Advice Request Anyone Test WD + Hard_Configurator?

[Local Host]

If you don't like WD, you don't have to use it.
Compared to the invasive way that the top AVs rip through your system, and the issues and bugs that often result, WD's sins are relatively minor in comparison. Especially since it usually does well even at default settings in recent commercial AV testing.

Has nothing to do with likes or dislikes, is what makes people wrong in the first place. Shouldn't get emotionally involved when trying to educate others, since you didn't come up with an answer to my replies we can assume I was right.

So I'm leaving this topic now.

 

[shmu26]

Has nothing to do with likes or dislikes, is what makes people wrong in the first place. Shouldn't get emotionally involved when trying to educate others, since you didn't come up with an answer to my replies we can assume I was right.

So I'm leaving this topic now.

It's always nice to feel "right." But when it comes to choosing a security configuration, the "right" one is the config that serves your needs best. Ultimately, it is the user's choice. Many expert users choose WD, because it serves their needs best.

 

[Andy Ful]

BB and HIPS don't leave the files around, after detection the AV will rollback the changes and quarantine the file (if it's something proper like Kaspersky).
...

Yes, but the crucial thing is that the file must be detected by Kaspersky as malicious. In many cases, the Machine Learning behavior models will do not give such detection. The file will be treated as unsafe and run restricted. It will not be quarantined. The same behavior can be seen in WD and most modern AVs.

 

[Andy Ful]

...
Default-Deny is not for Average Users, and WD can't protect Average Users without Default-Deny so it enters the Paradox.
...

It is true that the average user can be better protected by Kaspersky on default settings than by Defender on Default settings. But it is also true that when we consider system instabilities, the same user is better protected against Defender than against Kaspersky. That is the known fact that sometimes the advanced AV can be more dangerous for the user's computer than the malware. Furthermore, the advanced 3rd party AV features, sometimes do not work as intended after the major updates or system upgrades, and the user even does not know it.
We can recommend WD on Windows 10 to the average user (as an alternative to 3rd party AVs), when you take under the consideration both factors: malware protection + possible problems introduced by the AV.
It does not mean that we recommend not using Kaspersky or another decent AV.

Personally, I think that it may be more efficient to stick with WD and learn something about Windows OS to be more secure, than learning how to properly configure several AVs and repair the system when some incompatibilities make it unstable and Windows Updates are broken. But, this is my personal view, based on my experience. Many users post on MT that they are happy with 3rd party AVs.

 

[oldschool]

I should have known (maybe?) that a simple question would create a virtual firestorm. I asked this in part because I figured that such tests would probably exist nowhere else but in a forum such as this. Thanks for all the responses to the original question. All of the discussion helps to further the education of the less experienced user.

 

[bribon77]

Well, I'm not as expert as all of you, but I think. With a default deny configuration, you do not need Av. If I find a good Firewall configuration necessary. Maybe I'm wrong, but my experience says no.

 

[Andy Ful]

I should have known (maybe?) that a simple question would create a virtual firestorm. I asked this in part because I figured that such tests would probably exist nowhere else but in a forum such as this. Thanks for all the responses to the original question. All of the discussion helps to further the education of the less experienced user.

The discussions on WD are always stormy. That is because most advanced AVs have better signature detection at default settings. The WD post-detection protection is hard to test. Also, some decent AVs (like Kaspersky) offer some features available on WD only in the paid versions with ATP. It is also evident that most AVs are more configurable, have more convenient GUIs, etc. The side that criticises WD does not value its stability pros on Windows 10. Furthermore, most critics do not believe in the good WD scoring (for the last year) on several Lab AV tests, especially in the real-world tests.

 

[Andy Ful]

Well, I'm not as expert as all of you, but I think. With a default deny configuration, you do not need Av. If I find a good Firewall configuration necessary. Maybe I'm wrong, but my experience says no.

I have a brother who still uses Windows XP with Eset, and his computer was never infected.
Recently I have seen the computer with XP, outdated Firefox, and Avast free (default settings) - it was infected only by one adware.
Default-deny setup without AV is still OK, but it is hard to prove that it can be stronger than the setup with a good free AV. Furthermore, with the classic default-deny setup, the user has to find the safe way of installing the new applications. Some sophisticated malware samples introduced via weaponized documents, can bypass any default-deny setup and they can be still dangerous after many weeks in the no AV setup. They are not dangerous with any good AV after a week.
Anyway, you are not an inexperienced user, so you can probably use no-AV default-deny setup.

 

[Moonhorse]

Using windows defender + comodo firewall

Will this break anything, since october update is around corner

Late edit: mistyped comodo antivirus when i meant firewall *

 

[Andy Ful]

Using windows defender + comodo antivirus

Will this break anything, since october update is around corner

No, if you are an optimist.
Yes, if you are the pessimist.:emoji_disappointed:
Unfortunately, you will have the same problem before any major Windows update.:emoji_pray:
You cannot be sure the answer, even when someone tested Comodo AV on the upcoming Windows version. For example, Comodo Firewall broke my Windows 10 while many users could use it on their machines.

 

[shmu26]

Microsoft says that in the October update, are going to enable Memory integrity by default. This is a major problem for some security softwares. Comodo at present won't work with Memory integrity. Maybe Comodo is working on a fix, but don't count on it coming in time. You might need to turn off Memory integrity in October to make your favorite security soft work.

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

Has nothing to do with likes or dislikes, is what makes people wrong in the first place. Shouldn't get emotionally involved when trying to educate others, since you didn't come up with an answer to my replies we can assume I was right.

So I'm leaving this topic now.

