New Update VoodooShield CyberLock 7.0

[simmerskool]

I have not enabled WhitelistCloud. Should I?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
P.S. Pardon my ignorance but what is "NPE"?

P.P.S I bought a 2-year license -- at my age, it's quite possibly a lifetime license.

for similar reason I only bought a 1 year lic, not tempt fate OR do I have that visa versa??

 

[bellgamin]

i need voodoo if i use eset+malwarebyte+windows security?

I assume that your computer is using Windows 10 or 11. If I am correct, then the answer depends on whether you are a higher-risk user or not.

Here are some examples of higher risk users:
=> Someone who is employed to administer a computer network, and whose job security and potential for advancement depend on taking all prudent measures to maintain computer security
=> Someone who has highly personal data &/or highly sensitive business/financial information on his computer.
=> Someone who does a lot of internet shopping, banking, stock trading, etc., involving significant amounts (to him) of money.
=> Someone with family members (such as teen agers & careless adults) who use his computer and might venture into dangerous waters (dark side of the web, crack sites, porn sites, hacker sites, etc) or who might fall for email phishing attempts.

Higher risk users will be well advised to have multiple layers of security, possibly including VoodooShield (VoSh)-- a VERY powerful yet user-friendly security app.

If someone is NOT anywhere close to being a higher-risk user, then the built-in security (Windows Defender) on Window's 10 & 11 should be sufficient. I do NOT mean that additional security apps would be totally useless. Most of my extensive family (including several adult grandkids & pre-teen great-grandkids) fall in this category. I have recommended VoSh to all of them as the sole addition to Windows Defender. Notwithstanding that, I feel that Windows Defender, on its own, is sufficient security for lower-risk users.

If someone considers himself to be a "medium-risk" user then (IMO) VoSh is the very best addition to Windows Defender. IF you consider yourself to be in this group, then you asked for an opinion on your security set-up so I will give you my opinion. I do hope that others -- many of whom have more security-smarts that I do -- will offer their further assistance.

Your post reports the following as your present security set-up: "eset+malwarebyte+windows security"

I assume that the "windows security" part of your list is referring to Windows Defender (a.k.a. Microsoft Defender), as available on Windows 10 & 11. If so, you have TWO Antivirus (AV) apps. It is likely that ESET disbled/replaced Windows Defender when you install ESET because TWO AVs running simultaneously can cause problems. BOTH Windows Defender & ESET are top-tier AVs so relying on either one of them as your AV component is good, but I would recommend against running both of them. For ensuing discussions, I will *assume* that you choose Windows Defender (WinDef) over ESET.

Malware Bytes (MB) is kind of okay as a support to your AV. However, if your computer feels even a little sluggish, be aware that MB is a bit heavy on a computer's system resources. Thus, it could make your computer a bit zippier, with minimal effect on your computer's security, if you used MB for periodic on-demand scans rather than running it real-time.

If you elect to follow my suggestions thus far, your computer's security would now be:
Real-time: WinDef AV.
On-demand: Malware Bytes

Assuming that you have judged yourself to be a middle-risk user, I suggest adding the following:
Real-time: VoodooShield
On demand: Kaspersky Virus Removal Tool (KVRT - it's free) PLUS Imaging software (Macrium Reflect, AOMEI, et al)

This would result in:
Real-time: WinDef & VoodooShield
On-demand: MalBytes, KVRT, & Macrium Reflect or equivalent

Most Important Security: at least 2 or 3 times per week: (a) Do on-demand scan with an on-demand scanner, then (b) differentially image your system drive to an external storage media.

AGAIN -- I do hope that others will chime in with objective replies to this member's request. I'm no expert at this stuff. I just post what I have learned over the years from security forums & my own experience.

 

[danb]

Cybersecurity will never be solved with static security postures.

DEFCON exists for a reason.

 

[ForgottenSeer 95367]

Cybersecurity will never be solved with static security postures.

Then why are the most secure systems the ones that are static? Why do Microsoft, Google, Apple, the government agencies, DoD, banks and so on secure the most valuable systems with static deny-by-default? Why is it that dynamic protection where the user has to make allow-deny decisions are amongst the least secure?

DEFCON exists for a reason.

What a bizarre statement. DEFCON is not about proving any particular protection model is superior. That was never its intent. It has always been about discovering vulnerabilities and then exploiting them. That is the whole reason DEFCON was created.

Did you even know that Microsoft supports DEFCON because it receives in-return the implementation guidance of security teams and researchers that back DEFCON hacking? Microsoft implements the security models promoted by those individuals. Why do they promote locked-down systems?

Just like Schneier has said many times at DEFCON: "Security is not software, it is a process." In that process it is user knowledge and behavior that are the defining characteristics of highly effective security.

