NoVirusThanks OSArmor: An Additional Layer of Defense

OS Armor doesn't need a license:

 

yes but it will be useless to use both.

 

Actually I use Defense and AppGuard: may be it's redundant, but it's a dual defense layer.

 

Thank you.

 

Exactly what's best IMHO given the many forms of crapware sneakers out there channeling their digital disruptions into every little open nook n cranny found.

Like many, Multi-Defense layers of any sort is this users bag of tea too . Simply works.

 

Theoretically I have again one valid license for AppGuard, but also with the second license I had some problems to validate it.

 

I believe that also here in Wilders multi layered defense is out of date.

 

Not sure where that idea came from but this forum is been especially known for the introductions of many multi-layer defense forms for quite some time and still going.

 

From our beloved Member guest, for example

 

Definitely. But I read here users that find boring the HIPS, boring the BB, and prefer, for example, Anti-Exe, one and silent.

 

Users? Users? Hmmm... there are (a) regular folks who post at Wilders, & there are (b) security gurus who post at Wilders. Both are "users" but it is wiser to heed (b) the latter rather than (a) the former. Over time, one fervently must seek to discern the difference as to who is "a" & who is "b". (I am "a", of course.)

 

Well, when I look at guru guest's signature, it seems that he is using about 3 security apps on each one of his computers, in addition to OS hardening. I wouldn't say that layered security is dead, or not recommended. But it needs to be done smartly, not redundantly. You don't want three layers of frosting and no cake, or three servings of ice cream and no cake. You want cake, frosting, and ice cream.

 

Hey shmu, speak for yourself! Yummmm

 

i could just go with Appguard, i would still be fine, but where is the fun

That is nicely put.

when it comes to ice cream, i have no limits

 

OSArmor blocks itself.
When running, it doesn't allow to 'Open Configurator' or t 'Manage Extensions'.

I tried the following exclusions but that didn't help:
[%FILESIGNER%: NoVirusThanks Company Srl]
[%PROCESS%: C:\Program Files\NoVirusThanks\OSArmorDevSvc\*]

OS is Windows 10 ver. 1803

 

Hi there and שלום, either you made some custom block rules, or another security software is blocking it. OSA doesn't block itself.

Please note that to perform those actions you mentioned, you need admin permissions. Maybe that is the problem. Did you maybe block elevation of user-initiated processes?

 

That's weird. Which rule blocked it?

 

Does it still block when you are in the same user account that you installed it from?

 

Guys, I don't know what to say.
I wanted to copy/paste the blocking message here, but it's not blocking itself anymore.
Earlier there was a yellow blocking message on the bottom right side, but now it's OK.
Log file is attached.
Thank you!

 

The log has a lot of entries about "Rule: EnableOSArmorSelfDefense".
I don't know why that rule was triggered. I agree with you, @yaccri, it looks to me like some weird block took place. Maybe the dev can figure it out.

 

it gets triggered when you want to uninstall it too.

 

@yaccri

That error was caused probably because you had installed OSArmor v1.3 stable and then you installed over-the-top OSArmor v1.4 stable.

Just uninstall OSArmor v1.3 first, reboot the PC and then install OSArmor v1.4.

This should solve the issue you reported.

 

Any ETA on when Secure Boot will be supported?

 

It has been for quite a while now.

 

Oh okay.. then why does the first post say:

"*** Doesn't support Secure Boot for now ***"