Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nadis" data-source="post: 908971" data-attributes="member: 87161">I agree that blocking stuff can break things, but I don&#039;t think this is or should be your personal responsibility, at least not to such a great extent. I think it&#039;s good enough if you show users a warning when they&#039;re about to do these changes (frankly, they should already know this before installing H_C).Besides, you released Simple Windows Hardening. Why not let H_C be a tool for power users? We&#039;re not talking about giving people nuclear weapons, at worst if something breaks they&#039;ll have to restore the system from a backup. So it&#039;s not the end of the world and I think some users would rather risk a temporary system malfunction than being exposed to potential vulnerabilities.Right now, in case of LOLBins, a user has to wait for you to: 1)notice a new LOLBin 2)determine that it&#039;s popular enough in the wild 3)determine that blocking it doesn&#039;t cause issues and 4)release an update to H_C. A lot of time can pass while the user is potentially exposed.But as I said, it&#039;s not just about LOLBins. A user might want to block a specific program or path for other reasons, like parental control or some other administrative reason, blocking a file/folder inside a whitelisted portable app folder and so on.To me the main proposition of H_C was basically a nicer UI for SRP and Windows Firewall. The import/export features are a godsent, for example. But if it can&#039;t effectively be used for basic SRP functionality I might start looking elsewhere. The fact that it can&#039;t block dlls anymore is already a bit disappointing.Anyway, just my thoughts. The fact that SWH exists is IMO the biggest argument for having more SRP options in H_C.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nadis, post: 908971, member: 87161"] I agree that blocking stuff can break things, but I don't think this is or should be your personal responsibility, at least not to such a great extent. I think it's good enough if you show users a warning when they're about to do these changes (frankly, they should already know this before installing H_C). Besides, you released Simple Windows Hardening. Why not let H_C be a tool for power users? We're not talking about giving people nuclear weapons, at worst if something breaks they'll have to restore the system from a backup. So it's not the end of the world and I think some users would rather risk a temporary system malfunction than being exposed to potential vulnerabilities. Right now, in case of LOLBins, a user has to wait for you to: 1)notice a new LOLBin 2)determine that it's popular enough in the wild 3)determine that blocking it doesn't cause issues and 4)release an update to H_C. A lot of time can pass while the user is potentially exposed. But as I said, it's not just about LOLBins. A user might want to block a specific program or path for other reasons, like parental control or some other administrative reason, blocking a file/folder inside a whitelisted portable app folder and so on. To me the main proposition of H_C was basically a nicer UI for SRP and Windows Firewall. The import/export features are a godsent, for example. But if it can't effectively be used for basic SRP functionality I might start looking elsewhere. The fact that it can't block dlls anymore is already a bit disappointing. Anyway, just my thoughts. The fact that SWH exists is IMO the biggest argument for having more SRP options in H_C. [/QUOTE]

Verification