Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arequire" data-source="post: 883404" data-attributes="member: 59283">I just dislike the idea that anything that isn&#039;t definitively identified as malicious is allowed to run unmitigated on my system. Sure there&#039;s behaviour blockers, but from all the testing I&#039;ve seen I consider them unreliable at best. Missing even a single sample after it executes could cause a serious headache depending on what the malware actually does, and I have absolutely zero faith in behaviour blockers to work as intended.I&#039;m not sure about your system, but one thing that may be different between us is that my system is almost wholly static. Besides updates, I haven&#039;t installed a single thing since February, and the last prompt I received was back in early March. So I completely understand why it&#039;d be annoying to use default-deny if you&#039;re installing new applications often, but I very rarely even notice it&#039;s there the majority of the time.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arequire, post: 883404, member: 59283"] I just dislike the idea that anything that isn't definitively identified as malicious is allowed to run unmitigated on my system. Sure there's behaviour blockers, but from all the testing I've seen I consider them unreliable at best. Missing even a single sample after it executes could cause a serious headache depending on what the malware actually does, and I have absolutely zero faith in behaviour blockers to work as intended. I'm not sure about your system, but one thing that may be different between us is that my system is almost wholly static. Besides updates, I haven't installed a single thing since February, and the last prompt I received was back in early March. So I completely understand why it'd be annoying to use default-deny if you're installing new applications often, but I very rarely even notice it's there the majority of the time. [/QUOTE]

Verification