Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Hard_Configurator Tools
Hard_Configurator - Windows Hardening Configurator
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 732287" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>I would like to comment the testing procedure adopted by [USER=64646]@askalan[/USER] it Malware Hub:</p><p><a href="https://malwaretips.com/threads/30-4-2018-16.82551/#post-732075" target="_blank">https://malwaretips.com/threads/30-4-2018-16.82551/#post-732075</a></p><p>.</p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)"><strong>This setup is based on Hard_Configurator recommended settings, and is similar to Avast with Hardened Aggressive mode with disabled malware signatures but blocked script execution. </strong></span></p><p>PowerShell command lines and cmdlets are allowed to run with Constrained Language mode.</p><p>[USER=64646]@askalan[/USER] used SoftMaker Office (No DDE, No MS Office macros, but OLE and ActiveX allowed)</p><p>.</p><p><span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>Of course, the test results of the above setup cannot be compared with standard AVs.</strong></span></p><p>.</p><p>So, what could be the purpose of testing such setup?</p><p><span style="color: rgb(65, 168, 95)"><strong>It can be used for testing the effectiveness of SmartScreen and Script Restrictions.</strong></span></p><p>I think that it would be very informative for many users, who thinks that SmartScreen is a crap and Windows Defender test results are fake. Also, many users do not realize how important is anti-script protection nowadays.</p><p>.</p><p>If the MalwareTips testers will be so kind to allow such tests, then the test results have to be posted with the below warning:</p><p><span style="color: rgb(184, 49, 47)"><strong>Experimental setup for testing the effectiveness of SmartScreen and Script Restrictions against 0-day malware samples. May be not efficient for the older samples. </strong></span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)">That would be also fine to add the link to this post for more info.</span></p><p><span style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0)">.</span></p><p>Why this setup will be not so efficient for older samples? Because older samples will be detected by AVs in 100% due to signatures.</p><p>That is the reason of using Hard_Configurator as a backup for the standard AV (especially for Defender).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 732287, member: 32260"] I would like to comment the testing procedure adopted by [USER=64646]@askalan[/USER] it Malware Hub: [URL]https://malwaretips.com/threads/30-4-2018-16.82551/#post-732075[/URL] . [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)][B]This setup is based on Hard_Configurator recommended settings, and is similar to Avast with Hardened Aggressive mode with disabled malware signatures but blocked script execution. [/B][/COLOR] PowerShell command lines and cmdlets are allowed to run with Constrained Language mode. [USER=64646]@askalan[/USER] used SoftMaker Office (No DDE, No MS Office macros, but OLE and ActiveX allowed) . [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]Of course, the test results of the above setup cannot be compared with standard AVs.[/B][/COLOR] . So, what could be the purpose of testing such setup? [COLOR=rgb(65, 168, 95)][B]It can be used for testing the effectiveness of SmartScreen and Script Restrictions.[/B][/COLOR] I think that it would be very informative for many users, who thinks that SmartScreen is a crap and Windows Defender test results are fake. Also, many users do not realize how important is anti-script protection nowadays. . If the MalwareTips testers will be so kind to allow such tests, then the test results have to be posted with the below warning: [COLOR=rgb(184, 49, 47)][B]Experimental setup for testing the effectiveness of SmartScreen and Script Restrictions against 0-day malware samples. May be not efficient for the older samples. [/B][/COLOR] [COLOR=rgb(0, 0, 0)]That would be also fine to add the link to this post for more info. .[/COLOR] Why this setup will be not so efficient for older samples? Because older samples will be detected by AVs in 100% due to signatures. That is the reason of using Hard_Configurator as a backup for the standard AV (especially for Defender). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
