On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
yearly fee the companies charge these days.
---
Are you using antivirus? Most people would be surprised to find
out that store-bought antivirus is practically useless these
days. Antivirus only prevents the threats it is told to lookout
for, when in reality, there are hundreds of unknown
unidentifiable threats. Threats that cannot be detected nor
identified, will bypass antivirus. Hackers are becoming smarter
every single day, leaving loophole vulnerabilities in systems
using traditional antivirus. In this article, we�ll discuss if
antivirus is useless. Listed below are a few threats that can
easily bypass your store-bought antivirus.

Advanced Threats
An advanced threat is an attack in which an unauthorized user
gains access to a system or network and remains there for an
extended period of time without being detected.

Polymorphic Malware
Polymorphic malware is a type of malware that constantly changes
its identifiable features in order to evade detection. Many of
the common forms of malware can be polymorphic, including
viruses, worms, bots, trojans, or keyloggers.

Malicious Documents
Malware can easily be spread through malicious documents. Malware
creators use different techniques, making it hard for malware
analysts to identify the patterns, extract, and understand the
malicious code.

Fileless Malware
Fileless malware is a type of malicious software that uses
legitimate programs to infect a computer or system. Fileless
malware does not rely on files and leaves no footprints, making
it very challenging to detect and remove.

Encrypted Traffic
Malicious actors can hide their activities from inspection by
ensuring that the traffic between the victim and the attacker�s
server is protected by end-to-end encryption.

These threats cannot be detected nor identified by antivirus,
leaving threats and vulnerabilities within your system.

On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 06:47:38 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
<nobody@dizum.com> wrote:

>On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>yearly fee the companies charge these days.

Some have a fee, but some don't I use. the free antivirus (Defender)
built into Windows 11.

>Are you using antivirus?

Yes.

>Most people would be surprised to find
>out that store-bought antivirus is practically useless these
>days.

I strongly disagree.

>Antivirus only prevents the threats it is told to lookout
>for,

Yes, but that list contains many (but not all) of the threats and is
updated often.

>when in reality, there are hundreds of unknown
>unidentifiable threats.

I don't how many there are, but yes.

>Threats that cannot be detected nor
>identified, will bypass antivirus. Hackers are becoming smarter
>every single day, leaving loophole vulnerabilities in systems
>using traditional antivirus.

Yes and yes. No antivirus is perfect. There are always still
vulnerabilities. We all still need to practice safe hex. Anyone who
thinks that using an antivirus makes him perfectly protected is
kidding himself.

But a good antivirus can reduce the risk of infections, and since
there's little or no downside to using a good one, reducing the risk
is valuable and everyone should do it.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 13:05:20 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 06:47:38 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
><nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
>>On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>>yearly fee the companies charge these days.
>
>
>Some have a fee, but some don't I use. the free antivirus (Defender)
>built into Windows 11.
>
>
>>Are you using antivirus?
>
>Yes.
>
>
>>Most people would be surprised to find
>>out that store-bought antivirus is practically useless these
>>days.
>
>I strongly disagree.
>
>
>>Antivirus only prevents the threats it is told to lookout
>>for,
>
>
>Yes, but that list contains many (but not all) of the threats and is
>updated often.
>
>
>>when in reality, there are hundreds of unknown
>>unidentifiable threats.
>
>I don't how many there are, but yes.
>
>
>>Threats that cannot be detected nor
>>identified, will bypass antivirus. Hackers are becoming smarter
>>every single day, leaving loophole vulnerabilities in systems
>>using traditional antivirus.
>
>
>Yes and yes. No antivirus is perfect. There are always still
>vulnerabilities. We all still need to practice safe hex. Anyone who
>thinks that using an antivirus makes him perfectly protected is
>kidding himself.
>
>But a good antivirus can reduce the risk of infections, and since
>there's little or no downside to using a good one, reducing the risk
>is valuable and everyone should do it.

You missed the O.P.'s point. With a sandbox, everything loaded onto
the computer is dumped with a reboot.

You don't have any false alerts. You don't have nonsense alerts about
god knows what from those intrusive AVs. You don't need one of those
all-intrusive Security Suites which can drive one crazy with alert
nonsense. And their cost...jeesh!

And as for the 'free' AVs, I'm not even going to get into the spyware
and nagging crap associated with those.

And then there is the final fact that AV users still get infected by
malware not yet covered by the product.

The O.P. has a very valid point as to using a sandbox.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 14:58:49 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 13:05:20 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 06:47:38 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
>><nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>>>yearly fee the companies charge these days.
>>
>>
>>Some have a fee, but some don't I use. the free antivirus (Defender)
>>built into Windows 11.
>>
>>
>>>Are you using antivirus?
>>
>>Yes.
>>
>>
>>>Most people would be surprised to find
>>>out that store-bought antivirus is practically useless these
>>>days.
>>
>>I strongly disagree.
>>
>>
>>>Antivirus only prevents the threats it is told to lookout
>>>for,
>>
>>
>>Yes, but that list contains many (but not all) of the threats and is
>>updated often.
>>
>>
>>>when in reality, there are hundreds of unknown
>>>unidentifiable threats.
>>
>>I don't how many there are, but yes.
>>
>>
>>>Threats that cannot be detected nor
>>>identified, will bypass antivirus. Hackers are becoming smarter
>>>every single day, leaving loophole vulnerabilities in systems
>>>using traditional antivirus.
>>
>>
>>Yes and yes. No antivirus is perfect. There are always still
>>vulnerabilities. We all still need to practice safe hex. Anyone who
>>thinks that using an antivirus makes him perfectly protected is
>>kidding himself.
>>
>>But a good antivirus can reduce the risk of infections, and since
>>there's little or no downside to using a good one, reducing the risk
>>is valuable and everyone should do it.
>
>You missed the O.P.'s point. With a sandbox, everything loaded onto
>the computer is dumped with a reboot.
>
>You don't have any false alerts. You don't have nonsense alerts about
>god knows what from those intrusive AVs. You don't need one of those
>all-intrusive Security Suites which can drive one crazy with alert
>nonsense. And their cost...jeesh!
>
>And as for the 'free' AVs, I'm not even going to get into the spyware
>and nagging crap associated with those.
>
>And then there is the final fact that AV users still get infected by
>malware not yet covered by the product.
>
>The O.P. has a very valid point as to using a sandbox.

