Hard_Configurator - Windows Hardening Configurator

[Andy Ful]

Any idea why i am facing this error when i try to open Configur Defender?Thank you.

Because you're blocking PS in H_C. You may change the setting, but first have you read all the help files?

I haven't used it in a while so not sure how to adjust your settings. IIRC the PS setting is related to your choice of available built-in configurations.

ConfigureDefender works also when PS is blocked by the H_C. Anyway, from the attachment it follows that H_C does not block PS - only script files (*.ps1, etc.) are blocked. Something else blocks ConfigureDefender from running PS cmdlets.

 

[oldschool]

I see @JoeBlack40 has ESET NOD32 and Comodo FW installed. Maybe one of these is the culprit.

 

[Andy Ful]

I see @JoeBlack40 has ESET NOD32 and Comodo FW installed. Maybe one of these is the culprit.

That is very probable.
Adding H_C to this setup would be overkill. Furthermore, ConfigureDefender is useless if Microsoft Defender is not a primary AV.

 

[VladDracul]

I see @JoeBlack40 has ESET NOD32 and Comodo FW installed. Maybe one of these is the culprit.

Just CFW.I'm using WD only with Comodo without any other AV installed.

 

[Andy Ful]

Just CFW.I'm using WD only with Comodo without any other AV installed.

If you like Comodo Firewall + Defender, then you can tweak Comodo, skip H_C, and use standalone ConfigureDefender. There is no need to make your setup overcomplicated.

 

[oldschool]

If you like Comodo Firewall + Defender, then you can tweak Comodo,

@JoeBlack40 you may use @cruelsister 's configuration. Search YouTube for her video to see her setup.

 

[VladDracul]

If you like Comodo Firewall + Defender, then you can tweak Comodo, skip H_C, and use standalone ConfigureDefender. There is no need to make your setup overcomplicated.

Thank you,I think you are right as I love Comodo FW.

@JoeBlack40 you may use @cruelsister 's configuration. Search YouTube for her video to see her setup.

I am already using Cruel"s CFW settings it"s awesome.Thanks.

 

[Andy Ful]

Someone needs help:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...windows-10-needs.383448/page-143#post-3050467

While setting MAX profile one can see a warning:

 

[oldschool]

@Andy Ful you make it easy, but still people will miss things. How many really read your "Help" files in H_C, etc.?

 

[Digmor Crusher]

@Andy Ful you make it easy, but still people will miss things. How many really read your "Help" files in H_C, etc.?

Not very many it seems.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

Thinking of giving the new VS a quick test run, would it be advisable to go back to Windows defaults in SWH first?

 

[Andy Ful]

Thinking of giving the new VS a quick test run, would it be advisable to go back to Windows defaults in SWH first?

I think so.

 

[ForgottenSeer 92963]

@oldschool
People simply don't read manuals, no matter how well they are written.

@Andy Ful
You broke two rules which makes the procedure non intuive. I will try to explain.

First you start with a question (if you are applying the protection for child of inexperienced user) and ask the user to come into action when that is NOT the case.

In good UX users should NOT have to chance anything when it is NOT applicable I am not installing it for a child, so I asume h the application keeps things as they are (but you are changing it from visible to invisible).

Secondly you refer to the user's experience level. As this case shows 90% of the inexperienced users think they are experienced.

Ironically this inexperienced user who thinks he is an experienced user makes the wrong decision because of the UX-mistake you made. Or when you did set this UX-trap on purpose it is brilliant, because it makes inexperienced users who don't RTFM make the right choice for their experience level

 

[oldschool]

Or when you did set this UX-trap on purpose it is brilliant, because it makes inexperienced users who don't RTFM make the right choice for their experience level

 

[Andy Ful]

@Andy Ful
... Or when you did set this UX-trap on purpose it is brilliant, because it makes inexperienced users who don't RTFM make the right choice for their experience level

The alert is as clear as it should be and ends with:
"Press the <HIDE> button to hide the Security Center or the <KEEP UNHIDDEN> button otherwise."
In ConfigureDefender the MAX settings were from the beginning intended to protect children and casual users, so the default action is to hide the Security Center.
I understand that the MAX settings can be also understood to keep Security Center unhidden. Both solutions are possible, but I prefer the current one. It is also consistent with the meaning that as many restrictions as possible will be applied (including hidden Security Center).

 

[wat0114]

People simply don't read manuals, no matter how well they are written.

Sure they do, just not cover-to-cover; they'll read only what's necessary to get some sub feature of a device to work properly, like changing frequencies on a digital transceiver for example.

 

[ForgottenSeer 92963]

Andy,

It has nothing to do with the max settings (where do you tell your audience about that intention) or what the display says, I can't make it any simpler than it is just not good practice in user interaction design to ask something and require a user action to change the default when that is NOT applicable.

Users should NOT have to change anything when it is NOT applicable. It is the initial question what triggers the wrong response when people are just scanning the text (not carefully reading it). The reaction triggered will be "I am not installing it for a child, so I can just click okay, assuming the application keeps things as they are (but you are changing the default from visible to hide).

 

[Andy Ful]

Andy,
...
Users should NOT have to change anything when it is NOT applicable. It is the initial question what triggers the wrong response when people are just scanning the text (not carefully reading it). The reaction triggered will be "I am not installing it for a child, so I can just click okay, assuming the application keeps things as they are (but you are changing the default from visible to hide).

There is no question in the alert.
But OK, I am not a native English speaker. We can change the info. The intention is:

1. Inform the user that MAX settings are intended to protect children and casual users.
2. The default and recommended choice will be <HIDE>.

My proposition nr 1:
MAX Protection Level is adjusted to protect children or casual users, so it is recommended to hide Windows Security Center. This will prevent the user from disabling the Defender real-time protection or other security settings.
Press the <HIDE> button to hide Windows Security Center (recommended) or the <KEEP UNHIDDEN> button otherwise.

 

[Andy Ful]

My proposition nr 2:
MAX Protection Level is adjusted to protect children or casual users, so it is recommended to hide Windows Security Center.
If you apply the MAX settings on the computer of an experienced user then the recommended action is to keep Windows Security Center unhidden.
Press the <HIDE> button to hide Windows Security Center or the <KEEP UNHIDDEN> button otherwise.

 

[ForgottenSeer 92963]

Andy, only change the default action from Hide to Keep unhidden

Spoiler: Current hide/unhide popup

Spoiler: Proposed unhide/hide popup

So when a user just enters, the KEEP UNDHIDDEN is selected. When a user wants to hide they have to click on the HIDE button

(that is why I thought you maybe did this on purpose, because a casual user would just click without reading and select the option which is best for his/her experience level )

PS: Apologize for confusing you, it was not a question, but a popup asking for a user response (picture tells more than a 1000 words)