped with an expired McAfee Internet Security antivirus, the databases and modules of which were last updated 5 years ago. Internet security antivirus has not actually worked for the last 5 years! And since it was installed, the built-in Windows Defender did not work either. (...)
However, when I scanned my computer with several antivirus scanners, it turned out to be completely clean, no malware.
I know similar cases too, but such examples are useless to prove anything. Also, recalling the examples of uninfected friends who use AVs, cannot prove anything about the strength of the AV security. Everybody knows that some average people can avoid malware for several years and the AV is of no use at this time - this follows from the probability theory.

For many home computer users, the chance of avoiding malware infection for 5 years (no AV installed) can be slightly greater than the chance of infecting the computer. There are several reasons for that, but the main reason is that other people still use AVs. The second important reason is that AV is not the only security layer on Windows 10 (home router, SmartScreen, etc.).
I think that this elderly woman might not sleep well, knowing that she has only a 50% chance to be unifected in the next 5 years.:unsure:
 
Last edited:

SFox

Level 5
Verified
Jun 11, 2019
225
I know similar cases too, but such examples are useless to prove anything. Also, recalling the examples of uninfected friends who use AVs, cannot prove anything about the strength of the AV security. Everybody knows that some average people can avoid malware for several years and the AV is of no use at this time - this follows from the probability theory.

For many home computer users, the chance of avoiding malware infection for 5 years (no AV installed) can be slightly greater than the chance of infecting the computer. There are several reasons for that, but the main reason is that other people still use AVs. The second important reason is that AV is not the only security layer on Windows 10 (home router, SmartScreen, etc.).
I think that this elderly woman might not sleep well, knowing that she has only a 50% chance to be unifected in the next 5 years.:unsure:
Andy, I just gave an example from personal experience :) This is not proof that you don't need to use an antivirus :) I can give examples when an antivirus saved you from infection :) I was just so surprised that it is possible to use the computer and the Internet so actively for 5 years without antivirus and firewall at all, with administrative rights, and remain with a completely clean system. More with this I have not met. Usually, on such systems, if not viruses, then Adware will definitely come across.

Andy, if I understand correctly, you are good at statistical calculations, probabilities, etc. Answer a couple of questions (using the theory of probability):
1) How likely is the average home user to face zero-day threats or exploits?
2) We have discussed here OSАrmor, which protects the user from various clever ways of infecting the system. How likely is the average home user to face threats using these operating system infiltration techniques?
3) The issue of using outdated, but working without failures programs was discussed here. How high is the probability of infection for an average home user using the current version of the antivirus and an outdated version of the additional protection program, for example, the same OSArmor (provided that the program runs smoothly and has no known vulnerabilities) compared to a user using the current versions of both antivirus and additional programs protection?
 

Andy Ful

Level 72
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Dec 23, 2014
6,165
Andy, I just gave an example from personal experience :) This is not proof that you don't need to use an antivirus :) I can give examples when an antivirus saved you from infection :) I was just so surprised that it is possible to use the computer and the Internet so actively for 5 years without antivirus and firewall at all, with administrative rights, and remain with a completely clean system. More with this I have not met. Usually, on such systems, if not viruses, then Adware will definitely come across.

Yes, I know. But, many readers take such examples seriously.:)(y)

...
1) How likely is the average home user to face zero-day threats or exploits?
2) We have discussed here OSАrmor, which protects the user from various clever ways of infecting the system. How likely is the average home user to face threats using these operating system infiltration techniques?
3) The issue of using outdated, but working without failures programs was discussed here. How high is the probability of infection for an average home user using the current version of the antivirus and an outdated version of the additional protection program, for example, the same OSArmor (provided that the program runs smoothly and has no known vulnerabilities) compared to a user using the current versions of both antivirus and additional programs protection?

No one can calculate such probabilities, because there are too many unknown factors. The first one is that we do not have the definition of an average home user. Usually, young users are far more vulnerable. Furthermore, many adult users do not spend much time with computers and use them for simple tasks. They also install new applications very rarely and usually with the help of more experienced users. There is no information about events related to 0-day infections in the home environment. There are no statistically meaningful tests of OSArmor. I could mention several other unknown factors.

You could maybe compare (very roughly) the chances of infection when using standard AV (against any malware) to the chances of serious injury in a car accident when using seat belts. The 0-day part might be related to the teen drunk drivers.
Without the AV (but others still use AVs) the chances can increase similarly to chances of serious injury when skipping seat belts. Of course, both for car accidents and computer infections the user's safe habits and experience are important factors.
The example with seatbelts is not perfect, because your chances of serious injury do not depend much on using seatbelts by others. The opposite tendency could be true if others would stop use AVs.
 
Last edited:

Andy Ful

Level 72
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Dec 23, 2014
6,165
@ESecurity,

Your current setup (SysHardener, Defender+ConfigureDefender, H_C) is very strong in the home environment.
Anyway, using SysHardener and H_C is a kind of overkill - not dangerous for the system but can have an impact on usability. All important SysHardener settings are doubled in H_C, by using different methods. For example, SysHardener firewall rules are independent of similar FirewallHardening rules in H_C. If you disable the Internet connection for any LOLBin in SysHardener (or H_C) then the firewall rules in H_C (or SysHardener) will still block this LOLBin. The same is true for blocking scripts by extensions, or applying the hardening for MS Office, etc.
 

ESecurity

Level 17
Nov 15, 2017
804
If you don't mind my asking, please tell more details about custom settings Anti-Exploit, what enabled for your software?
removed Avast and H_C, now I am using SD and WD with configure defender with the options set to maximum. I also added a second backup of my system with AOMEI Backupper Pro and Neustar as DNS in wireguard's cloudflare profile.
 

Attachments

  • Settings.xml.txt
    58.1 KB · Views: 50
Top