I guess I should have admitted that sandboxes can also be broken. But
that takes extra doing with extra coding. The average hacker might
consider using that against a company, but I doubt if hackers worry a
whole lot about individual users using a sandbox.

The big bucks today are in cracking big web sites for the info on tons
of users. Their ain't a whole lot of gain targeting the average user.
I think it's pretty much mean spirited script kiddies who still
practice that. However, phishing is a very prevalent way of allowing
yourself to get screwed. The keyword their being 'allowing'.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 17:49:04 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 14:58:49 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 13:05:20 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 06:47:38 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
>>><nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>>>>yearly fee the companies charge these days.
>>>
>>>
>>>Some have a fee, but some don't I use. the free antivirus (Defender)
>>>built into Windows 11.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Are you using antivirus?
>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Most people would be surprised to find
>>>>out that store-bought antivirus is practically useless these
>>>>days.
>>>
>>>I strongly disagree.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Antivirus only prevents the threats it is told to lookout
>>>>for,
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, but that list contains many (but not all) of the threats and is
>>>updated often.
>>>
>>>
>>>>when in reality, there are hundreds of unknown
>>>>unidentifiable threats.
>>>
>>>I don't how many there are, but yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Threats that cannot be detected nor
>>>>identified, will bypass antivirus. Hackers are becoming smarter
>>>>every single day, leaving loophole vulnerabilities in systems
>>>>using traditional antivirus.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yes and yes. No antivirus is perfect. There are always still
>>>vulnerabilities. We all still need to practice safe hex. Anyone who
>>>thinks that using an antivirus makes him perfectly protected is
>>>kidding himself.
>>>
>>>But a good antivirus can reduce the risk of infections, and since
>>>there's little or no downside to using a good one, reducing the risk
>>>is valuable and everyone should do it.
>>
>>You missed the O.P.'s point. With a sandbox, everything loaded onto
>>the computer is dumped with a reboot.
>>
>>You don't have any false alerts. You don't have nonsense alerts about
>>god knows what from those intrusive AVs. You don't need one of those
>>all-intrusive Security Suites which can drive one crazy with alert
>>nonsense. And their cost...jeesh!
>>
>>And as for the 'free' AVs, I'm not even going to get into the spyware
>>and nagging crap associated with those.
>>
>>And then there is the final fact that AV users still get infected by
>>malware not yet covered by the product.
>>
>>The O.P. has a very valid point as to using a sandbox.
>
>I guess I should have admitted that sandboxes can also be broken. But
>that takes extra doing with extra coding. The average hacker might
>consider using that against a company, but I doubt if hackers worry a
>whole lot about individual users using a sandbox.
>
>The big bucks today are in cracking big web sites for the info on tons
>of users. Their ain't a whole lot of gain targeting the average user.
>I think it's pretty much mean spirited script kiddies who still
>practice that. However, phishing is a very prevalent way of allowing
>yourself to get screwed. The keyword their being 'allowing'.

I might be overdoing the subject a bit, but -

http://ledin.cs.sonoma.edu/malware/pdf/ExtraordinaryFailureofAntiVirusTechnology.pdf

A partial piece of the article

The Extraordinary Failure of Anti-Virus Technology

Whitelisting Succeeds Where AV Has Failed

the ineffectiveness of AV technology are regularly produced:

• A recent Yankee Group report stated that 99% of companies had AV
technology installed, yet 62% of companies suffered successful virus
attacks.

• According to AusCERT, Australia’s Computer Emergency Response Team,
the two most popular and deployed AV products fail to prevent 80% of
new viruses.

Virus writers test their new viruses against the more popular AV
products before releasing them. And that is why AV technology is so
ineffective. AV products have been trying for nearly 20 years to deal
with the virus threat and have made very little progress. The AV
technology vendors have simply taken the wrong approach. They have
built “burglar alarms” that will only alert you if a known burglar
tries to enter the house. The real solution is to have a “burglar
alarm” that sounds when anyone you don’t know tries to enter the
house.

Fortunately, whitelisting technology has emerged in recent years.
Whitelisting technology takes a different approach to the malware
problem, recording all valid programs and preventing others from
executing. Because of this approach, it can be and is used to prevent
other ills, such as spyware, adware, unlicensed software or any other
kind of unauthorized software. Whitelisting can be applied to device
control as well, which prevents the attaching of unauthorized devices
to corporate PCs and laptops.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 18:05:31 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:

