Andy Ful

Level 48
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
What do you mean?
...
It is hard to compare a surgeon scalpel (SSRP) with surgeon robot (H_C). The second is more complex, less dangerous and more effective in the hands of non-professionals. :giggle::emoji_pray:

When using SSRP the user has to have much more knowledge and spend much more time as compared to using H_C. The H_C has much knowledge built into the application and is much more automated as compared to SSRP.
 
Last edited:

AtlBo

Level 27
Verified
Content Creator
Honestly, I am unsure anything can stop these other than perhaps a Group Policy to block all Chrome Extensions and/or not even using Chrome?
Found this today on the laptop. At the bottom of the Google Chrome "..." menu, there was an extra line that said, "Managed by Hotmail.com". There was another reference on the "About" menu. Doubt it was Hotmail.com that put this there, but it's eery. I think it may have been in software giveaway software or maybe in LastPass. I installed Last Pass two days ago on the laptop. Get rid ot this this way:


Waiting to see if it comes back...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: oldschool

Slyguy

Level 42
Verified
Found this today on the laptop. At the bottom of the Google Chrome "..." menu, there was an extra line that said, "Managed by Hotmail.com". There was another reference on the "About" menu. Doubt it was Hotmail.com that put this there, but it's eery. I think it may have been in software giveaway software or maybe in LastPass. I installed Last Pass two days ago on the laptop. Get rid ot this this way:


Waiting to see if it comes back...
This has been coming up more and more lately. It's not comforting given the recent history of major Chrome issues and the sizable number of CVE's coming out for it. If Brave didn't randomly block or break stuff, even with it's shields off, I would switch back to Brave as I have never noticed this happening on Brave.

Basically, everything is so compromised now it's almost a waste of time to do anything but a pure lockdown, default deny, and run your browser in a sandbox. Otherwise, it's a crapshoot anymore.
 

AtlBo

Level 27
Verified
Content Creator
Basically, everything is so compromised now it's almost a waste of time to do anything but a pure lockdown, default deny, and run your browser in a sandbox. Otherwise, it's a crapshoot anymore.
Every time I think about running browser in a sandbox, I think of the inconveniences like how to update extensions and how to manage files all over the system. Then I think about the complications of backing up the files and cleaning files too, and I end up frustrated. I did notice today that FreeFileSync can backup from the Comodo sandbox folder. If I can identify what CCleaner should remove in VTRoot, I could use its Custom file locations to remove temp files. One program I have installed by the name of AllMyNotes is running contained, mostly as a test. All the notes I make are o/c dropped in VTRoot, meaning documents are an issue too for backup. Syncing the normal Documents folder doesn't get them. Anyway, the problem is compounded with extensions and bookmarks.

System images help, but who wants to image every day? Shadow Defender I guess would be the best option for backing up local/personal files. Still, sometimes I wonder why Comodo with all the apps they have written have not integrated custom backup and cleaning into Comodo Firewall and its sandbox et al. Talk about a natural fit. For now, I can see that I am going to have to begin sandboxing the browsers. Not looking forward to the setup challeges with file syncing and cleaning.

The worst part of all of this to me is that all of this work is just so that malware can partially run in the container and do who knows what from there. Considering updating extensions in a container is giving me a headache as I type :sick:. Hoping it's not going to be as twisted a mess to deal with as I am envisioning...
 

Slyguy

Level 42
Verified
It is a twisted mess. I guess basically there are only two types of systems/servers/companies now.

1) Those that are hacked/exploited and know they are hacked and exploited.
2) Those that are hacked/exploited but don't know they are hacked and exploited.

I'd throw the whole mess away and start from scratch if I could. The systems/environments all appear to be designed from the ground up to facilitate constant exploiting, backdoors and hacks.

I went away this summer to an Island. To be honest, I missed none of city life and technology at all. It was so pleasing, so refreshing, that it took me nearly a full week of being back at the city to acclimate. However I may be permanently damaged now because none of this rubbish seems relevant anymore, most of it feels like a distraction, and all of it feels like a waste of time and money.
 

