pablozi's config - updated: 11.08.2013

[enaph]

RE: pablozi's config

Or maybe DWPF as standalone security app?

 

[marsellus]

RE: pablozi's config

Or maybe DWPF as standalone security app?

Ja bym właśnie tak zrobił + MBAM Free.

 

[Ink]

RE: pablozi's config

EMET can be applied to any computer, since you can use it to enable DEP, SEHOP and ASLR for executables that you choose for commonly exploited software(s) such as, Flash Player etc.

However, EMET can cause some special programs (ie. specific Accounting software) to not execute at all, but I don't think that should be a problem if you don't use those types of software.

Since you are running 32-bit, Standard Account and you say Medium Risk. You should trial Norton and DefenseWall to see which one prefer.

 

[illumination]

RE: pablozi's config

Have not used KIS for some time, but is a strong suite, like many if set properly, will keep you quite safe! Since it has been some time, have to ask, is the Application control the same as in the 2011 version, if so, I would set it to untrusted. Other then this, you should be fine using KIS.

With this suite and the two on demand scanners, would say you are good to go!

 

[enaph]

RE: pablozi's config

A few changes made: KIS has been replaced by EAM + OA Premium combo.

 

[Jack]

RE: pablozi's config

A few changes made: KIS has been replaced by EAM + OA Premium combo.

Solid config. Never tried this combo on my system...Do yo feel any slow down?

 

[enaph]

RE: pablozi's config

A little bit But not as much as with previous build of EAM.

 

[enaph]

RE: pablozi's config

Another small update of realtime protection:
NIS + Zemana AL
Runs really smooth.

 

[Jack]

RE: pablozi's config

You are using NIS 2011 right?How do you like NIS when compared with KIS 2012?

 

[enaph]

RE: pablozi's config

You are using NIS 2011 right?How do you like NIS when compared with KIS 2012?

Much lighter and do not affect applications launching speed.
Also I can't feel any impact on Internet browsing speed.

 

[moonshine]

RE: pablozi's config

NIS doesn't impact Browsing since it doesn't use any Web Filter component.

 

[enaph]

RE: pablozi's config

NIS doesn't impact Browsing since it doesn't use any Web Filter component.

So what is the Norton SafeWeb toolbar for?

 

[illumination]

RE: pablozi's config

First, i have to say , I absolutely love your signature, been one of my favorite quotes by Einstein since i can remember! Now on to Norton, although they have increased in detection, and have brought system resource usage down dramatically, one reason I will never use them is just this..

FBI cooperation

Symantec, in compliance with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), whitelisted Magic Lantern, a keylogger actively developed by the FBI. The purpose of Magic Lantern is to obtain passwords to encrypted e-mail as part of a criminal investigation. Magic Lantern was first reported in the media by Bob Sullivan of MSNBC on November 20, 2001 and by Ted Bridis of the Associated Press.[82] Magic Lantern is deployed as an e-mail attachment. When the attachment is opened, a trojan horse is installed on the suspect's computer. The Trojan horse is activated when the suspect uses PGP encryption, often used to increase the security of sent e-mail messages. When activated, the trojan horse will log the PGP password, which allows the FBI to decrypt user communications.[83] Symantec and other major antivirus vendors have whitelisted Magic Lantern, rendering their antivirus products, including Norton Internet Security, incapable of detecting Magic Lantern. Concerns include uncertainties about Magic Lantern's full potential and whether hackers could subvert it for purposes outside the jurisdiction of the law.

Not that I have anything to hide, it is just the fact that they would allow something like this... Internet security is to protect you from these type things "Not allow them through".. The last sentence being the most important part of this quote..

You can read more on this Here

 

[Ramblin]

RE: pablozi's config

Symantec and other major antivirus vendors have whitelisted Magic Lantern, rendering their antivirus products, including Norton Internet Security, incapable of detecting Magic Lantern.

Personally, I don't worry about this kind of thing. Bad guys should
worry about this, not you. Anyway, seems like other antivirus
vendors are doing it so its not a Symantec thing but something
that is implemented by the FBI in the fight against crime.

Bo

 

[illumination]

RE: pablozi's config

Symantec and other major antivirus vendors have whitelisted Magic Lantern, rendering their antivirus products, including Norton Internet Security, incapable of detecting Magic Lantern.

Personally, I don't worry about this kind of thing. Bad guys should
worry about this, not you. Anyway, seems like other antivirus
vendors are doing it so its not a Symantec thing but something
that is implemented by the FBI in the fight against crime.

Bo

As i stated, i personally do not worry and or do anything to in order to worry about, its that last sentence in the quote that sticks out.. Although this is from some time ago, and others have done so also, it defeats the purpose of having security if certain things are let through that can be exploited..

Concerns include uncertainties about Magic Lantern's full potential and whether hackers could subvert it for purposes outside the jurisdiction of the law.

I wanted to bring this up, and see what others opinion on this is!

 

[Ramblin]

RE: pablozi's config

Symantec and other major antivirus vendors have whitelisted Magic Lantern, rendering their antivirus products, including Norton Internet Security, incapable of detecting Magic Lantern.

Personally, I don't worry about this kind of thing. Bad guys should
worry about this, not you. Anyway, seems like other antivirus
vendors are doing it so its not a Symantec thing but something
that is implemented by the FBI in the fight against crime.

Bo

As i stated, i personally do not worry and or do anything to in order to worry about, its that last sentence in the quote that sticks out.. Although this is from some time ago, and others have done so also, it defeats the purpose of having security if certain things are let through that can be exploited..

Concerns include uncertainties about Magic Lantern's full potential and whether hackers could subvert it for purposes outside the jurisdiction of the law.

I wanted to bring this up, and see what others opinion on this is!

I do understand where you coming from, I just wanted to point out that it is
not a thing/issue coming only from Symantec as many other vendors are also
white listing Magic Lantern since at least 2001. The other vendors that have
been doing it, have been very quiet about it and probably that's why its not
disclosed or known which companies are those.:dodgy:

.....but I understand your concerns.

Bo

 

[Gnosis]

RE: pablozi's config

Nice configuration. It is simple, yet potent.

 

[Deleted member 178]

RE: pablozi's config

want to have messages absolutly undecryptable? create your own language !

 

[enaph]

RE: pablozi's config

Another update:
DWPF is my only real time security tool.

 

[Deleted member 178]

RE: pablozi's config

defensewall is awesome, pity we dont have a x64 version.