>
>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 17:49:04 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 14:58:49 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 13:05:20 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 06:47:38 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
>>>><nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>>>>>yearly fee the companies charge these days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Some have a fee, but some don't I use. the free antivirus (Defender)
>>>>built into Windows 11.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Are you using antivirus?
>>>>
>>>>Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Most people would be surprised to find
>>>>>out that store-bought antivirus is practically useless these
>>>>>days.
>>>>
>>>>I strongly disagree.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Antivirus only prevents the threats it is told to lookout
>>>>>for,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but that list contains many (but not all) of the threats and is
>>>>updated often.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>when in reality, there are hundreds of unknown
>>>>>unidentifiable threats.
>>>>
>>>>I don't how many there are, but yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Threats that cannot be detected nor
>>>>>identified, will bypass antivirus. Hackers are becoming smarter
>>>>>every single day, leaving loophole vulnerabilities in systems
>>>>>using traditional antivirus.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes and yes. No antivirus is perfect. There are always still
>>>>vulnerabilities. We all still need to practice safe hex. Anyone who
>>>>thinks that using an antivirus makes him perfectly protected is
>>>>kidding himself.
>>>>
>>>>But a good antivirus can reduce the risk of infections, and since
>>>>there's little or no downside to using a good one, reducing the risk
>>>>is valuable and everyone should do it.
>>>
>>>You missed the O.P.'s point. With a sandbox, everything loaded onto
>>>the computer is dumped with a reboot.
>>>
>>>You don't have any false alerts. You don't have nonsense alerts about
>>>god knows what from those intrusive AVs. You don't need one of those
>>>all-intrusive Security Suites which can drive one crazy with alert
>>>nonsense. And their cost...jeesh!
>>>
>>>And as for the 'free' AVs, I'm not even going to get into the spyware
>>>and nagging crap associated with those.
>>>
>>>And then there is the final fact that AV users still get infected by
>>>malware not yet covered by the product.
>>>
>>>The O.P. has a very valid point as to using a sandbox.
>>
>>I guess I should have admitted that sandboxes can also be broken. But
>>that takes extra doing with extra coding. The average hacker might
>>consider using that against a company, but I doubt if hackers worry a
>>whole lot about individual users using a sandbox.
>>
>>The big bucks today are in cracking big web sites for the info on tons
>>of users. Their ain't a whole lot of gain targeting the average user.
>>I think it's pretty much mean spirited script kiddies who still
>>practice that. However, phishing is a very prevalent way of allowing
>>yourself to get screwed. The keyword their being 'allowing'.
>
>I might be overdoing the subject a bit, but -
>
>http://ledin.cs.sonoma.edu/malware/pdf/ExtraordinaryFailureofAntiVirusTechnology.pdf
>
>A partial piece of the article
>
>The Extraordinary Failure of Anti-Virus Technology
>
>Whitelisting Succeeds Where AV Has Failed
>
>the ineffectiveness of AV technology are regularly produced:
>
>• A recent Yankee Group report stated that 99% of companies had AV
>technology installed, yet 62% of companies suffered successful virus
>attacks.
>
>• According to AusCERT, Australia’s Computer Emergency Response Team,
>the two most popular and deployed AV products fail to prevent 80% of
>new viruses.
>
>Virus writers test their new viruses against the more popular AV
>products before releasing them. And that is why AV technology is so
>ineffective. AV products have been trying for nearly 20 years to deal
>with the virus threat and have made very little progress. The AV
>technology vendors have simply taken the wrong approach. They have
>built “burglar alarms” that will only alert you if a known burglar
>tries to enter the house. The real solution is to have a “burglar
>alarm” that sounds when anyone you don’t know tries to enter the
>house.
>
>Fortunately, whitelisting technology has emerged in recent years.
>Whitelisting technology takes a different approach to the malware
>problem, recording all valid programs and preventing others from
>executing. Because of this approach, it can be and is used to prevent
>other ills, such as spyware, adware, unlicensed software or any other
>kind of unauthorized software. Whitelisting can be applied to device
>control as well, which prevents the attaching of unauthorized devices
>to corporate PCs and laptops.
>

Gawd!

I just don't know when to quit!

Did you ever think an AV honcho would say this?

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/06/antivirus-software-fails-catch-attacks-security-expert-symantec

theguardian.com
Antivirus software is dead, says security expert at Symantec
Samuel Gibbs

Antivirus software only catches 45% of malware attacks and is "dead",
according to a senior manager at Symantec.

Remarks by Brian Dye, senior vice-president for information security
at the company, which invented commercial antivirus software in the
1980s and now develops and sells Norton Antivirus, suggest that such
software leaves users vulnerable.

Dye told the Wall Street Journal that hackers increasingly use novel
methods and bugs in the software of computers to perform attacks,
resulting in about 55% cyberattacks going unnoticed by commercial
antivirus software.

Malware has become increasingly complex in a post-Stuxnet world.
Computer viruses range from relatively simple criminal attacks, where
credit card information is targeted, to espionage programs that spy on
users and data but can easily be upgraded into cyberweapons at the
touch of a button, according to security expert Eugene Kaspersky,
founder of Kaspersky Lab, which also sells antivirus software.

That failure to detect issues is forcing Symantec, which has a
turnover of about $1.6bn (£590m) and an 8% global antivirus
marketshare – according to data from the enterprise software company
Opswat – to diversify its products, moving into the “detect and
respond” sector rather than the simple "protect" segment.

The switch to the detect and respond paradigm means tracking data
leaks, hacks and other intrusions and preventing further repercussions
from stolen data. For users, that means changing passwords, but for
businesses that often means stopping access to accounts and services
that have been subject to data loss or infiltration, as well as
tracking the source of the intrusion and shoring up cyberdefences –
something governments have been doing with new cyber response teams.

Antivirus still accounts for 40% of the company’s revenue, however,
and while other security companies such as Kasperky and Intel’s McAfee
have already moved in that direction, Symantec lags the movement.

===
I'm done. I promise...maybe?

On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 18:24:53 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:

>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 18:05:31 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:
>
>>
>>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 17:49:04 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 14:58:49 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 13:05:20 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>

You gotta read THIS ONE!