 

[ForgottenSeer 69673]

Then why are the most secure systems the ones that are static? Why do Microsoft, Google, Apple, the government agencies, DoD, banks and so on secure the most valuable systems with static deny-by-default? Why is it that dynamic protection where the user has to make allow-deny decisions are amongst the least secure?


What a bizarre statement. DEFCON is not about proving any particular protection model is superior. That was never its intent. It has always been about discovering vulnerabilities and then exploiting them. That is the whole reason DEFCON was created.

Did you even know that Microsoft supports DEFCON because it receives in-return the implementation guidance of security teams and researchers that back DEFCON hacking? Microsoft implements the security models promoted by those individuals. Why do they promote locked-down systems?

Just like Schneier has said many times at DEFCON: "Security is not software, it is a process." In that process it is user knowledge and behavior that are the defining characteristics of highly effective security.

Very well said. I think I am starting to understand your thought patterns a bit more now.

 

[danb]

Then why are the most secure systems the ones that are static? Why do Microsoft, Google, Apple, the government agencies, DoD, banks and so on secure the most valuable systems with static deny-by-default? Why is it that dynamic protection where the user has to make allow-deny decisions are amongst the least secure?


What a bizarre statement. DEFCON is not about proving any particular protection model is superior. That was never its intent. It has always been about discovering vulnerabilities and then exploiting them. That is the whole reason DEFCON was created.

Did you even know that Microsoft supports DEFCON because it receives in-return the implementation guidance of security teams and researchers that back DEFCON hacking? Microsoft implements the security models promoted by those individuals. Why do they promote locked-down systems?

Just like Schneier has said many times at DEFCON: "Security is not software, it is a process." In that process it is user knowledge and behavior that are the defining characteristics of highly effective security.

Hehehe, you speak as though cybersecurity is solved, yet breaches are at an all time high. In other words, systems are breached because they are static.

Allow-deny decisions are optional in VS and work extremely well for the vast majority of users, without breaking anything. If a certain user is not able to handle the default VS settings, there are several options in VS to mitigate this.

@Furyo is also known as mazskolnieces, Pixy Stix, zhuzhangspankspank, XxX Legolas XxX, youbelonginanoven, Unrealistic, Bittricks, .\urbeat.ps1, Jeff_T - Testing Group, Lockdown, hjlbx, among others.

Jeff T, it is inappropriate for someone who works for (or used to work for) a competitor like AppGuard to be posting on a competitors thread.

You used to love VS, you even said "I've used NVT ERP, AppGuard, SecureAPlus and VS. VS is my favorite as it now stands." and "I wait patiently for the next stable VS because I want to ditch all other security softs and just run VS!".

Hate is the consequence of fear.

As far as dynamic security postures are concerned... it is already happening, you just do not realize it .

 

[danb]

BTW, the whole point of DEFCON is dynamic security postures.

DEFCON - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bellgamin]

Hmmm... this "DefCon" debate is over my head but it's interesting to read. IMO -- better to just install VoSh, set it at Smart Aggressive, then relax & enjoy your computer.

In the relatively recent past some of us old futts have been around during actual elevated military DefCons*** -- NOT my favorite memories & not my favorite acronym.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*** BTW, military now uses ThreatCon & other acronyms vice DefCon.

 

[ForgottenSeer 95367]

In other words, systems are breached because they are static.

Where is your evidence? Microsoft's own experience prove the exact opposite. Gartner's own statistics say otherwise. Perhaps you should spend the $10,000 to get the data before you make claims, that as it turns out, are incorrect. Microsoft has stated that its experience locking down Windows with S mode was so good that is moving forward to replicate Windows S mode via Smart Application control.

The number 1 reason for enterprise breaches are user error = misconfiguration. The number 1 reason for consumer breaches = users that want to use stuff do things that they should not. These facts are common knowledge.

Allow-deny decisions are optional in VS and work extremely well for the vast majority of users, without breaking anything. If a certain user is not able to handle the default VS settings, there are several options in VS to mitigate this.

All one need do is search through this very forum and look at the numerous times that even regular VS ussers - who are security geeks - have to ask questions because they cannot figure out the product or they don't know what decision to make. And that has nothing to do with the product being beta.

There's a reason that outfits such as Kaspersky remove by default the need for the user to make decisions - because users can't handle making decisions. Everybody knows this. It is common knowledge.

@Furyo is also known as mazskolnieces, Pixy Stix, zhuzhangspankspank, XxX Legolas XxX, youbelonginanoven, Unrealistic, Bittricks, .\urbeat.ps1, Jeff_T - Testing Group, Lockdown, hjlbx, among others.

Uhm, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and nope.

