Basic Security Evjl's Rain's security config

[shmu26]

It's not an easy question to answer
because tweaked KIS is certainly enough but it's much heavier than my current setup due to application control
if I disable the app control, it's not KIS anymore
moreover, I dislike KIS's firewall because of its inherited settings. When I block explorer.exe connection (Windows explorer) -> I use Windows explorer to open an app which requires internet connection, the app is also blocked because the settings are inherited from windows explorer -> have to manually unblock it -> quite annoying
and when I want to block an app in public network while allow it to connect in Home network, it's impossible. Block in Public = block everything

I think I would choose my current setup although comodo firewall is quite noisy sometimes

Another limitation of KIS firewall is you can't block outgoing for a specific application but allow ingoing. Correct?

 

[ZeroDay]

It's not an easy question to answer
because tweaked KIS is certainly enough but it's much heavier than my current setup due to application control
if I disable the app control, it's not KIS anymore
moreover, I dislike KIS's firewall because of its inherited settings. When I block explorer.exe connection (Windows explorer) -> I use Windows explorer to open an app which requires internet connection, the app is also blocked because the settings are inherited from windows explorer -> have to manually unblock it -> quite annoying
and when I want to block an app in public network while allow it to connect in Home network, it's impossible. Block in Public = block everything

I think I would choose my current setup although comodo firewall is quite noisy sometimes

Thank you for the quick reply. I've just re-installed Windows 10 pro, installed all my updates and a few security tweaks then created a system image using Macrium. I'm undecided on whether to go with KIS or CF+KFA. I've used both before but I just can't decide which setup to go for out of the 2 options for the very same reasons you mentioned above. I'm running Windows defender at the moment so I'm also considering adding SAP or Voodooshield alongside WD and WFC. I'm way too indecisive when it comes to my security setup lol. Thanks again for the fast reply.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Another limitation of KIS firewall is you can't block outgoing for a specific application but allow ingoing. Correct?

I have no idea. I haven't tried that. Thank you for notifying me

 

[Nightwalker]

Very nice setup, I am using something similar and I really like it.

Comodo with Cruelsister settings is so light and silent that sometimes I forget that it is running.

 

[ZeroDay]

Does Bitdefender free run ok with CF?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Does Bitdefender free run ok with CF?

I have never installed BD in my main system so I don't really know, I'm sorry. I assume they can work well if you add BD to whitelist of CF

 

[ZeroDay]

I have never installed BD in my main system so I don't really know, I'm sorry. I assume they can work well if you add BD to whitelist of CF

Thank you I might try that combo out

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Added:
- Zemana Anti-Malware: enabled pandora
- SafeDNS: acceptable speed and detection rate in my region
- Norton Safe Web
- hphosts EMD (ubO)
- upgraded to Windows 10 v1511 (November update, Threshold 2): extremely fast and stable. May update to Spring creators when it's stable
- updated some SRPs


Removed:
- Kaspersky free & avast free: despite all intense tweaks, speed never comes close to ZAM, very far distance
- Avira Browser Safety: waiting for the new version, detection & speed are not so great now

 

[Deleted member 178]

- Kaspersky free & avast free: despite all intense tweaks, speed never comes close to ZAM, very far distance

+1, it was nonsense anyway. And i really dislike these 2 Vendors.

 

[harlan4096]

Well, of course ZAM, since it does not monitors anything until You run it and even so...

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Well, of course ZAM, since it does not monitors anything until You run it and even so...

true. I did disable on-access scanning in KFA and avast but they still scan something while ZAM is truely silent

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Removed:
- ZAM: memory leak!!!
- SafeDNS: weak
- Neustar free recursive: very aggressive despite being great, blocked some site and couldn't whitelist/ignore to visit. Switched to a less aggressive one
- ESET NOD32: after installation, immediately couldn't load on boot. Very buggy. Couldn't uninstall -> must have used the official removal tool. Not light as expected, slowed down boot time significantly

Added:
- Kaspersky Free: tweaked for the best possible performance
- Quad9 DNS

 

[frogboy]

Quad9 DNS works well here.

 

[Deleted member 178]

AV suites are things of the past, they are weak, bloated and resources hog.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

AV suites are things of the past, they are weak, bloated and resources hog.

but it simply works for me
I find too many troubles using signature-less solutions
sig-less products are always having problems with false positives and blocking safe programs

therefore, I tweaked KFA to reach maximum performance it can get like disabling all useless shields and enabling on-execution scanning only

 

[Deleted member 178]

sig-less products are always having problems with false positives and blocking safe programs

There is no such thing as False Positives with anti-exe/SRPs because they don't have signatures, they just block or prompt legit-or-not executables, it is to the user to set rules/policies for files/directories.

The main con is that the user must know about Windows' processes, so indeed less suitable for beginners.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

There is no such thing as False Positives with anti-exe/SRPs because they don't have signatures, they just block or prompt legit-or-not executables, it is to the user to set rules/policies for files/directories.

The main con is that the user must know about Windows' processes, so indeed less suitable for beginners.

yes, I count the blocked safe programs = FPs
it's suitable for users who want to lockdown their PCs but not suitable for the ones who don't want to
all SRPs and anti-exes failed me because they prevented my daily programs from running, specially SRP

usability is markedly reduced with sig-less solutions
I foudn the combinations between sig and sig-less programs work best for me because I have more control and flexibility while sig-less only gave me too much control which can be annoying

 

[Deleted member 178]

all SRPs and anti-exes failed me because they prevented my daily programs from running, specially SRP

Just a matter of "how-to-setup", you have a learning curve to follow. Of course, if you don't like to do so, AV are indeed a simpler solution.

 

[mekelek]

but it simply works for me
I find too many troubles using signature-less solutions
sig-less products are always having problems with false positives and blocking safe programs

therefore, I tweaked KFA to reach maximum performance it can get like disabling all useless shields and enabling on-execution scanning only

you could try replacing KFA with SecureAPlus if you're using it only for signatures.
people has been complaining about the latest ESET release causing issues similar to yours, you might want to try an earlier version.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

you could try replacing KFA with SecureAPlus if you're using it only for signatures.
people has been complaining about the latest ESET release causing issues similar to yours, you might want to try an earlier version.

SAP conflicted with comodo firewall. SAP can't disable its anti-exe module
they conflicts which completely froze my PC while they were loading on boot. Adding exclusion didn't help => PC was completely unusable and I had to remove SAP in safe mode