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2017/01/antivirus-is-bad/

---
This IS the LAST one...for real.

On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 14:58:49 -0600, loren@heliostatic.com wrote:

> On Tue, 08 Nov 2022 13:05:20 -0700, Ken Blake <Ken@invalid.news.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 8 Nov 2022 06:47:38 +0100 (CET), Nomen Nescio
>><nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>>>yearly fee the companies charge these days.
>>

I just came off of a kaspersky internet security suite trial. I ran it
for about a week before throwing my hands up and uninstalling it. It's
been 10+ years since I've run anything but windows defender, so I
wanted to try something new, but from the jump Kaspersky put my
machine in a constant sense of "false danger" with its pop-ups,
notifications, and "security recommendations".

Every time I plugged in a USB device, kaspersky would pop up and say
"phew, that could have been dangerous but thank God you have us to
watch your back. We scanned the drive and good news.. nothing to
report"

I clicked on a program that had a link that opened microsoft edge and
took me to the windows store's webpage. "whoah whoah there...." said
Kasperky "lotta clicking going on buddy... this website might be super
unsafe.. are you sure you want to browse there?" Dude it's the windows
store.. what security suite in their right mind would flag a windows
store link as a malicious site?

I feel like this product is catered to trap consumers that aren't too
tech savvy into thinking that they would get their drives ransomwared
on a daily basis if Kaspersky wasn't there to intervene. It's
intentionally bad design.

That's where windows defender shines. It does its thing in the
background and the only time I hear from it is when I'm trying to run
something like a program that lets me resize cut-scenes in video games
to ultrawide and it has a keylogger baked in (the apps have to use a
keylogger to record the button-press between normal mode and
ultrawidescreen). It's a false positive, but at least I understand why
windows defender would let me know about this.

I would try another security suite but I have the feeling bitdefender,
eset, norton and the rest are the same. If anybody has any suggestions
on a product that stays silent in the background and only notifies me
of real danger, preferably one that allows me to whitelist apps
without jumping through 5 menus and prompts, please let me know.

Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
> On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
> yearly fee the companies charge these days.
> ---
<snip/>
By sandboxing do you mean using a VM machine to surf or some other
sandboxing method?

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>
> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
> > On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
> > yearly fee the companies charge these days.
> > ---
> <snip/>
> By sandboxing do you mean using a VM machine to surf or some other
> sandboxing method?
>
> --
> Sailfish
> CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
> Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

Either one. It doesn't matter which. You reboot and bad stuff that
might have been downloaded is gone. There are no damn phoney
messaging about how a program you've used for years is all of a
sudden virus ridden. It's gotten to the point where those AV
programs are pretty much a useless and total fraud - some costing
hundreds of dollars

Read some of the posts here about the situation. It's gotten to the
point of being ridiculous using the damn things. If you check the
Web, you'll find some AV execs saying pretty much the same thing.

The chances of a home computer being compromised when running a
VM/Sandbox is one hell of a lot less than when running an AV
product.

Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:13 AM:
> In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
>>> On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>>> yearly fee the companies charge these days.
>>> ---
>> <snip/>
>> By sandboxing do you mean using a VM machine to surf or some other
>> sandboxing method?
>
> Either one. It doesn't matter which. You reboot and bad stuff that
> might have been downloaded is gone. There are no damn phoney
> messaging about how a program you've used for years is all of a
> sudden virus ridden. It's gotten to the point where those AV
> programs are pretty much a useless and total fraud - some costing
> hundreds of dollars

My bad for being unclear, I was wondering specifically what sandboxing
method you were using?

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

In article <tkhntt$fan2$1@dont-email.me>
Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>
> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:13 AM:
> > In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
> > Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> >> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
> >>> On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
> >>> yearly fee the companies charge these days.
> >>> ---
> >> <snip/>
> >> By sandboxing do you mean using a VM machine to surf or some other
> >> sandboxing method?
> >
> > Either one. It doesn't matter which. You reboot and bad stuff that
> > might have been downloaded is gone. There are no damn phoney
> > messaging about how a program you've used for years is all of a
> > sudden virus ridden. It's gotten to the point where those AV
> > programs are pretty much a useless and total fraud - some costing
> > hundreds of dollars
>
> My bad for being unclear, I was wondering specifically what sandboxing
> method you were using?
>
> --
> Sailfish
> CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
> Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

I'm using Win XP Pro 32 bit.

I ain't sure if this program is a sandbox or some type of system
restore software. All I know is that it is much simpler than
Sandboxie. It is so dang simple a five-year old could use it.

https://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/

"Toolwiz Time Freeze is an easy and effective Instant system restore
software to keep your system safe and protect your computer from
unwanted changes. Turnning on the Time Freeze mode, the whole system
is running in the "sandbox". Only the changes to the files in the
exclusion list will be saved."

Support OS:WinXP/Win2003/Vista/Win7/Win8/Win10(32/64bit)
Requirment: Disable the sechduler defrag and backup of Windows.

Just enable it to start with Windows Startup. That's all. You can
exempt certain programs from it. That means they are vulnerable. I
don't see the need to do that.

I've been using it for 3 or 4 years with no other protection except my
Sygate Firewall to keep programs from calling home.

It's great to try out new programs which don't need rebooting in order
to install. You'd have to turn Time Freeze off a program that needs a
reboot. That is something I will absolutely not do unless I'm sure of
the need for such a program. in that case, better do a C: backup, or
at least a System Restore backup.

New installed programs that don't need booting to install can be run
and checked out to see if they are worth keeping.

In the time I've used this program I have been totally without any
problems. Even if Windows screws up and implodes on itself for some
reason, that reason no longer exists once you reboot. The problem is
gone bye-bye and your Windows reboots clean.

Did I mention it's a freebie?

It is the simplest and best protection I've ever come across in the
almost 3 decades I've been online.

In article <32dcc1c84c6c50d152596e72d2339299@dizum.com>
Nomen Nescio <nobody@dizum.com> wrote:
>
> In article <tkhntt$fan2$1@dont-email.me>
> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> >
> > Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:13 AM:
> > > In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
> > > Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> > >> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
> > >>> On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
> > >>> yearly fee the companies charge these days.
> > >>> ---
> > >> <snip/>
> > >> By sandboxing do you mean using a VM machine to surf or some other
> > >> sandboxing method?
> > >
> > > Either one. It doesn't matter which. You reboot and bad stuff that
> > > might have been downloaded is gone. There are no damn phoney
> > > messaging about how a program you've used for years is all of a
> > > sudden virus ridden. It's gotten to the point where those AV
> > > programs are pretty much a useless and total fraud - some costing
> > > hundreds of dollars
> >
> > My bad for being unclear, I was wondering specifically what sandboxing
> > method you were using?
> >
> > --
> > Sailfish
> > CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
> > Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
>
> I'm using Win XP Pro 32 bit.
>
> I ain't sure if this program is a sandbox or some type of system
> restore software. All I know is that it is much simpler than
> Sandboxie. It is so dang simple a five-year old could use it.
>
> https://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/
>
> "Toolwiz Time Freeze is an easy and effective Instant system restore
> software to keep your system safe and protect your computer from
> unwanted changes. Turnning on the Time Freeze mode, the whole system
> is running in the "sandbox". Only the changes to the files in the
> exclusion list will be saved."
>
> Support OS:WinXP/Win2003/Vista/Win7/Win8/Win10(32/64bit)
> Requirment: Disable the sechduler defrag and backup of Windows.
>
> Just enable it to start with Windows Startup. That's all. You can
> exempt certain programs from it. That means they are vulnerable. I
> don't see the need to do that.
>
> I've been using it for 3 or 4 years with no other protection except my
> Sygate Firewall to keep programs from calling home.
>
> It's great to try out new programs which don't need rebooting in order
> to install. You'd have to turn Time Freeze off a program that needs a
> reboot. That is something I will absolutely not do unless I'm sure of
> the need for such a program. in that case, better do a C: backup, or
> at least a System Restore backup.
>
> New installed programs that don't need booting to install can be run
> and checked out to see if they are worth keeping.
>
> In the time I've used this program I have been totally without any
> problems. Even if Windows screws up and implodes on itself for some
> reason, that reason no longer exists once you reboot. The problem is
> gone bye-bye and your Windows reboots clean.
>
> Did I mention it's a freebie?
>
> It is the simplest and best protection I've ever come across in the
> almost 3 decades I've been online.

I should have added that I placed it on my wife's Windows 7 laptop a
few years back. It has worked like a charm there, too.

On 11/9/2022 11:01 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> In article <tkhntt$fan2$1@dont-email.me>
> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>
>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:13 AM:
>>> In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
>>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
>>>>> On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>>>>> yearly fee the companies charge these days.
>>>>> ---
>>>> <snip/>
>>>> By sandboxing do you mean using a VM machine to surf or some other
>>>> sandboxing method?
>>>
>>> Either one. It doesn't matter which. You reboot and bad stuff that
>>> might have been downloaded is gone. There are no damn phoney
>>> messaging about how a program you've used for years is all of a
>>> sudden virus ridden. It's gotten to the point where those AV
>>> programs are pretty much a useless and total fraud - some costing
>>> hundreds of dollars
>>
>> My bad for being unclear, I was wondering specifically what sandboxing
>> method you were using?
>>
>> --
>> Sailfish
>> CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
>> Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
>
> I'm using Win XP Pro 32 bit.
>
> I ain't sure if this program is a sandbox or some type of system
> restore software. All I know is that it is much simpler than
> Sandboxie. It is so dang simple a five-year old could use it.
>
> https://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/
>
> "Toolwiz Time Freeze is an easy and effective Instant system restore
> software to keep your system safe and protect your computer from
> unwanted changes. Turnning on the Time Freeze mode, the whole system
> is running in the "sandbox". Only the changes to the files in the
> exclusion list will be saved."
>
> Support OS:WinXP/Win2003/Vista/Win7/Win8/Win10(32/64bit)
> Requirment: Disable the sechduler defrag and backup of Windows.
>
> Just enable it to start with Windows Startup. That's all. You can
> exempt certain programs from it. That means they are vulnerable. I
> don't see the need to do that.
>
> I've been using it for 3 or 4 years with no other protection except my
> Sygate Firewall to keep programs from calling home.
>
> It's great to try out new programs which don't need rebooting in order
> to install. You'd have to turn Time Freeze off a program that needs a
> reboot. That is something I will absolutely not do unless I'm sure of
> the need for such a program. in that case, better do a C: backup, or
> at least a System Restore backup.
>
> New installed programs that don't need booting to install can be run
> and checked out to see if they are worth keeping.
>
> In the time I've used this program I have been totally without any
> problems. Even if Windows screws up and implodes on itself for some
> reason, that reason no longer exists once you reboot. The problem is
> gone bye-bye and your Windows reboots clean.
>
> Did I mention it's a freebie?
>
> It is the simplest and best protection I've ever come across in the
> almost 3 decades I've been online.
>

They recommend Shadow Defender here.

https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1843107

"These type of apps really aren't that useful for "normal" users ...

The reason being is that you must be able to predict
"dangerous behaviour" and activate the "virtual protection" before
you do something risky (visiting dodgy websites, installing dodgy
software, executing dodgy EXEs, etc) ...

You may think running in "virtual protection" mode permanently would
be beneficial, but if there is something you want permanently on your
PC you have to deactivate the "virtual protection", reboot your machine,
install the stuff you want permanently, then reactivate the
"virtual protection" ...

Another example of why "full time" protection is not that great for
"normal" users is windows updates – if on "auto" they will install,
but with protection on will disappear on next boot & re-install again
and again (unless you set updates to manual and do it at a designated
time when you have "virtual protection" disabled) ...

So these apps are very "situational" ... most of the time mine is
"off" unless I am:

1) Testing malware samples (to see what they do to a complete
system – some malware does not run in a VM)
2) Testing AV software (you would be surprised the amount of junk
some suites leave around)
3) Visiting strange XXX website or dubious "hacking" and "security" sites
4) Pre-testing of windows updates for compatibility / issues (I do a
test windows update & then real update monthly)
5) Experimentation (I will delete full directories just to "see" what
happens, that's how I worked out I can get my WinSXS directory
under 500MB, most are >5GB!)
"

"Don't make the mistake of thinking this is the only application you
need instead of a traditional AV software (there are plenty of other
layers needed before removing your traditional AV suite) ...
"

Paul

Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:01 PM:
> In article <tkhntt$fan2$1@dont-email.me>
> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:13 AM:
>>> In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
>>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
>>>>> On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>>>>> yearly fee the companies charge these days.
>>>>> ---
>>>> <snip/>
>>>> By sandboxing do you mean using a VM machine to surf or some other
>>>> sandboxing method?
>>> Either one. It doesn't matter which. You reboot and bad stuff that
>>> might have been downloaded is gone. There are no damn phoney
>>> messaging about how a program you've used for years is all of a
>>> sudden virus ridden. It's gotten to the point where those AV
>>> programs are pretty much a useless and total fraud - some costing
>>> hundreds of dollars
>> My bad for being unclear, I was wondering specifically what sandboxing
>> method you were using?
>>
>> --
>> Sailfish
>> CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
>> Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
>
> I'm using Win XP Pro 32 bit.
>
> I ain't sure if this program is a sandbox or some type of system
> restore software. All I know is that it is much simpler than
> Sandboxie. It is so dang simple a five-year old could use it.
>
> https://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/
>
Appreciate it.

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

Paul graced us with on 11/10/2022 3:07 AM:
> On 11/9/2022 11:01 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> In article <tkhntt$fan2$1@dont-email.me>
>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:13 AM:
>>>> In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
>>>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
>>>>>> On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
>>>>>> yearly fee the companies charge these days.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>> <snip/>
>>>>> By sandboxing do you mean using a VM machine to surf or some other
>>>>> sandboxing method?
>>>>
>>>> Either one. It doesn't matter which. You reboot and bad stuff that
>>>> might have been downloaded is gone. There are no damn phoney
>>>> messaging about how a program you've used for years is all of a
>>>> sudden virus ridden. It's gotten to the point where those AV
>>>> programs are pretty much a useless and total fraud - some costing
>>>> hundreds of dollars
>>>
>>> My bad for being unclear, I was wondering specifically what sandboxing
>>> method you were using?
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sailfish
>>> CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
>>> Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
>>
>> I'm using Win XP Pro 32 bit.
>>
>> I ain't sure if this program is a sandbox or some type of system
>> restore software. All I know is that it is much simpler than
>> Sandboxie. It is so dang simple a five-year old could use it.
>>
>> https://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/
>>
>> "Toolwiz Time Freeze is an easy and effective Instant system restore
>> software to keep your system safe and protect your computer from
>> unwanted changes. Turnning on the Time Freeze mode, the whole system
>> is running in the "sandbox". Only the changes to the files in the
>> exclusion list will be saved."
>>
>> Support OS:WinXP/Win2003/Vista/Win7/Win8/Win10(32/64bit)
>> Requirment: Disable the sechduler defrag and backup of Windows.
>>
>> Just enable it to start with Windows Startup. That's all. You can
>> exempt certain programs from it. That means they are vulnerable. I
>> don't see the need to do that.
>>
>> I've been using it for 3 or 4 years with no other protection except my
>> Sygate Firewall to keep programs from calling home.
>>
>> It's great to try out new programs which don't need rebooting in order
>> to install. You'd have to turn Time Freeze off a program that needs a
>> reboot. That is something I will absolutely not do unless I'm sure of
>> the need for such a program. in that case, better do a C: backup, or
>> at least a System Restore backup.
>>
>> New installed programs that don't need booting to install can be run
>> and checked out to see if they are worth keeping.
>>
>> In the time I've used this program I have been totally without any
>> problems. Even if Windows screws up and implodes on itself for some
>> reason, that reason no longer exists once you reboot. The problem is
>> gone bye-bye and your Windows reboots clean.
>>
>> Did I mention it's a freebie?
>>
>> It is the simplest and best protection I've ever come across in the
>> almost 3 decades I've been online.
>>
>
> They recommend Shadow Defender here.
>
> https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1843107
>
> "These type of apps really aren't that useful for "normal" users ...
>
> The reason being is that you must be able to predict
> "dangerous behaviour" and activate the "virtual protection" before
> you do something risky (visiting dodgy websites, installing dodgy
> software, executing dodgy EXEs, etc) ...
>
> You may think running in "virtual protection" mode permanently would
> be beneficial, but if there is something you want permanently on your
> PC you have to deactivate the "virtual protection", reboot your
> machine,
> install the stuff you want permanently, then reactivate the
> "virtual protection" ...
>
> Another example of why "full time" protection is not that great for
> "normal" users is windows updates – if on "auto" they will install,
> but with protection on will disappear on next boot & re-install again
> and again (unless you set updates to manual and do it at a designated
> time when you have "virtual protection" disabled) ...
>
> So these apps are very "situational" ... most of the time mine is
> "off" unless I am:
>
> 1) Testing malware samples (to see what they do to a complete
> system – some malware does not run in a VM)
> 2) Testing AV software (you would be surprised the amount of junk
> some suites leave around)
> 3) Visiting strange XXX website or dubious "hacking" and "security"
> sites
> 4) Pre-testing of windows updates for compatibility / issues (I do a
> test windows update & then real update monthly)
> 5) Experimentation (I will delete full directories just to "see" what
> happens, that's how I worked out I can get my WinSXS directory
> under 500MB, most are >5GB!)
> "
>
> "Don't make the mistake of thinking this is the only application you
> need instead of a traditional AV software (there are plenty of other
> layers needed before removing your traditional AV suite) ...
> "
+1