Jeff T, it is inappropriate for someone who works for (or used to work for) a competitor like AppGuard to be posting on a competitors thread.

Who is Jeff T? You sure do obsess about this individual. You've posted some variation on "this person is Jeff T" a total of 63 times. That's not just unhealthy. It is uber creepy. Just sayin'.

And uhm, VS's only competitors are NoVirusThanks and Faronics.

This is a public forum. There is nothing inappropriate about anyone posting on it. You just make up imaginary rules as you go along. If you can't handle interactions on the internet, then perhaps it is time to consider staying off forums and social media?

As far as dynamic security postures are concerned... it is already happening, you just do not realize it .

Dynamic security postures are nothing new. Products have adapted their security posture when connecting to a untrused network or when an untrusted user logs-in for decades.

BTW, the whole point of DEFCON is dynamic security postures.

DEFCON - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah. It is called DEFCON as a "catchy" name, but the whole symposium was started early in the bug bounty days - to encourage and reward vulnerability hunting and exploits, and Capture-the-Flag events. DEFCON has nothing to do with dynamic security postures and it sure doesn't exist to perpetuate your " computer lock. "

 

[danb]

Just like Schneier has said many times at DEFCON: "Security is not software, it is a process." In that process it is user knowledge and behavior that are the defining characteristics of highly effective security.

"Security is not software, it is a process" are empty words with zero meaning. See, you are incorrectly assuming that users care about cybersecurity, because the only way they can be a part of the process is to become knowledgeable on the subject. The absolute vast majority of users simply do not care about cybersecurity, so they will never be part of the process. In an ideal world, sure, that would work, but that simply does not reflect reality.

And in fact, VS dynamically adjusts its security posture on the fly, based on the user's behavior. So if any software validates the phrase "Security is not software, it is a process.", it would be VS.

 

[danb]

Where is your evidence? Microsoft's own experience prove the exact opposite. Gartner's own statistics say otherwise. Perhaps you should spend the $10,000 to get the data before you make claims, that as it turns out, are incorrect. Microsoft has stated that its experience locking down Windows with S mode was so good that is moving forward to replicate Windows S mode via Smart Application control.

The number 1 reason for enterprise breaches are user error = misconfiguration. The number 1 reason for consumer breaches = users that want to use stuff do things that they should not. These facts are common knowledge.


All one need do is search through this very forum and look at the numerous times that even regular VS ussers - who are security geeks - have to ask questions because they cannot figure out the product or they don't know what decision to make. And that has nothing to do with the product being beta.

There's a reason that outfits such as Kaspersky remove by default the need for the user to make decisions - because users can't handle making decisions. Everybody knows this. It is common knowledge.


Uhm, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and nope.


Who is Jeff T? You sure do obsess about this individual. You've posted some variation on "this person is Jeff T" a total of 63 times. That's not just unhealthy. It is uber creepy. Just sayin'.

And uhm, VS's only competitors are NoVirusThanks and Faronics.

This is a public forum. There is nothing inappropriate about anyone posting on it. You just make up imaginary rules as you go along. If you can't handle interactions on the internet, then perhaps it is time to consider staying off forums and social media?


Dynamic security postures are nothing new. Products have adapted their security posture when connecting to a untrused network or when an untrusted user logs-in for decades.


Yeah. It is called DEFCON as a "catchy" name, but the whole symposium was started early in the bug bounty days - to encourage and reward vulnerability hunting and exploits, and Capture-the-Flag events. DEFCON has nothing to do with dynamic security postures and it sure doesn't exist to perpetuate your " computer lock. "

Hehehe, how funny, you are mimicking my debate technique of asking for evidence .

Jeff, you are not fooling anyone, everyone knows it is you and that you have been cyberstalking me for 5 or so years, and you were caught red handed...

New Update - Spyshelter 12.8 released

SpyShelter version 12.8 released Posted on September 5, 2022 in News | Blog Homepage SpyShelter version 12.8 is live now! You can find new SpyShelter Silent, Premium and Firewall editions there: Download Page. 12.8 (05/Sep/2022) – Added support for Windows 11 22H2 – Added support for Windows 10...

malwaretips.com

How funny, I told you that you were creepy here: Update - Spyshelter 12.8 released, so now you are calling me creepy? As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Even funnier yet... you were the one who suggested that AppGuard was a competitor of VS when you said "I've used NVT ERP, AppGuard, SecureAPlus and VS. VS is my favorite as it now stands."

User accounts in no way resemble on-the-fly dynamic security postures.

