Everyone defending Default-Deny, has anyone of you ever used Comodo, avast!'s Hardened Mode (Aggressive) or Microsoft SmartScreen in Block mode?
The purpose of default deny is to block everything by default. That's why it is called default deny. Otherwise it is default allow.
The whole objective is to lock down and closely monitor the system. What you call "inconvenience", Microsoft and the industry calls "protection." So it is a matter of diverging perspectives.
Anyone can easily show that "Accommodating users who want to use stuff is the fundamental cause of our current blight."
Unless you happen to be a beta tester
Default deny publishers aren't going to make it different because beta testers find it inconvenient. Beta testers are expected to deal with it. No further discussion needed.
someone who always updates things to latest versions on day zero
This is an issue with reputation-based systems that employ file change monitoring. The whole point of default deny is to block system changes - unless the user authorizes such changes in one way, shape, form or another. Either by creating exclusions manually one-by-one or creating permanent allow rules. I know it can be done in COMODO. With Avast you have to get them to whitelist by publisher certificate or file. Same thing with Microsoft SmartScreen. These protection features were created and designed to block stuff newly introduced to the system. They are meant to maintain a steady-state system. If a user's goal is not to maintain a steady system-state, then
Policy-based default deny does not have this issue. Our product, for example, permits the vast majority of updates to proceed in system lock down mode. And if something is being blocked the user can easily create allow exceptions in the vast majority of cases.
Creating allow exceptions and preventing many legit system changes from being blocked is typically a one-time configuration matter. So I have a very difficult time grasping how it can be called "inconvenient."
If the "incovenience" is defined as the user having to do a single thing in the first place, then by that definition they should never, ever, turn on a single digital device.
or happens to be a developer.
Really ? A developer doesn't even bother messing with work on the real desktop because this is a known issue with both default allow and default deny solutions. Windows Defender itself causes tons of issues for developers. This is widely known and accepted.
Developers circumvent such issues by coding in a virtual machine with all interfering protections disabled inside the VM... and that includes Windows Defender, MSE, etc because they invariably cause problems.
but as soon as you step outside of casual expectations, it becomes a huge inconvenience.
I don't know... millions of people use default deny and get it to work on their unique systems and with their unique circumstances.
I suppose it all comes down to a user's definition of "inconvenience" and their tolerance for it.
No protection model is going to work for everyone. That's why I advocate people should use what they like... what works best for them.
Last edited by a moderator: