SRP , Really Safe??

Discussion in 'other anti-malware software' started by nikanthpromod, May 5, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wat0114

    wat0114 Guest

    SRP and Applocker (Win & Ultimate/Enterprise), two of the very best built-in safeguards MS has come up with.

    Absolutely, and Mrkvonic has stated similar repeatedly and never, like so many others in this forum, brings up theoretical scenarios or "this could happen if" scenarios because he knows it's a waste of time when a combination of basic security measures (which does not include piling on 3rd party apps) and common sense is all that's needed to play safe.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 8, 2010
  2. timestand

    timestand Former Poster

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Posts:
    172
    Correct. but this thread more user limited combine with SRP/Applocker. That become very power! If more understand how it work more will use. Otherwise they missing out big big. Pity. Many still rely on 63% detection. You think Prevx much better?
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1691251#post1691251
     
  3. new2security

    new2security Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    517
    Yes, you are correct. But what I find creepy is that malware writers are now beginning to pay attention to SRP, more so now that W7 implements it.
     
  4. timestand

    timestand Former Poster

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Posts:
    172
    Why you say Win 7 use it? XP use it since 2001 ok? And Win 7 got Applocker now. Applocker never been bypass. Not even by POC. Ok?
     
  5. new2security

    new2security Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    517

    Only with Vista & W7 did Microsoft mention Applocker and/or SRP as security features, which means they've got the malware writers' attention far more than SRP in XP ever did.

    W7 Professional only comes with SRP. W7 Ultimate comes with SRP and Applocker. Can we assume many enterprises go for Pro version because it's cheaper and they feel they don't need the extras (Applocker) found in Ultimate?
     
  6. doc77

    doc77 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Posts:
    55
    Microsoft mentioned SRP back in the day plenty, you can find technet article after technet article about it from 2001, 2002, etc. Mechbgon (http://www.mechbgon.com/build/security2.html) in 2009 tested SRP on a Windows 2000 machine with outdated adobe and itunes versions and deliberately tried to infect the machine and was unable to do so. SRP is very resilient, if your new2security, try setting up an old XP box with SRP and try to infect it w/o any real-time protection. Then install a-squared, mbam, and AV of choice and scan the machine and judge for yourself.

    I assume many enterprises buy the pro version because the restriction policy is administered by the server.
     
  7. timestand

    timestand Former Poster

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Posts:
    172
    You right. Short answer to question SRP, really safe? Yes it safest of all since never bypass by malware.
     
  8. new2security

    new2security Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2008
    Posts:
    517
    It's true that you could find SRP related articles in the technet database. But you really had to look for it, which you didn't have to in case of W7/vista. I never saw a boasting about SRP until Vista /W7.

    I'm not saying SRP isn't effective, my 2 cents is that we see that malware producers are trying to find ways to bypass SRP.
     
  9. timestand

    timestand Former Poster

    Joined:
    May 7, 2010
    Posts:
    172
    May be they need to try bypass Applocker now. SRP is 10 year old tech. Only way bypass it is to find exploit. Not easy and Microsoft will patch. Also combine sandboxie and you very nice protect!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.