I am talking about the original DEFCON from NORAD which utilizes dynamic security postures. In fact, if you want to secure ANY system, you HAVE to utilize dynamic security postures. For example, if you want to secure a nuclear facility, you have to use dynamic security postures. It is too costly and inconvenient to be on high alert fulltime, and there are times when a lower alert level makes sense. The same logic applies to securing computer systems. And actually, because VS is able to apply dynamic security postures, it is able to apply a more robust locking mechanism compared to a fulltime lock, simply because the computer would not even boot if a more robust lock was applied fulltime.

And finally, Jeff T, stop cyberstalking me!

 

[ForgottenSeer 95367]

Hehehe, how funny, you are mimicking my debate technique of asking for evidence .

Asking for evidence, when none is provided in a discussion, is intrinsic to the very nature of said discussions. You are making multiple claims so one would think that you would avail yourself of the opportunity to prove me wrong. It should be trivial for you to do so.

User accounts in no way resemble on-the-fly dynamic security postures.

What an incompetent and ignorant statement. Some security software vendors automatically apply different protection profiles and behaviors. Look at Microsoft.

Jeff, you are not fooling anyone, everyone knows it is you and that you have been cyberstalking me for 5 or so years, and you were caught red handed...

Nobody except you cares about who I am. I was not caught "red handed" because I've done nothing more than openly participate on a public forum. But hey it is your right to have delusions and be wrong.

Even funnier yet... you were the one who suggested that AppGuard was a competitor of VS when you said "I've used NVT ERP, AppGuard, SecureAPlus and VS. VS is my favorite as it now stands."

I've never used appguard so I would have no basis to judge or compare it to anything. That still doesn't alter the fact that the only VS anti-executable "competitors" are NVT ERP and Faronics. You just stated

How funny, I told you that you were creepy here: Update - Spyshelter 12.8 released, so now you are calling me creepy? As they say, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

You never told me anything because I'm not this person you keep obsessing over. Rambling on about me as if you know me makes you even more creepy.

And finally, Jeff T, stop cyberstalking me!

Again, who is Jeff T?

If you believe you are being cyberstalked, then I strongly urge you go to contact your police and file a report.

 

[JoeN]

@Furyo

 

[danb]

Asking for evidence, when none is provided in a discussion, is intrinsic to the very nature of said discussions. You are making multiple claims so one would think that you would avail yourself of the opportunity to prove me wrong. It should be trivial for you to do so.


What an incompetent and ignorant statement. Some security software vendors automatically apply different protection profiles and behaviors. Look at Microsoft.


Nobody except you cares about who I am. I was not caught "red handed" because I've done nothing more than openly participate on a public forum. But hey it is your right to have delusions and be wrong.


I've never used appguard so I would have no basis to judge or compare it to anything. That still doesn't alter the fact that the only VS anti-executable "competitors" are NVT ERP and Faronics. You just stated


You never told me anything because I'm not this person you keep obsessing over. Rambling on about me as if you know me makes you even more creepy.


Again, who is Jeff T?

If you believe you are being cyberstalked, then I strongly urge you go to contact your police and file a report.

Jeff T, instead of trying to impress people with useless fact, starting arguments with people who do not want to argue, and obsessively cyberstalking people for 5 years, why don’t you do something productive with your life?

You know, contacting the police is your first truly great idea. I have actually already contacted the police and they told me that I need to get a restraining order to be able to press criminal cyberstalking charges on you. We do not know your home address, so we will need to contact you at work.

 

[outlawxtorn]

Pretty strange he say's you HJLBX and you claim you're not even when his screenshot proves it. Link
To me it certainly seems you have some kind of vendetta against danb.

 

[Jan Willy]

Why don't moderators intervene?

 

[vtqhtr413]

@Jan Willy , I understand that you are put off by the discourse here, me too but I also know it's not a black and white matter, their adults, it's been mostly on topic and civil, let's let them work it out.

 

[Zero Knowledge]

Police? Restraining orders? Cyberstalking????

Why? Because the Internet. It's serious stuff.

 

[bellgamin]

Why don't moderators intervene?

There is a "Report" button on each & every post (except for your own posts, of course). Clicking on that could get the Mods to step in.

I suppose (and hope) that the MT Mods do not step in when people are merely disagreeing with each other's ideas. However, when disagreements cause members to make strongly negative remarks about another member's intelligence or character, there should be some sort of limit on that. If discussions go too far in that direction, they usually will generate MUCH more heat than light.

Before going any further, I must state that I am a highly satisfied user of VoodooShield. Even so, I have much MUCH respect for both of the two members involved in these somewhat acrimonious discussions. Thus I fervently wish they each would silently agree to disagree -- in full knowledge that NEITHER of them would win or lose by doing so.

 

[Freki123]

As long as a discussion is heated but technical I'm fine with it. When it starts to get personal then a line is crossed. When/If cyber stalking is happening the police/lawyers should be notified to put an end to it.