• Controlled Folder Access - Just by process name, or include hash?

    From VanguardLH@3:633/10 to All on Sun Apr 26 19:55:19 2026
    Trying to find out how Controlled File Access (CFA) works in Windows has
    been, well, exasperating. Seems hiding is how the feature itself is
    protected.

    You can whitelist (exclude) apps which grants them access to a protected folder. But is just the process name used to decide if a process is
    granted access, or is a hash of the process (memory image) recorded for
    the exclusion to ensure THAT process is whitelisted? Any program can
    use any name, so a good program with a name could be usurped by a
    malicious program by using the same name. Filtering based solely on
    process name is weak protection.

    Does CFA also record a hash of the memory image of a process to ensure
    only that particular process gets whitelisted? A process name and hash together are far superior in identifying which programs are granted
    access to a protected folder. Process name alone is very weak. If you
    allowed notepad.exe access to a protected folder, and process name alone
    were used for whitelisting, then malware named notepad.exe would also be granted access to the protected folder. However, a hash on the good notepad.exe process would differ from the hash on a malicious
    notepad.exe process, and would also include ADS (Alternate Data Streams) attached to a file if the hash were on the memory copy of the process
    (nothing runs unless loaded into memory from where it executes).

    First scenario: Checks against process name only in the whitelist
    filter. This is the type of filtering you find in firewalls.

    Second scenario: Check against process name and its source path in the
    file system in the whitelist filter. I've used SRPs (Software
    Restriction Policies), after adding Block as an available action, in the
    past with a Path rule to ensure a program only in a specific path was
    granted access or blocked. That won't protect against malware that
    replaces the targeted program file.

    Third scenario: Checks against process name, and a hash generated and
    recorded on the memory image of the process in the whitelist filter.
    Alas, after an update to a program, its files may change which encumbers
    the user with prompts to grant access to the differently-hashed process.

    The first scenario is easily bypassed by malware. A program can be
    named anything, including the name of a good program. The second
    scenario is better, but doesn't protect from malware supplanting the
    good program files. The third scenario is much better, but a nuisance
    after updates to a program. Trying to find how CFA actually works has
    been despairing.

    No, I'm not interested in "Windows sucks", alternate anti-ransomware
    solutions, or other off-topic discussions. Only in how CFA records a whitelisted process to grant access to protected folders. I've found
    many other security products that whitelist by process or file name, but
    they don't record a hash to ensure ONLY that copy of a file gets access.
    Maybe CFA is just as weak as those other anti-malware/ransomeware
    products.

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From Paul@3:633/10 to All on Mon Apr 27 01:57:37 2026
    On Sun, 4/26/2026 8:55 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
    Trying to find out how Controlled File Access (CFA) works in Windows has been, well, exasperating. Seems hiding is how the feature itself is protected.

    You can whitelist (exclude) apps which grants them access to a protected folder. But is just the process name used to decide if a process is
    granted access, or is a hash of the process (memory image) recorded for
    the exclusion to ensure THAT process is whitelisted? Any program can
    use any name, so a good program with a name could be usurped by a
    malicious program by using the same name. Filtering based solely on
    process name is weak protection.

    Does CFA also record a hash of the memory image of a process to ensure
    only that particular process gets whitelisted? A process name and hash together are far superior in identifying which programs are granted
    access to a protected folder. Process name alone is very weak. If you allowed notepad.exe access to a protected folder, and process name alone
    were used for whitelisting, then malware named notepad.exe would also be granted access to the protected folder. However, a hash on the good notepad.exe process would differ from the hash on a malicious
    notepad.exe process, and would also include ADS (Alternate Data Streams) attached to a file if the hash were on the memory copy of the process (nothing runs unless loaded into memory from where it executes).

    First scenario: Checks against process name only in the whitelist
    filter. This is the type of filtering you find in firewalls.

    Second scenario: Check against process name and its source path in the
    file system in the whitelist filter. I've used SRPs (Software
    Restriction Policies), after adding Block as an available action, in the
    past with a Path rule to ensure a program only in a specific path was
    granted access or blocked. That won't protect against malware that
    replaces the targeted program file.

    Third scenario: Checks against process name, and a hash generated and recorded on the memory image of the process in the whitelist filter.
    Alas, after an update to a program, its files may change which encumbers
    the user with prompts to grant access to the differently-hashed process.

    The first scenario is easily bypassed by malware. A program can be
    named anything, including the name of a good program. The second
    scenario is better, but doesn't protect from malware supplanting the
    good program files. The third scenario is much better, but a nuisance
    after updates to a program. Trying to find how CFA actually works has
    been despairing.

    No, I'm not interested in "Windows sucks", alternate anti-ransomware solutions, or other off-topic discussions. Only in how CFA records a whitelisted process to grant access to protected folders. I've found
    many other security products that whitelist by process or file name, but
    they don't record a hash to ensure ONLY that copy of a file gets access. Maybe CFA is just as weak as those other anti-malware/ransomeware
    products.