I can understand you very well.
An antivirus is like a religion. You believe that it protects you and yours is the most holy and the best. The feeling that you're getting with a antivirus is more important than arguing.

 

[509322]

You guys know about all kinds of curve-ball malware exploits and worst-case scenarios. Science-fiction come true, like Powershell Empire and the like.
But in real life, if a home user has a decent default/deny setup, properly configured and in good working order, with patched OS and software, well, he is not going to get infected, unless he shoots himself in the foot.

The thing on the forums is that there is a lot of paranoia that things are happening behind the scenes... people think that they are being infected or hacked in hidden, unknown ways.

It just ain't true. It is psychological. A lot of people bring their paranoia to security on the basis that they do not know. "I don't know so I will build a mutli-layered impenetrable fortress by seeking out the best AVs\security softs and I will do everything in a paranoid manner." That is what we see a lot of on the forums. Like I said, it is all psychological and doesn't really have anything to do with reality.

The level of paranoia on the forums is astonishing and the general level of understanding is astonishingly low. The correlation makes sense. However, fretting about the advanced attacks and all the "What ifs" is a waste of mental and emotional effort.

Security softs\models are one thing, and one thing only... and that is an insurance policy that can not provide, and does not guarantee 100 % coverage.

 

[Andy Ful]

I can confirm the @Lockdown view. I had such a slight paranoia until I learned a lot about how Windows works and how it can be attacked.
I had the similar feeling when watching the classic film Alien directed by Ridley Scott. There was only one unknown alien creature and it was not shown (as grown-up) until the end of the film. That was truly horrible. The Alien sequels, were not as horrible with several creatures, because I knew them already.

What did you think about the unknown danger that could kill about one million people in the world per one year for a long time? That would be also truly horrible. Yet, when we know already that this danger is related to the traffic accidents, the fear disappears.

So, let's learn something about computer security, on MT.

 

[shmu26]

I can confirm the @Lockdown view. I had such a slight paranoia until I learned a lot about how Windows works and how it can be attacked.
I had the similar feeling when watching the classic film Alien directed by Ridley Scott. There was only one unknown alien creature and it was not shown (as grown-up) until the end of the film. That was truly horrible. The Alien sequels, were not as horrible with several creatures, because I knew them already.

What did you think about the unknown danger that could kill about one million people in the world per one year for a long time? That would be also truly horrible. Yet, when we know already that this danger is related to the traffic accidents, the fear disappears.

So, let's learn something about computer security, on MT.

So that about sums it up. Security paranoia is like watching a horror movie and thinking it's real life.

 

[509322]

Security paranoia is like watching a horror movie and thinking it's real life.

That's pretty good. A very apt way of putting it.

Lack of knowledge leads to fear, and fear leads to the Dark Side. Or better... fear of the unknown makes people do all sorts of irrational things - and they don't even know or realize that what they are doing is irrational - which goes back to lack of knowledge.

 

[bribon77]

The AV industry. They put fear in your body. But actually. How many times have we been really infected? It's not that what they say is not true, but in the real world, unless you're a person at risk (that is, a newbie) that clicks on everything you see. If you have a high percentage of infection ... But a person who has good browsing habits. and knows where the minimum risk is goes.
But you must not lower your guard.

 

[509322]

I'm not even talking 0-days nor unknown malware, WD signatures and cloud are a joke even against known malware compared to the competition. Hence why people rely on Default-Deny with it.

Default-Deny is not for Average Users, and WD can't protect Average Users without Default-Deny so it enters the Paradox. An Experienced User doesn't need an AV, so VoodooShield alone would be enough as Default-Deny without the resource heavy WD in the background.

So it enters my logic that WD shouldn't the recommended even with Custom Settings. It's your choice either way, I'm not here to tell others what to use and do in their own machines, just avoid recommending WD to average users.

Anyone can handle default deny. This is not difficult. It is a matter of education.

The dichotomy is between those who are inclined and initiated to learn and those that are not. The second group comprises the vast majority of Average Joes that don't want to do a single thing other than install a security soft - if that.

Everyone's capabilities, interests, priorities and willingness are different. And there are enough security softs out there to meet just about everyone's needs.

 

[509322]

The AV industry. They put fear in your body. But actually. How many times have we been really infected? It's not that what they say is not true, but in the real world, unless you're a person at risk (that is, a newbie) that clicks on everything you see. If you have a high percentage of infection ... But a person who has good browsing habits. and knows where the minimum risk is goes.
But you must not lower your guard.

It isn't the AV industry. It is the IT security news that reports things in a manner that results in most everything being blown way out of proportion to reality. More often than not, it is someone from the AV industry who has to provide the perspective to people so that they stop freaking out about what they read in the most recent IT security news terror click-bait. I don't think half the people who report as part of IT security news even realize all the negative consequences of their indiscriminate and inaccurate-by-omission mal-reporting.

 

[Local Host]

The discussions on WD are always stormy. That is because most advanced AVs have better signature detection at default settings. The WD post-detection protection is hard to test. Also, some decent AVs (like Kaspersky) offer some features available on WD only in the paid versions with ATP. It is also evident that most AVs are more configurable, have more convenient GUIs, etc. The side that criticises WD does not value its stability pros on Windows 10. Furthermore, most critics do not believe in the good WD scoring (for the last year) on several Lab AV tests, especially in the real-world tests.

It was not my intention to cause discomfort and/or conflict, I was just trying to pinpoint WD weaknesses while sharing my opinion, that WD shouldn't be recommended for average users.

It is more than fine for advanced users, and I would use it myself if wasn't for the performance issues and bugs (it gets in the way of my work a lot, as a programmer).

As I said before, most of us at MT don't even need an AV Program.