Advanced Plus Security Gandalf_The_Grey's laptop config for 2020

[oldschool]

Simplified my config based on Windows built-in security.
Just an AV and some Windows hardening should be enough protection.

Same here. VoodooShield just doesn't seem to be the same now. Maybe Dan tried to do too much to it, but it's buggy with command-lines. Maybe fixed now with new version? Just the same, our simple setups are fine, and trouble-free.

 

[SeriousHoax]

Yep, I'm still using AdGuard. No problems with YouTube ads.
I have added the two filters from Yuki2718: AdGuard Social media Plus and AdGuard Tracking Protection Plus. Maybe those helped?

GitHub - Yuki2718/adblock: Personal filters and rules for AdGuard/uBlock Origin

Personal filters and rules for AdGuard/uBlock Origin - Yuki2718/adblock

github.com

I didn't know about Yuki's filters. He's a nice guy. He has helped me quite a few times when I created issues/pull requests on EasyList & Adguard's GitHub.
I'll check it out.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I didn't know about Yuki's filters. He's a nice guy. He has helped me quite a few times when I created issues/pull requests on EasyList & Adguard's GitHub.
I'll check it out.

These are the filters I'm using in AdGuard:

The two custom filters are from Yuki.
And I have "Use optimized filters" enabled.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

I only use AdGuard default filter and doesn't get any YouTube ads.

 

[SeriousHoax]

These are the filters I'm using in AdGuard:
View attachment 249024
The two custom filters are from Yuki.
And I have "Use optimized filters" enabled.

Simple and effective
Edit: Hope they include advanced mode similar to uBO which let you see domains connected and blocked directly into UI.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Simple and effective
Edit: Hope they include advanced mode similar to uBO which let you see domains connected and blocked directly into UI.

Went back to uBlock Origin just for that
And uBlock Origin is lighter on the browser compared to AdGuard.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

After testing Kaspersky Security Cloud Free and Ziggo Safe Online (F-Secure Safe) again, I went back to Microsoft Defender Antivirus enhanced by ConfigureDefender and the Windows 10_Basic Recommended Settings from Hard_Configurator.
Added the Bitdefender TrafficLight extension for extra online protection (no partial downloads allowed).
This config works best for my family, especially without any network slowdowns when we all have to work or study from home during this pandemic.

 

[YuanJiawj]

After testing Kaspersky Security Cloud Free and Ziggo Safe Online (F-Secure Safe) again, I went back to Microsoft Defender Antivirus enhanced by ConfigureDefender and the Windows 10_Basic Recommended Settings from Hard_Configurator.
Added the Bitdefender TrafficLight extension for extra online protection (no partial downloads allowed).
This config works best for my family, especially without any network slowdowns when we all have to work or study from home during this pandemic.

WD + ConfigureDefender simple but very effective combo. Are you still using Adguard or have you switched to uBo?

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

WD + ConfigureDefender simple but very effective combo. Are you still using Adguard or have you switched to uBo?

I have switched (again ) to uBo.
Reason: it's lighter and it's easier to see the domains connected and block them directly if needed.

 

[SeriousHoax]

This config works best for my family, especially without any network slowdowns

I did a very basic page loading test manually yesterday for Windows Defender, Bitdefender Free and Kaspersky Free. For that particular page on Firefox, WD loaded it in 1.59 on sec on average, Bitdefender in 1.69 sec and Kaspersky in 1.80 sec with Script injection feature & Kaspersky extension disabled. Tested it 10 times for each product so very accurate result for this particular bleepingcomputer page.
So yes, for faster internet/browsing experience WD is the best choice even though this outcome is predictable for obvious reason that we already know about.

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

I did a very basic page loading test manually yesterday for Windows Defender, Bitdefender Free and Kaspersky Free. For that particular page on Firefox, WD loaded it in 1.59 on sec on average, Bitdefender in 1.69 sec and Kaspersky in 1.80 sec with Script injection feature & Kaspersky extension disabled. Tested it 10 times for each product so very accurate result for this particular bleepingcomputer page.
So yes, for faster internet/browsing experience WD is the best choice even though this outcome is predictable for obvious reason that we already know about.

We need to get the most out of our ISP provided internet speed when I work fulltime from home and both kids follow their school lessons from home.

 

[rndmblk]

After testing Kaspersky Security Cloud Free and Ziggo Safe Online (F-Secure Safe) again, I went back to Microsoft Defender Antivirus enhanced by ConfigureDefender and the Windows 10_Basic Recommended Settings from Hard_Configurator.
Added the Bitdefender TrafficLight extension for extra online protection (no partial downloads allowed).
This config works best for my family, especially without any network slowdowns when we all have to work or study from home during this pandemic.

Is "Windows 10_Basic Recommended Settings" in H_C what you get when you click the Recommended Settings button or is this a "custom" collection of settings?

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Is "Windows 10_Basic Recommended Settings" in H_C what you get when you click the Recommended Settings button or is this a "custom" collection of settings?

No, it's a profile you can load.
From the manual:

Basic_Recommended_Settings on Windows 8+.

This is a predefined setting profile that allows EXE (TMP) and MSI files globally.
The scripts, shortcuts and other files with unsafe extensions are still
blocked by default in UserSpace.
This profile can harden Windows 8+ while maintaining maximum functionality
and compatibility. It could be probably called Recommended Settings
for cautious users.

The "Run By SmartScreen" entry in the Explorer context menu can be used
to check the standalone application installers (EXE and MSI) by SmartScreen
Application Reputation service. This entry should be also used for unsafe
executables listed below:
1. Files downloaded from the Internet, especially email attachments and executables
from the archives (7-zip, Zip, Arj, Rar, etc.).
2. Executables shared with other people via USB drives, Memory cards, etc.

The users can install/execute/update applications via EXE and MSI files. The
only exceptions are EXE and MSI files executed directly from an archive or
email client. In such cases, the archive has to be first unpacked and email attachment
has to be downloaded to hard disk. Next, it is recommended to use
"Run By SmartScreen" to execute those files via SmartScreen.

It is also recommended to use this profile with ConfigureDefender HIGH
Protection Level (if WD is the main antivirus) and "Recommended H_C" firewall
outbound block rules (see <FirewallHardening> option). The profile
can be used with any antivirus which can apply strong proactive detection.

Is it safe?
It is as safe as the H_C Recommended Settings if the user is cautious enough
to use the "Run By SmartScreen" entry in the Explorer context menu. If not
then EXE and MSI files will be covered only by the Antivirus.

PLEASE NOTE: This profile will be not enough for children. They will be
better protected by the H_C Recommended Settings and SmartScreen set to
Block, with occasional help from more experienced users.

 

[Moonhorse]

Went back to uBlock Origin just for that
And uBlock Origin is lighter on the browser compared to AdGuard.

True, but is there any way to block webrtc , since ublock origin wont block it correctly...but after all does that even matter