Protection level

Discussion in 'sandboxing & virtualization' started by Serapis, Jun 4, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Serapis

    Serapis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Posts:
    241
    shadow defender vs vir. machines, which provides better security for a host system?
     
  2. Serapis

    Serapis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Posts:
    241
    ok lets rephrase that... what I basically need is a secure clean host system where I can save changed or downloaded (clean) files docs etc. I have no need to test diff OS'es. My question here is which is more practical and best security wise against malware?
     
  3. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,293
    Shadow defender :thumb:

    You can commit files with it as well.
     
  4. vizard

    vizard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Posts:
    9
    shadow defender :thumb: :thumb:
     
  5. timestand

    timestand Former Poster

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Posts:
    172
    I like shadow defender also but it not more safe to test malware. virtual machine probably safer. Ok? Or best still use both when test malware.
     
  6. Sully

    Sully Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2005
    Posts:
    3,719
    Why would you say this? Unless you make exceptions that compromise the stability of SD, how do you expect it to be any less safe than a vm?

    Sul.
     
  7. Serapis

    Serapis Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2009
    Posts:
    241
    I have read somewhere, that moving files between the virtual environment to the host (via folder sharing) could leave an exploitable hole tht could compromise the underlying system -- it seems to be the only feature thts heavily exploited in VMs, requiring to be patched all the time. Meanwhile I like the user-specified rtclick/per file basis in which u move a file from shadow session to real OS -- leaving no permanent holes that malware could exploit
     
  8. timestand

    timestand Former Poster

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Posts:
    172
    Only say since SD been bypass before. VM no bypass. but yes VM can be bypass if you let things go through to host system. But just dont do this by default. Simple ok? And why no use both?
     
  9. ratwing

    ratwing Guest

    No reason not too I guess,if you want to.
    I did for awhile,with no problems.

    I ran VirtualBox with ShadowDefender and Sandboxiie on my default Virtual
    box snapshot.
    It was all light enough I could get by with it.

    But I just decided I really did not do anything requiring that level of security/redundancy.

    I guess it is the equivalent of a level 4 bio-containment room.



    Great if you mess with Ebola,but really not needed day to day.

    IMO

    rat
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.