AtlBo

Level 27
Verified
Content Creator
I'd throw the whole mess away and start from scratch if I could. The systems/environments all appear to be designed from the ground up to facilitate constant exploiting, backdoors and hacks.
So would I. Not that I have begun to scheme anything formally in the form of an outline or schematic. Still, I feel like I can visualize how security is achievable if OS writers would grasp that securability is the proper goal for the operating system. I admit, I have been tempted to formally scheme, because of this situation. At any rate, noone wants a secure operating system if they are honest with themselves. This focus is unworkable, because the big picture of this scenario does not add up to long term success. Much better to have an operating system that is designed to support fully intuitive developmental interaction from 3rd party security designers/writers. Security software should be akin to a plugin, and this is where things went wrong imo. Windows is horrendously under engineered in this way. It's laughable I know to anyone who has really considered the subject in the biggest picture. Technically, it's not engineered at all to be secured.

Sadly, a developmental model stressing securability would have required MS to participate, communicate, and collaborate on a very aggressive level with security providers (many years ago->back in the 90s). It also would have required MS to use foresight and be willing to sacrifice for the long term. Well, this is not, unfortunately, what MS can do well and not what they chose, either.

What MS will always do well is write plodding yet reliable computer code in the form of productivity applications. As far as security software from MS, I really believe we'd have all been better off if MS security never got past Windows Defender in W7. That in mind, the multi-provider security grid is going to be inherently safer than what Microsoft is attempting to achieve now. So, in the present, we sit by and watch while Microsoft takes things anywhere they choose and without regard.

It seems so absurd to me what MS has driven itself to try to do on the security end. All they had to do was build a framework with efficiently placed developmental access points for security writers (cover all the angles). Please, let's not run for the hindsight is an excuse for megalo (or incompetent)-development line. This doesn't work anymore. It hasn't worked honestly since maybe the early 2000s with Windows. Truth is, MS simply has not had the foresight even to see that there is not one chance they will be able to compete with the security providers, once these providers really get started. And what will happen with MS' bloated excuse for an OS product?

I was wondering the other day how Windows 10 users would feel about all of the bulky security options built into the MS OS v10 if someone other than Microsoft comes up with something that Microsoft can't duplicate. It's bound to happen, because where Microsoft is going is so clearly flawed in the big picture of computing. I feel I'm like watching one of those land rockets take off down the Bonneville salt flat in the pitch black of night toward a 20 foot thick 30 foot high concrete wall built somewhere in its path. It is so clear that something is eventually going to go wrong here but not possible to know when. All I see is the rocket's after-burn as it moves down the flat. Sometimes I feel like I'm chained in the rocket :sick: speeding toward sure doom. Not a good feeling.

Noone uses all of the security in the latest Windows as it is. This brings to mind an issue for me. Why do so few make notice of the bloat? OK, so MS can change the 10 OS over time and all. Components could possibly be removable, but, really, how much time do they have before time is up? The Chinese are watching, the Japanese, all of Europe, and the rest of the world too. Linux is improving fast now too. If someone builds users a bridge, many companies will go to Linux. Actually, they already are little by little. And why not go? Seriously, if it's doable at this point for a company, it could only lead to better. But even this is not the answer at this point, because Linux is not fully built to be secured either. At least anyone can participate in the development. That's a huge plus for Linux.

Multi-provider security guarantees users that the worst that can happen from a top tier security provider is a small-time breach. Why, because they monitor each other just as they monitor for potential maliciousness from other sources. This means that the most crucial element of the security hierarch, trust, can be preserved. Trust for the security provider can be assured with a large number of eyes on the industry and its companies. Yet, a single security behemoth like Microsoft can institutionalize the breaching of PCs and stealing of ideas and concepts. The current direction is not workable long term. Multiple security vendors is going to mean venom filled users eventually. They will want all of the MS tools to be removable, and the myth of the secure OS will end.

Seriously, I really feel there would be one disaster after another if something isn't done soon about the fanaticism in Microsoft's attempt to be the Lone Ranger of PC security. Neither MS nor any other company could fight off the corruption that (is following?) follows a single OS maker attempting to build a secure operating system. What they are trying to do just does not go well...no matter how things may appear to some for now. Think of the massive infrastructure of security in the W^10. Think of one company with full access to every computer and noone anywhere to oversee their actions. How do we think the Chinese feel about this potentiality? How does Apple feel for goodness sake?

Something will change this scenario soon enough. Not sure what, but I am sure it will happen, Simple truth is we can't have Windows and have only the one single security option. It's not long term going to be viable, and it's only a matter of time until the facts prove this to be the case. In light of this, how long before users cry out to be able to remove the bloat!
 
Last edited: