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
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Of LoLBins, 0 Days, and ESET (Part 2)
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 109138" data-source="post: 1084158"><p>Security deficiencies. Interesting topic. Since around 2003 when the government first listed about lolbins vulnerability it's been well known and established. MS has made it well known since then if it is not needed it should be disabled. Windows obviously was never meant to be a home user product as it's evident when you realize none of these users set an admin account and place standard ones on as designed, it's security and process too hard for most to figure out. </p><p></p><p>Both MS and products will protect users from themselves to a point and then hide behind the EULA beyond that point, placing blame on the end user.</p><p></p><p>Many vendors have their hands full because average users can barely install products like Eset, let alone know their infected, but they will certainly figure out how to disable a product to install something they want on their system bad enough. So does it make sense to harden the product out of the box or to place advanced settings for those that know and can.</p><p></p><p>So let's be honest, who is covering up deficiencies and who is addressing them in the only manor effectively available.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 109138, post: 1084158"] Security deficiencies. Interesting topic. Since around 2003 when the government first listed about lolbins vulnerability it's been well known and established. MS has made it well known since then if it is not needed it should be disabled. Windows obviously was never meant to be a home user product as it's evident when you realize none of these users set an admin account and place standard ones on as designed, it's security and process too hard for most to figure out. Both MS and products will protect users from themselves to a point and then hide behind the EULA beyond that point, placing blame on the end user. Many vendors have their hands full because average users can barely install products like Eset, let alone know their infected, but they will certainly figure out how to disable a product to install something they want on their system bad enough. So does it make sense to harden the product out of the box or to place advanced settings for those that know and can. So let's be honest, who is covering up deficiencies and who is addressing them in the only manor effectively available. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top