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="Lenny_Fox" data-source="post: 849301" data-attributes="member: 82776"><p>[USER=82865]@Umbra[/USER] and [USER=32260]@Andy Ful[/USER]</p><p></p><p>OSA blocks the executables, but also allows whitelists on signer (like AppLocker), H_C with the Windows_Security (or Avast profile) does not block exectables. On my girlfriends PC I have added own blockrules and exception rules. One for Microsoft (all she uses is M$) and one a photobook program (which updates in AppData). I rather make an allow on signature than on program name, so that is the specific use.</p><p></p><p>So they do NOT overlap and are clearly complementary, SRP does not facilitate signer based rules, With OS_Armor I get more sophisticated blocking options (using process name, folder, parent process and signatures) compared to only using H_C. With H_C I get a lot of extra protection for file formats which could include code, while the impact of those SRP rules is minimal on system performance (because it is build into Windows?). So pairing them makes sense to me. </p><p></p><p>; Block execution in user folders</p><p>[%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\ProgramData\*]</p><p>[%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\Users\*]</p><p>[%PROCESSFILEPATH%: D:\*]</p><p></p><p>; Allow Microsoft</p><p>[%FILESIGNER%: Microsoft*] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\ProgramData\*]</p><p>[%FILESIGNER%: Microsoft*] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\Users\*]</p><p>[%FILESIGNER%: Microsoft*] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: D:\*]</p><p>; Allow Albelli fotoboek</p><p>[%FILESIGNER%: Albumprinter B.V.] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\ProgramData\*]</p><p>[%FILESIGNER%: Albumprinter B.V.] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\Users\*]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lenny_Fox, post: 849301, member: 82776"] [USER=82865]@Umbra[/USER] and [USER=32260]@Andy Ful[/USER] OSA blocks the executables, but also allows whitelists on signer (like AppLocker), H_C with the Windows_Security (or Avast profile) does not block exectables. On my girlfriends PC I have added own blockrules and exception rules. One for Microsoft (all she uses is M$) and one a photobook program (which updates in AppData). I rather make an allow on signature than on program name, so that is the specific use. So they do NOT overlap and are clearly complementary, SRP does not facilitate signer based rules, With OS_Armor I get more sophisticated blocking options (using process name, folder, parent process and signatures) compared to only using H_C. With H_C I get a lot of extra protection for file formats which could include code, while the impact of those SRP rules is minimal on system performance (because it is build into Windows?). So pairing them makes sense to me. ; Block execution in user folders [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\ProgramData\*] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\Users\*] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: D:\*] ; Allow Microsoft [%FILESIGNER%: Microsoft*] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\ProgramData\*] [%FILESIGNER%: Microsoft*] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\Users\*] [%FILESIGNER%: Microsoft*] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: D:\*] ; Allow Albelli fotoboek [%FILESIGNER%: Albumprinter B.V.] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\ProgramData\*] [%FILESIGNER%: Albumprinter B.V.] [%PROCESSFILEPATH%: C:\Users\*] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top