Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Software
Security Apps
Other security for Windows, Mac, Linux
Using OS_Armor and Hard_Configurator together
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 849250" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>Hard_Configurator was created to minimize the necessity of using 3-rd party security to keep the security most compatible with the system and Windows Updates. </p><p>OSArmor was created as a better alternative to Windows Policies.</p><p>Your conception contradicts the above, but probably can be applied by the advanced user.</p><p></p><p>I can see some cons.</p><ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The setup loses much of compatibility with Windows Updates.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It would be hard to know how Hard_Configurator settings overlap with OSArmor restrictions, because there is no OSArmor documentation.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">It is evident that both Hard_Configurator and OSArmor restrictions overlap much, so there will be more problems when something will be blocked.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The setup will not be useful for the average user, because OSArmor and ConfigureDefender (in MAX Protection level) will produce many false positives.</li> </ol><p>In my opinion, such a setup could be adjusted/applied by an advanced user, but then he/she could easily use the Hard_Configurator default-deny by applying the Enhanced Recommended settings or even more restrictive settings (and skipping OSArmor).</p><p></p><p>The only reason for the H_C & OSA hybrid could be using it in the Enterprise environment. The H_C role would be to restrict the user from running files with dangerous extensions and OSA as anti-exploit prevention for processes running with high privileges.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 849250, member: 32260"] Hard_Configurator was created to minimize the necessity of using 3-rd party security to keep the security most compatible with the system and Windows Updates. OSArmor was created as a better alternative to Windows Policies. Your conception contradicts the above, but probably can be applied by the advanced user. I can see some cons. [LIST=1] [*]The setup loses much of compatibility with Windows Updates. [*]It would be hard to know how Hard_Configurator settings overlap with OSArmor restrictions, because there is no OSArmor documentation. [*]It is evident that both Hard_Configurator and OSArmor restrictions overlap much, so there will be more problems when something will be blocked. [*]The setup will not be useful for the average user, because OSArmor and ConfigureDefender (in MAX Protection level) will produce many false positives. [/LIST] In my opinion, such a setup could be adjusted/applied by an advanced user, but then he/she could easily use the Hard_Configurator default-deny by applying the Enhanced Recommended settings or even more restrictive settings (and skipping OSArmor). The only reason for the H_C & OSA hybrid could be using it in the Enterprise environment. The H_C role would be to restrict the user from running files with dangerous extensions and OSA as anti-exploit prevention for processes running with high privileges. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top