Protection level

shadow defender vs vir. machines, which provides better security for a host system?

 

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?

 

Shadow defender

You can commit files with it as well.

 

shadow defender

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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?

 

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