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
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
Why you shouldn't use Windows Firewall
Message
<blockquote data-quote="danb" data-source="post: 884300" data-attributes="member: 62850"><p>FYI, I posted the following comment on YT.</p><p></p><p>Leo, you should checkout the standalone version of <a href="https://www.youtube.com/redirect?stzid=UgyCzfXxjySHgSeIyzx4AaABAg&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitelistcloud.com%2F&event=comments&redir_token=5-GQTV2iyphiiNRDsh_yWWSWKhx8MTU5MDMyODY3OUAxNTkwMjQyMjc5" target="_blank">www.whitelistcloud.com</a>. This is the exact type of attack that it was designed to protect against. Basically, it creates a firewall rule for any unknown files, and is free. It is a work in progress and we have not yet implemented the kmd for the standalone version, but it should do quite well against this attack. Although I have not yet tested to see what happens when an allow and block rule are created for the same item. If this is an issue, maybe we need to check recently created allow rules for unknown items and remove them. As I said, it is a work in progress, but the concept is there.</p><p></p><p>BTW, I understand his point, but once new arbitrary unsafe code is allowed to execute (especially escalated), the system is compromised anyway.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly... I was incredibly curious throughout the video what his mitigation recommendation was going to be... maybe he will have one at some point. WD is bashed because it has developed into an amazing product the last couple of years, so it is going to be bashed more and more, especially as it gains market share.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="danb, post: 884300, member: 62850"] FYI, I posted the following comment on YT. Leo, you should checkout the standalone version of [URL='https://www.youtube.com/redirect?stzid=UgyCzfXxjySHgSeIyzx4AaABAg&q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.whitelistcloud.com%2F&event=comments&redir_token=5-GQTV2iyphiiNRDsh_yWWSWKhx8MTU5MDMyODY3OUAxNTkwMjQyMjc5']www.whitelistcloud.com[/URL]. This is the exact type of attack that it was designed to protect against. Basically, it creates a firewall rule for any unknown files, and is free. It is a work in progress and we have not yet implemented the kmd for the standalone version, but it should do quite well against this attack. Although I have not yet tested to see what happens when an allow and block rule are created for the same item. If this is an issue, maybe we need to check recently created allow rules for unknown items and remove them. As I said, it is a work in progress, but the concept is there. BTW, I understand his point, but once new arbitrary unsafe code is allowed to execute (especially escalated), the system is compromised anyway. Exactly... I was incredibly curious throughout the video what his mitigation recommendation was going to be... maybe he will have one at some point. WD is bashed because it has developed into an amazing product the last couple of years, so it is going to be bashed more and more, especially as it gains market share. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top