Probably nothing that is much different than the typical user. It's the mindset that differs.
Probably nothing that is much different than the typical user. It's the mindset that differs.
- Nov 17, 2016
- 1,242
But the government wants people to believe that they need them, right? They want them to not trust themselves and be dependent so they can drag everybody else with them who is now forced to pay for their dependence.
What is really interesting is what drives user paranoia. A lot of that paranoia arises from a lack of knowledge, incorrect or vastly inflated assumptions, basing decisions on mis-information, unintentional or intentional fear-mongering by IT security press, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
How many of you have managed critical infrastructure in your life? None.
Have you any experience running systems for a large multi-national financial institutions/banks? None.
What about working in a university or protecting a major oil company in the Middle-East? No you haven't.
Your seriously telling people you can protect Windows systems in those situations I listed with only in built Windows tools? Seriously?
That day may come in about 25 years when you only need Windows in built tools but in today's climate you still need other vendors security tools to keep malware free. Saying you should only use Windows tools and using any 3rd party tools are for the super paranoid is bad advice. Telling people to uninstall Kaspersky or Norton or Bitdefender and stop being paranoid and only rely on Windows will only result in more malware infections not less.
Have you any experience running systems for a large multi-national financial institutions/banks? None.
What about working in a university or protecting a major oil company in the Middle-East? No you haven't.
Your seriously telling people you can protect Windows systems in those situations I listed with only in built Windows tools? Seriously?
That day may come in about 25 years when you only need Windows in built tools but in today's climate you still need other vendors security tools to keep malware free. Saying you should only use Windows tools and using any 3rd party tools are for the super paranoid is bad advice. Telling people to uninstall Kaspersky or Norton or Bitdefender and stop being paranoid and only rely on Windows will only result in more malware infections not less.
- Jul 3, 2015
- 8,153
the idea of relying primarily on native windows security features is for educated and cautious home users who don't have special needs.
The corporate situations you mentioned will have to use a more sophisticated solution, as you said.
In my early years 2011 , i worked in a school (200+ machines) and help the IT manager/admin which is also an IT teacher and ex-NASA, guess what ? no 3rd party security apps were used. Only Win7 Ent with Applocker/SRP/group policy and Norton Ghost (as fail-safe) and still now, they upgraded to Win10 Enterprise and are very happy with it, and yes still not using 3rd party softs.
I knew an Chief IT who fought his CEO to remove a 3rd party famous vendor because the softwares caused more issues than good on his networks.
Big Corporations don't use Win10 Home, they use Win10 Enterprise; where you get Group Policy, Applocker and an arsenal of security features designed to lock employees' workstation nullifying the need of 3rd party vendors softwares.
Symantec and Sophos are those "popular vendors who emerge not because their software solutions but for their hardware-based solutions.
Those huge corporations are focused on securing their networks with hardware (Hardware FW , honeypots, virtualized servers, etc...) not softwares and even less Kasperky or BD lol.
Huge corporations dont use classic vendors, they have tailor-made softs from vendors mostly unknown to the general public.
One example is Blue Ridge Network, many government agencies in US are using a tailored version of Appguard.
who said that? We say to every users "keep the native security and if you still feel unsecure, add whatever you want , but most important , have safe habits"
Exact , we are in a Home user forum. not a corporate-oriented one.
Your message on security forums is very clear "don't use 3rd party security apps and only use Windows in built tools".
That advice is wrong and misleading. Telling people to abandoned Kaspersky or Norton or Bitdefender is just plain bad advice.
SRA/AppLocker are not even used in large enterprise and can not seriously be seen as consumer grade security protection tools.
How can yous seriously say that with a straight face? Every large enterprise uses 3rd party vendor software to secure it's network.
Snort to Suricata to Bromium to Cylance to CrowdStrike to CarbonBlack to Cisco to Palo Alto to Fortinet to Checkpoint to BlueCoat.
They are all 3rd party software apps vendors and are heavily used in enterprise and are not Windows tools.
then, learn how to read... if you even read my setup , you won't even say that...you are just a newcommer here , you don't know me and most of all :
i promote safe habits and hassleless security model, which will avoid trouble to most users.
Just by this post of yours, i won't even waste time to discuss with you... indeed you deserve 100% your name...
again learn to read , and check my other posts , thx.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Jun 14, 2015
- 857
Speak for yourself.
...unless infrastructure (Internet, radio, satellite, fixed and tactical comms) necessary for operations, defense, survival whilst getting shelled and shot at whilst defending against the largest populated country in the world leveraging that population to continuously attack your network and it's users doesn't count..?
What about large, multi-national coalition forces?
Yes, I have.
The box itself, mostly but with specialized/purpose-specific security software, not the suites you mention. The network, no; there are appliances for that.
- Feb 14, 2016
- 648
If u dont know someone dont say things like that, realy. Dont like most of ur comments at all :/
All-Systems Protection Appliance (ASPA):
Next version will offer custom colors.
Next version will offer custom colors.
- Dec 30, 2015
- 211
Hmmm, well if I were so paranoid as a home user, I'd just password protect my Admin account and use the Guest account 
IMO, This is not an advice!
IMO, This is not an advice!
Well all I can say is if I got a very restricted setting on Windows (Pro version) and won't be installing random stuff from unknown/unsigned sources, I'd say I can ditch my AV/Malware etc.
Hmmm, well if I were so paranoid as a home user, I'd just password protect my Admin account and use the Guest account
in fact it is what you should do
just kidding, SUA is enough to have a balance between security & usability.My whole point, if you know your system enough and feel secure with it, so just go with it.
What i can't tolerate is the systematic bashing of Windows' native security (or other products) by pointing careless behaviors as a base criteria.
Windows' native security is like a police bullet-proof vest , it protect you against basic rounds, not reinforced ones, and you will not put yourself on a land mine or in the trajectory of a tank's canon bombshell...
Similar threads
