MB 3.x compatibility with layered protection..

[dont_touch_my_buffer]

Hello,

I am a firm believer in layered security protection, since none of the individual protections are "fool-proof". My three PCs, W7 and W8.1 computers, currently have the following:

1. Bitdefender AntiCryptoWall
2. MS EMET
3. MBAE Premium
4. Vipre AV
5. WinPatrol
6. WoodooShield

In addition, there are group policy settings that control software, some of the policies limit opening/running files from the "Temporary" folders. And of course, other standard security practices apply as well. 

Would any of this layers present comparability issues, if the MBAE Premium upgraded to MB 3.x? 

TIA...

[exile360]

The only one I see on the list which might present any issues would be EMET, but only because our own anti-exploit protection covers everything that it does and more so the two might conflict when an exploit event occurs.  I don't believe there should be any problems with any of the others you listed.  We've also got anti-ransomware tech built into 3.0, so the Bitdefender tool might also be redundant, though I don't think it should cause any conflicts were you to leave it installed.

[dont_touch_my_buffer]

Thanks exile...

The conflict between EMET and MBAE is just couple exploit protections, like EAF, SimExecFlow and ASR. Disabling them in EMET for the browsers allows the two of them to co-exist on the same system. 

[exile360]

3 hours ago, dont_touch_my_buffer said:

Thanks exile...

The conflict between EMET and MBAE is just couple exploit protections, like EAF, SimExecFlow and ASR. Disabling them in EMET for the browsers allows the two of them to co-exist on the same system. 

Good deal, it sounds like you should be OK then as long as you manage the appropriate overlapping modules accordingly .

Edited December 19, 2016 by exile360