Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="danb" data-source="post: 867716" data-attributes="member: 62850">[USER=86050]@BVLon[/USER] and AndyFul, you guys are COMPLETELY missing what VS is all about.&nbsp; I have said it a million times, VS is not an anti-executable, it is a toggling computer lock.&nbsp; If there are other protections that we need to implement, we certainly will, as I have done over time.If you guys have found bugs in VS&#039;s code that allow any of your examples (AutoIT, Python, Ruby, Java, etc.) to bypass VS&#039;s protections, then I am more than happy to discuss and fix these potential bypassed publicly.&nbsp; But PLEASE do not assume or suggest something can bypass VS without testing it first.As far as usability goes, I have worked directly with thousands of end users of all skill levels at their actual desks for 20+ years.&nbsp; In short, you guys are taking a wild guess on what you believe or have hunch will work or not as far as usability goes.&nbsp; On the other hand, I have worked directly with the local users, have asked them questions, watched their actions and listened to their opinions on what works for them and what does not, and have refined VS&#039;s usability over the years to fit their needs.Andy suggested &quot;For less advanced users, the VS golden rule will be an illusion of security. Most infections are due to opening email attachments. The less advanced users do not realize what is opening and can be convinced to open anything. The golden rule will not save them.&quot;&nbsp; As I was saying before, do you really think ANY user is going to continue to allow something that was suspicious in the first place, after VS has blocked something?&nbsp; Even if this were the case, it is better than the alternative of auto execution.&nbsp; At least VS gives the user a chance and pause.The potential bypass examples that you guys provided are all a direct result of the user browsing the web or checking email.&nbsp; I believe the best protection is to lock the computer when the user is engaging in this risky activity.&nbsp; If there are better mechanisms to block these attacks, please suggest an alternative.&nbsp; Thank you!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="danb, post: 867716, member: 62850"] [USER=86050]@BVLon[/USER] and AndyFul, you guys are COMPLETELY missing what VS is all about. I have said it a million times, VS is not an anti-executable, it is a toggling computer lock. [B][U]If there are other protections that we need to implement, we certainly will, as I have done over time.[/U][/B] If you guys have found bugs in VS's code that allow any of your examples (AutoIT, Python, Ruby, Java, etc.) to bypass VS's protections, then I am more than happy to discuss and fix these potential bypassed publicly. But PLEASE do not assume or suggest something can bypass VS without testing it first. As far as usability goes, I have worked directly with thousands of end users of all skill levels at their actual desks for 20+ years. In short, you guys are taking a wild guess on what you believe or have hunch will work or not as far as usability goes. On the other hand, I have worked directly with the local users, have asked them questions, watched their actions and listened to their opinions on what works for them and what does not, and have refined VS's usability over the years to fit their needs. Andy suggested "For less advanced users, the VS golden rule will be an illusion of security. Most infections are due to opening email attachments. The less advanced users do not realize what is opening and can be convinced to open anything. The golden rule will not save them." As I was saying before, do you really think ANY user is going to continue to allow something that was suspicious in the first place, after VS has blocked something? Even if this were the case, it is better than the alternative of auto execution. At least VS gives the user a chance and pause. The potential bypass examples that you guys provided are all a direct result of the user browsing the web or checking email. I believe the best protection is to lock the computer when the user is engaging in this risky activity. If there are better mechanisms to block these attacks, please suggest an alternative. Thank you! [/QUOTE]

Verification