Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AtlBo" data-source="post: 644855" data-attributes="member: 32547">Took me a long time to understand how to cover all of the vulnerable areas of Windows to a satisfactory degree.&nbsp; I give [USER=178]@Umbra[/USER]&#039;s layered config thinking the credit for realizing the protection scope required and for changing my view of matching security software.&nbsp; It&#039;s possible to match software to achieve acceptable protection.&nbsp; Moreover, I also feel there is enough good software that a configuration should never come with a sacrifice, performance or security-wise.&nbsp; Layering makes all of this possible.&nbsp; That said, it has become fundamentally clear to me that there is one single invisible baseline of protection for Windows that must be satisfied even to have started to secure a system.&nbsp; Yes, there is more that can be done sometimes, but baseline security should 100% handle normal security circumstances.Guess if I had to sum up baseline security in a single program it wouldn&#039;t be possible at this point.&nbsp; KIS is probably as close as I could get, but secured backup should be in there too imo.&nbsp; To learn how to improve security, I second [USER=62849]@Visa[/USER]&#039;s suggestion to read [USER=178]@Umbra[/USER]&#039;s work and focus on the vectors of attack.&nbsp; Then start with the area of the greatest vulnerability based on your usage.&nbsp; Address that, then move on to the second one (if it wasn&#039;t already addressed with the first choice), then the third, and so on.&nbsp; With determined research, shouldn&#039;t be a need to overlap protections and sacrifice performance.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AtlBo, post: 644855, member: 32547"] Took me a long time to understand how to cover all of the vulnerable areas of Windows to a satisfactory degree. I give [USER=178]@Umbra[/USER]'s layered config thinking the credit for realizing the protection scope required and for changing my view of matching security software. It's possible to match software to achieve acceptable protection. Moreover, I also feel there is enough good software that a configuration should never come with a sacrifice, performance or security-wise. Layering makes all of this possible. That said, it has become fundamentally clear to me that there is [B]one single[/B] invisible baseline of protection for Windows that must be satisfied even to have started to secure a system. Yes, there is more that can be done sometimes, but baseline security should 100% handle normal security circumstances. Guess if I had to sum up baseline security in a single program it wouldn't be possible at this point. KIS is probably as close as I could get, but secured backup should be in there too imo. To learn how to improve security, I second [USER=62849]@Visa[/USER]'s suggestion to read [USER=178]@Umbra[/USER]'s work and focus on the vectors of attack. Then start with the area of the greatest vulnerability based on your usage. Address that, then move on to the second one (if it wasn't already addressed with the first choice), then the third, and so on. With determined research, shouldn't be a need to overlap protections and sacrifice performance. [/QUOTE]

Verification