    Susan seems to share your concerns on implementation, and recommends running
    it in Audit Mode to see if you'll be happy "playing second fiddle to a machine" :-)

    If you use Reliability Monitor, you can see that every day there is background activity where you are not in the loop (which is fine when you don't need
    to be in that loop). The worst case then, is every application
    you go to use, causes "friction" and "generated Events".

    https://www.computerworld.com/article/1612084/windows-controlled-folder-access-think-twice-before-deploying.html

    by Susan Bradley Contributing Writer

    "Next, look in the event log for the following events:

    5007 Event when settings are changed

    1124 Audited controlled folder access event

    1123 Blocked controlled folder access event

    Often, there is a balance between the risks of attacks and the impact of security systems
    on computers. Take the time to evaluate the balance and whether this has an acceptable
    overhead for your needs.
    "

    I've been using Google for the last couple days, without seeing any
    AI summary at the top of the page. I typed in

    Controlled Folder Access

    into Google and I "got an article" written for me. It had an unusual number
    of cites at the bottom :-) It's usual with a Harmony-type response to get
    3 cites or 5 cites, this one has 16 cites like it was a Wikipedia article.
    This would be great if this was my homework assignment or I was a lawyer
    hoping to get on the bad side of the judge.

    ********************* Google (Gemma?) top-of-page-article **********************

    AI Overview

    Controlled folder access is a Microsoft Defender Antivirus feature in Windows 10/11
    and Server 2019+ that protects files from ransomware by allowing only authorized
    applications to modify files in designated folders. It prevents unauthorized changes
    to key directories, such as Documents, Pictures, and Desktop, by checking apps against a list of trusted applications.

    How it Works

    Protection mechanism: It scans apps for malicious activity and blocks unauthorized or
    untrusted apps from modifying or deleting files in protected folders.

    Default Folders: It commonly covers personal user folders (Documents, Pictures, Movies, Desktop).

    Notifications: Users receive notifications when an application is blocked.

    This video shows how to enable and configure Controlled Folder Access: [??? link not inline]

    How to Enable/Configure (via Windows Security)

    1. Open Windows Security and go to Virus & threat protection.

    2. Select Manage ransomware protection.

    3. Toggle Controlled folder access to On.

    4. Use Protected folders to add more directories.

    5. Use Allow an app through Controlled folder access to permit blocked applications.

    Important Considerations

    False Positives: Legitimate apps may be blocked, causing functionality issues
    (e.g., game saves, software updates).

    Audit Mode: It is recommended to run this feature in audit mode first to evaluate
    its impact on productivity before fully enabling it.

    Administration: It can be managed via Group Policy, Microsoft Endpoint Configuration Manager, or Intune.

    It is highly effective for security but requires manual management to
    whitelist legitimate apps that are incorrectly flagged.

    Cites [16 of them!]:

    https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-endpoint/enable-controlled-folders

    https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-endpoint/controlled-folders

    https://www.reddit.com/r/Windows11/comments/vfq5n2/controlled_folder_access/

    https://www.ninjaone.com/blog/enable-or-disable-controlled-folder-access-in-windows-11/

    https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/virus-and-threat-protection-in-the-windows-security-app-1362f4cd-d71a-b52a-0b66-c2820032b65e

    https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-endpoint/customize-controlled-folders

    https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EGcGuO91Fb0

    [I clicked the following article]
    https://www.computerworld.com/article/1612084/windows-controlled-folder-access-think-twice-before-deploying.html

    https://support.huntress.io/hc/en-us/articles/4412934492691-Controlled-Folder-Access-for-Windows

    https://www.xda-developers.com/controlled-folder-access-windows-11-increased-data-security/

    https://support.google.com/drive/answer/14254362%3Fhl%3Den%26co%3DGENIE.Platform%253DAndroid

    https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DEoahEIR2gCM

    https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/answers/questions/445477/how-to-give-a-user-full-control-of-all-files-in-a

    https://www.reddit.com/r/windows/comments/mr1g3n/useless_controlled_folder_access_warnings_that_do/

    https://docs.seqrite.com/docs/seqrite-endpoint-protection-8-3-control-center/configurations/application-control-policy/

    https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/defender-endpoint/evaluate-controlled-folder-access

    ********************* End: Google (Gemma?) top-of-page-article **********************

    Paul





    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)
  • From VanguardLH@3:633/10 to All on Mon Apr 27 05:54:08 2026
    Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> wrote:

    Susan seems to share your concerns on implementation, and recommends running it in Audit Mode to see if you'll be happy "playing second fiddle to a machine" :-)
    ... https://www.computerworld.com/article/1612084/windows-controlled-folder-access-think-twice-before-deploying.html

    "programs I had previously given access approval to were causing
    problems again. Because the program updated, and Controlled Folder
    Access couldn?t understand that"

    That hints that a hash of the memory copy of a process is recorded in
    the whitelist; else, if just using the process name, ANY program could
    be granted access since any program executable can have any filename.
    Susan does not explicity state a hash is recorded in the whitelist rule, because Microsoft doesn't divulge how CFA works. Because it's a secret
    just must make it secure. Uh huh. Security by secret isn't security.

    I've been using Google for the last couple days, without seeing any
    AI summary at the top of the page. I typed in

    Controlled Folder Access

    I snipped the AI ... stuff. In the past, we called them decision trees attached to databases of canned responses. "AI" is a marketing term.
    AI sucks. Now tech support is using AI, so you're stuck with a
    worthless bot asking irrelevant questions running you around in loops
    just to eliminate paying real people with real expertise to man their
    Customer Service department.

    --- PyGate Linux v1.5.14
    * Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)