Robbie

Level 29
Verified
Content Creator
Malware Tester
Hello everybody! Hope you started your week the better way possible!

I was thinking about a light, free setup for my secondary laptop, my first though was:

1. Windows Defender (Configure_Defender HIGH Settings) + VoodooShield Free

As a second option, I thought about:

2. Windows Defender + Hard_Configurator (includes Configure_Defender and SRP/OS Hardener)

Do you think it would be okay? Which one do you prefer? Would you suggest anything else?
 

Moonhorse

Level 27
Verified
Content Creator
Windows defender + configure defender ( high) wich is tested at hub recently

+ something to block scripts with , sh or osa

I did like free voodooshield, but it could not protect the canary browsers, new edge as example...but i just used code integrity guard for that
 

shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Hello everybody! Hope you started your week the better way possible!

I was thinking about a light, free setup for my secondary laptop, my first though was:

1. Windows Defender (Configure_Defender HIGH Settings) + VoodooShield Free

As a second option, I thought about:

2. Windows Defender + Hard_Configurator (includes Configure_Defender and SRP/OS Hardener)

Do you think it would be okay? Which one do you prefer? Would you suggest anything else?
Both of your options are good. Choose the one you like best.
 

Andy Ful

Level 49
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
The below examples are only my personal opinion (on Windows 10).:)(y)

Such a free setup will depend on several factors, for example:
  1. User's skills in managing Windows OS.
  2. The requirement for adjusting the security.
  3. User's needs in installing new applications.
  4. Frequency of user's risky actions.
  5. Possible system/software vulnerabilities.
  6. Level of user's security paranoia.
There are many possibilities of adding other security applications like SysHardener, OSArmor, VoodooShield, Hard_Configurator (SH, OSA, VS, H_C) to WD with ConfigureDefender High Protection Level (WD+CD_HPL).
Here are some examples based on WD, CD, SH, VS, and H_C.
Generally, OSArmor can replace H_C (Allow EXE settings) and VS can replace H_C in the below examples (although VS is another kind of security than H_C).
H_C is more compatible & friendly to Windows OS, but requires more learning as compared to OSA and VS. H_C settings are based on SRP and VS is based on Anti-EXE.
The H_C Forced SmartScreen feature will produce fewer false positives as compared to VS, but VS is more user-friendly as compared to H_C.

The simplest setup based only on WD+CD_HPL:
1. Above average, 2. Standard, 3. Standard, 4. Low, 5. Low, 6. Standard.

More advanced will be WD+CD_HPL + SysHardener (tweaked PowerShell settings):
1. Above average, 2. Standard, 3. Standard, 4. Standard, 5. Standard, 6. Standard.

Slightly stronger will be WD+CD_HPL + H_C (Allow EXE settings, FirewallHardening).
1. Above average, 2. Above average, 3. Standard, 4. Standard, 5. Standard, 6. Above average.

Advanced setup based WD+CD_HPL + VoodooShield (Auto-pilot mode).
1. Above average, 2. Above average, 3. Low, 4. Standard, 5. Above average, 6. High.

Advanced setup based on WD + H_C (Recommended Settings, ConfigureDefender High Protection Level and FirewallHardening).
1.Semi-advanced, 2. Above average, 3. Low, 4. Above average, 5. Above average, 6. High.

Advanced setup based on WD + WD+CD_HPL + VS (Locked)
1.Advanced, 2. High, 3. Very low, 4. High, 5. Above average, 6. High.

Advanced setup based on WD + H_C (Advanced Settings, ConfigureDefender MAX Protection Level and FirewallHardening).
1. Advanced, 2. Very high, 3. Low (very low), 4. High, 5. Above average, 6. High (very high).
...
etc.
 
Last edited:

oldschool

Level 38
Verified
The H_C Forced SmartScreen feature will produce fewer false positives as compared to VS, but VS is more user-friendly as compared to H_C.
Re: VoodooShield - probably still true but FPs are much lower now with added Whitelist Cloud feature, as of last beta. Released version should be coming very soon. :cool: Although some users may claim the opposite re: FPs and might say SS has more. 🤔
 

Andy Ful

Level 49
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Re: VoodooShield - probably still true but FPs are much lower now with added Whitelist Cloud feature, as of last beta. Released version should be coming very soon. :cool: Although some users may claim the opposite re: FPs and might say SS has more. 🤔
I tried a few months ago the VS Whitelist Cloud feature on my applications. All flagged as malicious, even when the applications were digitally signed and accepted by SmartScreen.:(
But, I did not test it on other legal applications, so the results might be better.:)
 

oldschool

Level 38
Verified
I tried a few months ago the VS Whitelist Cloud feature on my applications. All flagged as malicious, even when the applications were digitally signed and accepted by SmartScreen.:(
But, I did not test it on other legal applications, so the results might be better.:)
WLC is not completely integrated into VS. Its whitelist has been added to the other checks, like blacklist check. And Dan has had more time to train the ML since you used it, maybe. To be fair, I have very little 3rd party software so that may be the reason no FPs for me. 🤔 But others have had positive reports too. You may be correct about SS nonetheless.
 

Andy Ful

Level 49
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
WLC is not completely integrated into VS. Its whitelist has been added to the other checks, like blacklist check. And Dan has had more time to train the ML since you used it, maybe. To be fair, I have very little 3rd party software so that may be the reason no FPs for me. 🤔 But others have had positive reports too. You may be correct about SS nonetheless.
It will be very hard to make something comparable to SmartScreen because it is based on the Microsoft Intelligent Security Graph (one of the biggest security cloud).
 

Aggravatorx

Level 3
Verified
i try sometimes to use windows Defender I know its not bad from all your reviews but i look down at the taskbar see that
shield and check mark and say dam this thing really protecting me or is it another hidden microsoft tool invading my privacy
even more.maybe its the look of it they need to change or perhaps were just brainwashed through out the years that Defender
is no good.i could have Zemana or Malwarebytes running along side Defender I still remove it for something else.you want to trust
it but just cant
 

Umbra

Level 14
Verified
i try sometimes to use windows Defender I know its not bad from all your reviews but i look down at the taskbar see that
shield and check mark and say dam this thing really protecting me or is it another hidden microsoft tool invading my privacy
even more.maybe its the look of it they need to change or perhaps were just brainwashed through out the years that Defender
is no good.i could have Zemana or Malwarebytes running along side Defender I still remove it for something else.you want to trust
it but just cant
It is a simple real-time scanner with some cloud capabilities, what did you expect?
Take all the 3rd party vendors AVs, remove every components except the real-time scanner, i bet maybe only ESET or Kaspersky would do well.
WD was made to offer basic, decent, free protection to ALL Windows' users without any hassle or setup to do.

Please, stop with those privacy nonsenses, if you were really worried about it, you won't be on Windows but on Linux Tails.
 

Andy Ful

Level 49
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
maybe i should have not put privacy into it my bad i should have just said for some reason i do not feel
comfortable using it perhaps its missing something to me.
@Umbra is right. Your privacy is already compromised by a simple fact of using Windows OS (especially Windows 10). This is continued by using Web Browsers and their extensions. Your personal data is stored on poorly secured databases when you do shopping via the Internet. If you install several AVs, your personal data is exposed to several AV vendors.

It is seems better to use Microsoft software (WD + Edge + ...) because your personal data is exposed only to one vendor.

The situation is probably different if the user installs Microsoft software illegally, which is common in many countries. Such a situation was in my country about 20 years ago.:)(y)