Advice Request Using always a VM (included Shadow Defender) vs protected host OS?

[JM Safe]

Hello guys,
As the title says: what do you prefer to stay more secure? Using ALWAYS a VM (like VMWare or VirtualBox or Shadow Defender) or, on the contrary, rely only on the security of the host system?

 

[JM Safe]

Thinking about creating a config in a VM and always use this VM...

 

[HarborFront]

There's a difference between SD and VM in that your host machine fingerprint is always there with SD. With VM your host machine fingerprint is not exposed since you are operating through the VM

I'm now trying with VirtualBox. Thinking of running 2 VPNs from different providers. One on the host machine and one inside the VM

BTW, if I'll to use say Win 10 Pro 32-bit in the VM do I need an activation key (license)?

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I will use my host machine because:
- I have limited resources: HDD, 8GB of RAM
- VM or SD will significantly slow down the general performance like running 2 OS-es at the same time.
+ I can use get ~1/4 of my normal performance with VMware on HDD
+ SD is slightly faster but it uses disk caches to store and read its data => increases disk activity, bad/too slow for HDD, decreases lifespan. Last time I used it, the performance drop was unbearable even when I stored caches on RAMdrive
- of course, using these are more secure and VM bypass is rare
- using VMware 24/7 is impractical but SD is for complete novice users => I know someone who has been using SD/deepfreeze in his entire life and never get infected (after a reboot)

 

[HarborFront]

Anyone has a link to Ubuntu version 18.xx 32-bit iso image? It seems Ubuntu is migrating to 64-bit

Thanks

 

[JM Safe]

There's a difference between SD and VM in that your host machine fingerprint is always there with SD. With VM your host machine fingerprint is not exposed since you are operating through the VM

I'm now trying with VirtualBox. Thinking of running 2 VPNs from different providers. One on the host machine and one inside the VM

BTW, if I'll to use say Win 10 Pro 32-bit in the VM do I need an activation key (license)?

I prefer VM than SD infact VirtualBox is good since it has also snapshot feature.

 

[JM Safe]

Anyone has a link to Ubuntu 32-bit iso image? It seems Ubuntu is migrating to 64-bit

Thanks

Ubuntu Virtual Machine Images for VirtualBox and VMware scroll down and you will see also 32 bit version.

 

[HarborFront]

I prefer VM than SD infact VirtualBox is good since it has also snapshot feature.

So what OS do you intend to use as VM? Windows or Ubuntu or something else?

 

[JM Safe]

So what OS do you intend to use as VM? Windows or Ubuntu or something else?

I think Unix-based OS. I will share it in PC Security Configuration.

 

[upnorth]

If possible use your choice of VM on a dedicated machine.

 

[HarborFront]

Ubuntu Virtual Machine Images for VirtualBox and VMware scroll down and you will see also 32 bit version.

OK downloading

Ubuntu 16.04.5 Xenial 32-bit now

 

[Black Wings]

Anyone has a link to Ubuntu version 18.xx 32-bit iso image? It seems Ubuntu is migrating to 64-bit

Thanks

The last Ubuntu x 32 version was 16.04.05 (LTS).
If you like .deb and Gnome, you can try
debian-live-9.6.0-i386-gnome.iso.torrent
Debian is the Ubuntu's mother and perhaps the most stable distro

 

[HarborFront]

OK, too bad for me. Ubuntu/Windows 32-bit cannot be installed due to an error "Raw-mode is unavailable courtesy of Hyper-V"

I just downloaded GRC's SecurAble and ran it.

GRC | SecurAble: Determine Processor Security Features |

My MS SP4 tablet does NOT support hardware virtualization. I guess I'll have to use Shadow Defender then

But the below procedure might help although I have not tried it

How to Enable Intel Virtualization vt-x in Windows 10/8.1 | Microsoft Surface tablet

I remember my MS SP4 tablet started off with Win 8 and upgraded to WIn 10 Pro. That could be the reason why I'm not seeing VT-x and VT-d in the UEFI Settings as described in the above article

 

[erreale]

Hello guys,
As the title says: what do you prefer to stay more secure? Using ALWAYS a VM (like VMWare or VirtualBox or Shadow Defender) or, on the contrary, rely only on the security of the host system?

For daily use I always use the host system. I'm more than sure with the configuration I've adopted. If I want to try out programs that do not need to be rebooted, use SD, while for those that require rebooting, use Acronis Try & Decide. To play with malware, I obviously use a VM.

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

Pure VDI operation is really only good in some corporate/enterprise environments because it significantly impacts performance. AKA Thin Clients, which are virtualized desktops work wonders for stopping all manner of intrusions/infections, but they generally feel sluggish and have limitations.

Games especially won't be running in VDI.

 

[JM Safe]

Pure VDI operation is really only good in some corporate/enterprise environments because it significantly impacts performance. AKA Thin Clients, which are virtualized desktops work wonders for stopping all manner of intrusions/infections, but they generally feel sluggish and have limitations.

Games especially won't be running in VDI.

Yes for games I can't play but atleast... good protection!

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

I think for most people it would be best to use a good imaging solution, and the first sign of trouble just drop back to a previous image rather than a full on VDI for home use.

 

[ForgottenSeer 69673]

i have used Shadow Defender for along time and don't see that much disk activity at all. My machine is 4 years old and came with 8 gig RAM but I added 16. I use it on my host and when I test baddies, I run them in a VM with what ever I am testing antimalear at the time and the only thing that I notice banging on my HDD is the VM for some time untill it al gets loaded. I mainly use SD for testing software that requires no reboot.

 

[ShariTaho]

Well, this is why I couldn't run games on it, I thought that the problem was in bad configuration of the machine.