Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AtlBo" data-source="post: 733279" data-attributes="member: 32547">Thanks [USER=65228]@Opcode[/USER].&nbsp; Helps tremendously.I tend to classify protections based on the scope of their coverage as in this covers script activity or this handles memory issues etc. or just consider X + Y + Z protections all covered when it comes to Comodo Firewall etc.&nbsp; Just trying to cover Umbra&#039;s layers.&nbsp; Well, OSArmor seems to cross so many barriers it&#039;s crazy.&nbsp; Normally, I would think of UAC bypasses as something MS would automatically patch, which adds to the puzzle for me.&nbsp; Anyway, OSArmor appears to cover so many potential vulnerabilities like these that it&#039;s hard for me to classify the program, because I guess I would expect MS to have fixed many of the issues that OSA protects against.&nbsp; Talking about W7 here, and I guess most of them are fixed in W10.&nbsp; Still, I would have expected MS to have fixed them in W7 too since it is still officially supported until 2020.Could be I am off base about how to classify things like UAC bypasses, or it could be MS has patched most of the holes and others like MMC abuse and so on.&nbsp; I don&#039;t know much about MS patches that&#039;s for sure.&nbsp; Clearly not much was ever done in W7 about protection against wayward script activity.If you have an opportunity, I would like to know if it&#039;s fair to say that memory exploitation is in its first stages always the result of malware abuse of a vulnerability in a program (i.e. browser etc.).&nbsp; Also, is exploitation always in the form of memory abuse?&nbsp; Thx for the helpful comments.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AtlBo, post: 733279, member: 32547"] Thanks [USER=65228]@Opcode[/USER]. Helps tremendously. I tend to classify protections based on the scope of their coverage as in this covers script activity or this handles memory issues etc. or just consider X + Y + Z protections all covered when it comes to Comodo Firewall etc. Just trying to cover Umbra's layers. Well, OSArmor seems to cross so many barriers it's crazy. Normally, I would think of UAC bypasses as something MS would automatically patch, which adds to the puzzle for me. Anyway, OSArmor appears to cover so many potential vulnerabilities like these that it's hard for me to classify the program, because I guess I would expect MS to have fixed many of the issues that OSA protects against. Talking about W7 here, and I guess most of them are fixed in W10. Still, I would have expected MS to have fixed them in W7 too since it is still officially supported until 2020. Could be I am off base about how to classify things like UAC bypasses, or it could be MS has patched most of the holes and others like MMC abuse and so on. I don't know much about MS patches that's for sure. Clearly not much was ever done in W7 about protection against wayward script activity. If you have an opportunity, I would like to know if it's fair to say that memory exploitation is in its first stages always the result of malware abuse of a vulnerability in a program (i.e. browser etc.). Also, is exploitation always in the form of memory abuse? Thx for the helpful comments. [/QUOTE]

Verification