Protect more about nomorecookies HOT 6 CLOSED

even stealers with admins are still protected against, and for killing processes i don't think this is a good idea, i think it's better to let the user decide.

from nomorecookies.

even stealers with admins are still protected against, and for killing processes i don't think this is a good idea, i think it's better to let the user decide.

why ? its better if you do a good protection like have autorisation of system just a stealer whos as admin can kill process and stoll information if you cant counter that your cookie protector is bad

from nomorecookies.

you can add fully protected browsers like password stealer ect do a complete protection

from nomorecookies.

even stealers with admins are still protected against, and for killing processes i don't think this is a good idea, i think it's better to let the user decide.

why ? its better if you do a good protection like have autorisation of system just a stealer whos as admin can kill process and stoll information if you cant counter that your cookie protector is bad

do you know how the protection even work? are you stupid? there's no "process" that is being created when the protection is enabled in the first place, i don't like being rude but you can't call a project "bad" because there's a feature that the developer don't want to add, i won't kill a process that tried to access browser files, it's better to let the user know and block it.

from nomorecookies.

even stealers with admins are still protected against, and for killing processes i don't think this is a good idea, i think it's better to let the user decide.

why ? its better if you do a good protection like have autorisation of system just a stealer whos as admin can kill process and stoll information if you cant counter that your cookie protector is bad

do you know how the protection even work? are you stupid? there's no "process" that is being created when the protection is enabled in the first place, i don't like being rude but you can't call a project "bad" because there's a feature that the developer don't want to add, i won't kill a process that tried to access browser files, it's better to let the user know and block it.

but how ?

from nomorecookies.

even stealers with admins are still protected against, and for killing processes i don't think this is a good idea, i think it's better to let the user decide.

why ? its better if you do a good protection like have autorisation of system just a stealer whos as admin can kill process and stoll information if you cant counter that your cookie protector is bad

do you know how the protection even work? are you stupid? there's no "process" that is being created when the protection is enabled in the first place, i don't like being rude but you can't call a project "bad" because there's a feature that the developer don't want to add, i won't kill a process that tried to access browser files, it's better to let the user know and block it.

but how ?

Read the source code and you will figure out how !

from nomorecookies.