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

In article <tkim18$hmph$1@dont-email.me>
Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
> On 11/9/2022 11:01 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> > In article <tkhntt$fan2$1@dont-email.me>
> > Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:13 AM:
> >>> In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
> >>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> >>>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
> >>>>> On top of all the limitations listed below is the ridiculous
> >>>>> yearly fee the companies charge these days.
> >>>>> ---
> >>>> <snip/>
> >>>> By sandboxing do you mean using a VM machine to surf or some other
> >>>> sandboxing method?
> >>>
> >>> Either one. It doesn't matter which. You reboot and bad stuff that
> >>> might have been downloaded is gone. There are no damn phoney
> >>> messaging about how a program you've used for years is all of a
> >>> sudden virus ridden. It's gotten to the point where those AV
> >>> programs are pretty much a useless and total fraud - some costing
> >>> hundreds of dollars
> >>
> >> My bad for being unclear, I was wondering specifically what sandboxing
> >> method you were using?
> >>
> >> --
> >> Sailfish
> >> CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
> >> Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg
> >
> > I'm using Win XP Pro 32 bit.
> >
> > I ain't sure if this program is a sandbox or some type of system
> > restore software. All I know is that it is much simpler than
> > Sandboxie. It is so dang simple a five-year old could use it.
> >
> > https://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze/
> >
> > "Toolwiz Time Freeze is an easy and effective Instant system restore
> > software to keep your system safe and protect your computer from
> > unwanted changes. Turnning on the Time Freeze mode, the whole system
> > is running in the "sandbox". Only the changes to the files in the
> > exclusion list will be saved."
> >
> > Support OS:WinXP/Win2003/Vista/Win7/Win8/Win10(32/64bit)
> > Requirment: Disable the sechduler defrag and backup of Windows.
> >
> > Just enable it to start with Windows Startup. That's all. You can
> > exempt certain programs from it. That means they are vulnerable. I
> > don't see the need to do that.
> >
> > I've been using it for 3 or 4 years with no other protection except my
> > Sygate Firewall to keep programs from calling home.
> >
> > It's great to try out new programs which don't need rebooting in order
> > to install. You'd have to turn Time Freeze off a program that needs a
> > reboot. That is something I will absolutely not do unless I'm sure of
> > the need for such a program. in that case, better do a C: backup, or
> > at least a System Restore backup.
> >
> > New installed programs that don't need booting to install can be run
> > and checked out to see if they are worth keeping.
> >
> > In the time I've used this program I have been totally without any
> > problems. Even if Windows screws up and implodes on itself for some
> > reason, that reason no longer exists once you reboot. The problem is
> > gone bye-bye and your Windows reboots clean.
> >
> > Did I mention it's a freebie?
> >
> > It is the simplest and best protection I've ever come across in the
> > almost 3 decades I've been online.
> >
>
> They recommend Shadow Defender here.
>
> https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/1843107

I did try that program. I chose Time Freeze because the Shadow
Defender guy wanted $$ but wouldn't answer a few questions I sent him.
I don't send money to people who refuse to answer an e-mail.

>
> "These type of apps really aren't that useful for "normal" users ...
>
> The reason being is that you must be able to predict
> "dangerous behaviour" and activate the "virtual protection" before
> you do something risky (visiting dodgy websites, installing dodgy
> software, executing dodgy EXEs, etc) ...

I don't understand the meaning of the above. I always have Time Freeze
running. Always. Unless I deliberately turn it off for updating my
bookmarks, newly downloaded program, etc. I put in an USB drive if I
want to download something. That drive is outside the veil of Time
Freeze's protection. As for downloads, they all get checked through
VirusTotal. Checking a file through 60-70 AVs is better than through a
single AV. If they are clean, I try installing with Time Freeze
running to see if they install without a reboot. If they do, and some
do, I see if I really want to keep the program. If it needs a reboot
to install fully, I reset Time Freeze to not actuate when Windows
reboots, and install the file fully w/o Time Freeze running, which
takes another unprotected boot to finish the install. Same procedure
when saving new bookmarks. And I will add, I always do System Restore
and a registry save before installing anything.

So, what's the big deal with that? An AV's near constant alerts about
something or other, or false alerting on a perfectly good file, are
much worse and more time consuming than running Time Freeze and having
to reboot once in a while to add something to the a 2nd drive.

> You may think running in "virtual protection" mode permanently would
> be beneficial, but if there is something you want permanently on your
> PC you have to deactivate the "virtual protection", reboot your machine,
> install the stuff you want permanently, then reactivate the
> "virtual protection" ...

