Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #182713
| From | "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-10 |
| Subject | Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" |
| Date | 2025-03-02 06:03 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <vq1ofh$pv5p$4@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <vppvpl$35l41$1@dont-email.me> <vpq0h8$35oim$1@dont-email.me> <vpq6b3$36sd2$1@dont-email.me> <vpsd1o$3m2rg$1@dont-email.me> <w2xmp4sbt3l9$.dlg@v.nguard.lh> |
VanguardLH wrote: > John C. wrote: >> >> It's a PITA to have to deal with this until all the APPLICATIONS (GOD I >> hate the term "app") I use are allowed, so I've turned the button off >> for now. > > On Windows, they were called "programs". Later "applications" got used > which was often shortened to "app" starting around 1992 -- 10 years > before smartphones showed up, and 24 years before Microsoft's UWP apps > showed up in Win10. Huh. Didn't know it went that far back. Don't think I ever saw the term "app" used back then, but who knows. > Microsoft came out with the UWP (Universal Windows Platform) programs > which they called "apps" to differentiate them from Win32 programs > (which also includes x64 programs). Often "apps" is used to cover both > Win32 programs and UWP apps mostly because most users don't know the > difference between Win32 and UWP code nor do they want to. Then you > have "apps" on mobile platforms, like Android and iOS which are coded > differently again. > > Microsoft has a long history of using confusing and confounding product > names and terminology. > >> Still trying to decide whether or not it's worth the effort and >> frustration of adding programs to the allowed list. > > It doesn't detect malware. It is a heuristic scheme to detect unwanted > behavior only against data files due to malware, or inadvertent or > unauthorized actions by users. Just another hurdle to jump over whether > by malware, or by you standing there monitoring what gets to jump over > the hurdle. Yes, I know. This is, of course, a consideration when deciding whether or not to leave CFA enabled or not. -- John C. Take back Microsoft from India.
Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10 | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-25 05:14 -0800
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-25 13:52 +0000
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-02-25 15:23 +0000
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-25 13:35 -0500
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> - 2025-02-25 19:02 +0000
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2025-02-25 16:09 -0500
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-02-25 21:27 +0000
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-02-25 10:08 -0600
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-27 06:32 -0800
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com> - 2025-02-28 09:37 +0000
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-02-25 11:37 -0500
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-27 06:35 -0800
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-02-27 10:20 -0500
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-27 07:31 -0800
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-02-27 12:11 -0500
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-28 05:17 -0800
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-02-28 11:21 -0500
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "Allan Higdon" <allanh@vivaldi.net> - 2025-02-28 15:39 -0600
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Newyana2 <newyana@invalid.nospam> - 2025-02-28 22:29 -0500
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-02 05:59 -0800
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-02 05:55 -0800
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-02-28 11:55 -0600
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-02 06:03 -0800
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" ant@zimage.comANT (Ant) - 2025-03-03 00:46 +0000
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Hank Rogers <Hank@nospam.invalid> - 2025-03-02 19:19 -0600
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2025-02-27 16:12 +0000
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2025-02-27 14:03 -0600
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-02-25 11:57 -0700
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-02-27 06:38 -0800
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" ...w¡ñ§±¤ñ <winstonmvp@gmail.com> - 2025-02-28 10:56 -0700
Re: Dealing with Windows Security's "Ransomware protection" "John C." <r9jmg0@yahoo.com> - 2025-03-02 06:05 -0800
csiph-web