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: 849324" data-attributes="member: 32260"><p>It is not true.</p><p>These H_C profiles + Avast set to Hardened Mode Aggressive can block any 'unsafe/not whitelisted' executable (EXE, MSI, scripts, etc.) and allow only EXE files whitelisted by Avast File Reputation service in the cloud.</p><p>But you are right that whitelisting by signer would be welcome in SRP.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In fact, any block/allow rule in OSA (for EXE files) will not overlap with the H_C setting profiles which allow EXE files. But still, OSA with default settings (or even worse with advanced settings) overlaps much with H_C, independently of additional block/allow rules. Furthermore, these OSA block rules add the inconvenience of creating allow rules for applications installed in c:\Users and c:\ProgramData.</p><p>So, your example makes things worse. All four points from my previous post are true and I can add another one:</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> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">The setup will not be easy for the average user, because one has to add allow rules in OSArmor for applications installed in %UserProfile%.</li> </ol><p>Edit.</p><p>I am not saying that your idea cannot be realized in practice by you. But, I can see some issues that can be important for many users.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 849324, member: 32260"] It is not true. These H_C profiles + Avast set to Hardened Mode Aggressive can block any 'unsafe/not whitelisted' executable (EXE, MSI, scripts, etc.) and allow only EXE files whitelisted by Avast File Reputation service in the cloud. But you are right that whitelisting by signer would be welcome in SRP. In fact, any block/allow rule in OSA (for EXE files) will not overlap with the H_C setting profiles which allow EXE files. But still, OSA with default settings (or even worse with advanced settings) overlaps much with H_C, independently of additional block/allow rules. Furthermore, these OSA block rules add the inconvenience of creating allow rules for applications installed in c:\Users and c:\ProgramData. So, your example makes things worse. All four points from my previous post are true and I can add another one: [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. [*]The setup will not be easy for the average user, because one has to add allow rules in OSArmor for applications installed in %UserProfile%. [/LIST] Edit. I am not saying that your idea cannot be realized in practice by you. But, I can see some issues that can be important for many users. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top