I already covered that. Believe me, almost total safety is worth that
bit more "Safe Hex" effort. Isn't that what you and others keep
saying?

Don't dwell on that "total safety" bit. Compared to AVs on a home
computer, that's about correct. So far, I haven't heard of hackers
worrying about home computers running sandboxes or SR programs like
Time Freeze. Mostly what Time Freeze will protect against are the mean
little bleeps known as script kiddies who are hardly sophisticated in
their destructive efforts.

I have been using this program for years along with only my Sygate
firewall and it has protected me 100%. It has been a godsend for my
wife's Win 7 laptop. She knows software, having taught it for years at
a company, but she knows nothing of protecting a computer. Time Freeze
has protected her fully for 3-4 years.

> Another example of why "full time" protection is not that great for
> "normal" users is windows updates � if on "auto" they will install,
> but with protection on will disappear on next boot & re-install again
> and again (unless you set updates to manual and do it at a designated
> time when you have "virtual protection" disabled) ...

Set the dang updates to notify you but not to download or install. I
do not see what a big deal this small effort at rebooting is. And you
are one of those who keep repeating that "safe hex" stuff. Get real.
My "safe hex" using Time Freeze far exceeds that of any "safe hex"
using those incredibly vulnerable AV products.

> So these apps are very "situational" ... most of the time mine is
> "off" unless I am:

You just love making up arguments. Every damn thing online is
"situational" - whatever the heck that means.

Deleted a para that has nothing to do with my point.

>
> "Don't make the mistake of thinking this is the only application you
> need instead of a traditional AV software (there are plenty of other
> layers needed before removing your traditional AV suite) ...
> "
>
> Paul

That is sheer nonsense. These "layers" you allude to are not part of
the problem when running Time Freeze. Those "layers" you refer to are
buried in Windows, and Time Freeze has them - along with everything
else, isolated from the disk. As for the possibility of hackers
getting around a VM type program, of course it exists, but when have
you read of such a happening? Rarely. Much more rarely than AVs
screwing up clean programs with their nonsense alerts, quarantining,
etc.

Programs like Time Freeze leave AVs in the dirt. Someday, though, if a
big enough number of people used them, of course the hackers would
then arm themselves with anti VM malware and a new dangerous situation
would evolve for the users of VM type ware. So far, that ain't
happened.

In article <tkjhii$jpsf$2@dont-email.me>
Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>
> Paul graced us with on 11/10/2022 3:07 AM:
> > On 11/9/2022 11:01 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
> >> In article <tkhntt$fan2$1@dont-email.me>
> >> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:13 AM:
> >>>> In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
> >>>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
> >>>>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
Del

> >
> > "Don't make the mistake of thinking this is the only application you
> > need instead of a traditional AV software (there are plenty of other
> > layers needed before removing your traditional AV suite) ...
> > "
> +1
>

That's spewed, unclear nonsense. Time Freeze has proven itself through
the years on my and my wife's machine.

Those mysterious "layers" are part of Windows imprisoned by Time
Freeze.

All you have is supposition. I - and Time Freeze, have years of
results.

Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/10/2022 2:29 PM:
> In article <tkjhii$jpsf$2@dont-email.me>
> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>> Paul graced us with on 11/10/2022 3:07 AM:
>>> On 11/9/2022 11:01 PM, Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>>> In article <tkhntt$fan2$1@dont-email.me>
>>>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/9/2022 8:13 AM:
>>>>>> In article <tkfltg$62bs$1@dont-email.me>
>>>>>> Sailfish <NIXCAPSsailfish@NIXCAPSunforgettable.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Nomen Nescio graced us with on 11/7/2022 9:47 PM:
> Del
>
>>> "Don't make the mistake of thinking this is the only application you
>>> need instead of a traditional AV software (there are plenty of other
>>> layers needed before removing your traditional AV suite) ...
>>> "
>> +1
>
> That's spewed, unclear nonsense. Time Freeze has proven itself through
> the years on my and my wife's machine.
>
If you wanted the person who wrote that to respond, you should have
responded directly to him, no?

--
Sailfish
CDC Covid19 Trends: https://www.facebook.com/groups/624208354841034
Rare Mozilla Stuff: http://tinyurl.com/z86x3sg

So what sandbox are you using ?

In article <tkrcm6$pga$2@gioia.aioe.org>
Elli <Elli@Elli.com> wrote:
>
> So what sandbox are you using ?

It's more of System Restore type of program. Once you reboot, your
drive reverts back to what it was on the last boot. Anything
downloaded to your C: is gone.

It's ToolWiz's Time Freeze. A freebie I and my wife have been using
for about four years with no AV or other 'Security' program running.
(I do have a firewall running on my XP machine. I have set it to
block programs from accessing the net which have no reason to do so.)

My wife's machine also has the Windows 7 Pro firewall set for the
same purpose. Outside of this, it's Time Freeze which has kept us
safe for all this time.

http://www.toolwiz.com/lead/toolwiz_time_freeze.php

Toolwiz Time Freeze is an easy and effective Instant system restore
software to keep your system safe and protect your computer from
unwanted changes.
Turnning on the Time Freeze mode, the whole system is running in the
"sandbox". Only the changes to the files in the exclusion list will
be saved.

Support OS:WinXP/Win2003/Vista/Win7/Win8/Win10(32/64bit)
Requirment: Disable the sechduler defrag and backup of Windows.

If you save anything while using it, you will have to save it to
another drive, USB stick, or such. You will then have to set Time
Freeze not to boot with windows on the next boot if you intend to add
a file to C: You better dang well check that file first with
VirusTotal. Oh, yeah, I do not allow any file on the C: to be
excluded from being protected by Time Freeze.

It's worked like magic for us.