Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ebocious" data-source="post: 775773" data-attributes="member: 75834">I don&#039;t agree that it is all fact.&nbsp; Status quo has little to do with security.&nbsp; I know people who use WD for their antivirus, and have been virus-free for longer than eight years.&nbsp; I even know a couple of people who are still using Windows XP.&nbsp; But their success is mostly due to staying in the pasture.&nbsp; They&#039;re not safe because WD is tougher than their attackers; their safe because there haven&#039;t been any attackers.&nbsp; And there&#039;s a first time for everything.&nbsp; All it takes is one successful attack, and eight years become zero.That said, default-deny does not equal zero usability; this sounds like paralysis before analysis.&nbsp; When working with VoodooShield, most functions of preexisting apps are whitelisted from the get-go.&nbsp; New apps require an exception for installation, and another for first run (unless it&#039;s a utility app, which my clients don&#039;t mess with).&nbsp; Otherwise, you don&#039;t see an alert unless you&#039;re opening an infected Word document, in which case you DO NOT click allow.&nbsp; It&#039;s pretty simple; we&#039;re not talking old-school PrevX.&nbsp; If you want to see how well Avast Free and Kaspersky Free perform, then you might try the HMPAlert test.&nbsp; They don&#039;t do so well against fileless exploits.Lastly, when&#039;s the last time you were attacked directly?&nbsp; If you do your due diligence, like setting up a custom admin password for your router and disabling remote management; then the only packets coming through your firewall will be solicited by you (this includes drive-by downloads, which is why I prefer MBBE and its false-positives over a 99% detection rate).&nbsp; That is, assuming you don&#039;t have any port forwarding.&nbsp; And if you do, try VoodooShield or AppGuard.&nbsp; The latter makes a pretty bold claim, that they are undefeated in protecting several government agencies and hospitals.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ebocious, post: 775773, member: 75834"] I don't agree that it is all fact. Status quo has little to do with security. I know people who use WD for their antivirus, and have been virus-free for longer than eight years. I even know a couple of people who are still using Windows XP. But their success is mostly due to staying in the pasture. They're not safe because WD is tougher than their attackers; their safe because there haven't been any attackers. And there's a first time for everything. All it takes is one successful attack, and eight years become zero. That said, default-deny does not equal zero usability; this sounds like paralysis before analysis. When working with VoodooShield, most functions of preexisting apps are whitelisted from the get-go. New apps require an exception for installation, and another for first run (unless it's a utility app, which my clients don't mess with). Otherwise, you don't see an alert unless you're opening an infected Word document, in which case you DO NOT click allow. It's pretty simple; we're not talking old-school PrevX. If you want to see how well Avast Free and Kaspersky Free perform, then you might try the HMPAlert test. They don't do so well against fileless exploits. Lastly, when's the last time you were attacked directly? If you do your due diligence, like setting up a custom admin password for your router and disabling remote management; then the only packets coming through your firewall will be solicited by you (this includes drive-by downloads, which is why I prefer MBBE and its false-positives over a 99% detection rate). That is, assuming you don't have any port forwarding. And if you do, try VoodooShield or AppGuard. The latter makes a pretty bold claim, that they are undefeated in protecting several government agencies and hospitals. [/QUOTE]

Verification