Avast Free Antivirus 2017 VS Windows Defender - Windows 10

[viel]

so you don't have any realtime protection or anti-exe or SRP. risky...

Avast has realtime protection..

 

[viel]

so you don't have any realtime protection or anti-exe or SRP. risky...

I do not know what anti-exe, or SRP is but all I know is Avast has Realtime protection

 

[mekelek]

Avast has realtime protection..

oh sorry thought you meant you only use those you wrote down not with Avast. that's a decent setup.

 

[RoboMan]

Requirements: At least Win10 Enterprise.

Not really, i could enable it on Pro version.

They should had just added all these settings to an advanced menu in defender, which could be activated only through GPEDIT. It would make life much easier for some of us

I agree.

 

[viel]

oh sorry thought you meant you only use those you wrote down not with Avast. that's a decent setup.

Thanks

 

[brambedkar59]

Not really, i could enable it on Pro version.

I am unable to do so on my Win 10 pro. Can you confirm that after enabling it in you can see option for "New Application Guard Window" in Edge?

 

[RoboMan]

I am unable to do so on my Win 10 pro. Can you confirm that after enabling it in you can see option for "New Application Guard Window" in Edge?View attachment 159474

Not using WD no more but i will test on VM and come back.

 

[brambedkar59]

Not using WD no more but i will test on VM and come back.

Sure buddy, whenever you are free. It's not urgent or anything.

 

[DeepWeb]

all these you mentioned aren't happening cause of AV but because your windows is in a state where you should consider reinstalling.
I do all these you mentioned, everything goes smooth, my laptop is running FSecure and had BD for a while without issues.
you're blaming the nonexistent problem on AV suite.

ps: fixed spelling..

Knowing stupid Windows that might probably play a role in this. But for now everything is working as long as I don't use a 3rd party antivirus. I still have other layers of security that I rely on.

 

[ispx]

I also use it with WD (Periodic scanning) + Hitman Pro + Malwarebytes

so you don't have any realtime protection or anti-exe or SRP. risky...

malwarebytes gives realtime protection.

 

[mekelek]

malwarebytes gives realtime protection.

if you consider it a protection then sure.

 

[ispx]

I also use it with WD (Periodic scanning) + Hitman Pro + Malwarebytes

so you don't have any realtime protection or anti-exe or SRP. risky...

malwarebytes gives realtime protection.

if you consider it a protection then sure.

@mekelek,

@viel listed 3 products he uses & you replied that none of them have realtime protection.

you overlooked the fact that malwarebytes offers realtime protection & hence i corrected you.

how good malwarebytes is, is a different topic altogether.

 

[mekelek]

@mekelek,

@viel listed 3 products he uses & you replied that none of them have realtime protection.

you overlooked the fact that malwarebytes offers realtime protection & hence i corrected you.

how good malwarebytes is, is a different topic altogether.

i overlooked the fact he meant + Avast, overlooking MBA's realtime protection wasn't the biggest thing.
i know why you corrected me

 

[Glashouse]

following the thread I was also on the wrong page regarding realtime protection, perhaps we should read more carefully

 

[ispx]

@mekelek,

if you are a heavy duty torrent user you would probably see the malwarebytes premium real time web protection feature in action.

torrents reach out to various ip addresses while downloading, malwarebytes blocks all malicious ips the torrent tries to connect to.

this might be a tiny little feature for you but for me it is big as it prevents unauthorized background access to my computer via torrents.

 

[mekelek]

@mekelek,

if you are a heavy duty torrent user you would probably see the malwarebytes premium real time web protection feature in action.

torrents reach out to various ip addresses while downloading, malwarebytes blocks all malicious ips the torrent tries to connect to.

this might be a tiny little feature for you but for me it is big as it prevents unauthorized background access to my computer via torrents.

this is handled by any AV suite's Firewall too.

 

[ispx]

this is handled by any AV suite's Firewall too.

try it. try it with torrents. nothing beats malwarebytes when it comes to blocking malicious websites accessed via torrents.

before you joined malwarebytes the malwarehub had malicious url samples too & malwarebytes was top notch at that.

no offense but if you are not in to the torrent business in a serious way you would have no clue of what it is like.

 

[brambedkar59]

torrents reach out to various ip addresses while downloading, malwarebytes blocks all malicious ips the torrent tries to connect to.

Malwarebytes have pretty good url blocker but, how is that useful while torrent downloading? Only thing it does is throttle the speed every time it blocks a IP. It does not identify the torrent as safe or malicious in any way.
Edit: PS I am not talking about after the torrent has been downloaded but during the download process. Cause after download it can be scanned by any AV.

 

[ispx]

Malwarebytes have pretty good url blocker but, how is that useful while torrent downloading? Only thing it does is throttle the speed every time it blocks a IP. It does not identify the torrent as safe or malicious in any way.
Edit: PS I am not talking about after the torrent has been downloaded but during the download process. Cause after download it can be scanned by any AV.

every torrent you start reaches out to various ips while the download is going on.

some of these ips are malicious / unsafe for various reasons, be it phishing / downloading of malware etc.

these blacklisted ips are the ones blocked by malwarebytes which ensures your torrent is pure p2p, which is of course safe.

no, this does not throttle your download speed as malwarebytes is only blocking the malicious ips & not your download.

the torrent is squeaky clean so why will malwarebytes flag it as unsafe? it is the ips that the torrent reaches out to that are unsafe.

 

[brambedkar59]

every torrent you start reaches out to various ips while the download is going on.

some of these ips are malicious / unsafe for various reasons, be it phishing / downloading of malware etc.

these blacklisted ips are the ones blocked by malwarebytes which ensures your torrent is pure p2p, which is of course safe.

no, this does not throttle your download speed as malwarebytes is only blocking the malicious ips & not your download.

the torrent is squeaky clean so why will malwarebytes flag it as unsafe? it is the ips that the torrent reaches out to that are unsafe.

I found this article here.

Another issue that raised its head during our tests is the seemingly random IP addresses MalwareBytes blocks while connecting to certain torrent swarms. On numerous occasions the software flags IP addresses as malicious and denies connections to them. Intrigued, we asked MalwareBytes for an explanation.

“Our main goal is to protect our users from malicious hosts that could either be servers participating in drive-by downloads or even home computers spewing spam,” Jérôme Segura, Senior security researcher at MalwareBytes, told TF.

“So the block of only certain IPs within that pool is simply that. We are blocking the ones that we have identified for malicious activity, which also happen to be torrenting.”

The blocking of these IP addresses raises an interesting dilemma. Due to their connections to suspicious activity elsewhere, MalwareBytes considers them malicious and excludes them. However, it’s worth noting that despite their potential bad deeds elsewhere, peers in a torrent swarm go through a kind of vetting process based on the hash content of the material they’re carrying.

Put simply, while they possibly cause mischief elsewhere, these peers can’t do any real harm to the swarm. Blocking them won’t cause any really serious problems either (unless they’re the only seeder) but since they don’t need to be blocked we asked MalwareBytes about their policy.

“You bring up a very valid comment and something that many people might wonder about. I will pass this information along to see how we can manage this in a better way,” Jérôme Segura notes.

In conclusion, both scenarios (site and peer blocking) are caused by the blocking of IP addresses either directly or loosely connected to malicious activity elsewhere. MalwareBytes users will have to use their discretion when deciding whether to block or allow those connections in future.

This isn't really a deal breaker for me but I find it interesting that they are doing something which doesn't really do anything to improve the security of the end user.