Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ForgottenSeer 98186" data-source="post: 1032814">The main advocates of sticking to Microsoft Defender is Google&#039;s Project Zero - particularly Tavis Ormandy. That team has found throughout their vulnerability research that Microsoft&#039;s developers mostly get it right when coding Defender.Certain aspects of Defender are developed and maintained by subcontractors and\or sub-divisions not located in the USA. For example, Eastern Europe, Turkey and India.The answer to the question &quot;What is best AV?&quot; is dependent upon what type of malware or exploit a user gets smacked with. At the end of the day, all the AV lab and Youtube test results do not matter. These all provide speculative results. The only thing that matters is how an AV handles any attack or infection that the user experiences personally.As far as integration into Windows OS, it is correct that Microsoft does it better than any 3rd party AV. Does that translate into better protections? Perhaps in some corner cases that none of us are likely to encounter. Therefore, does it really matter?Hardened Microsoft Defender and hardening the OS provide better overall protection with the caveat that the user has a certain level of understanding and ability to manage their own security.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ForgottenSeer 98186, post: 1032814"] The main advocates of sticking to Microsoft Defender is Google's Project Zero - particularly Tavis Ormandy. That team has found throughout their vulnerability research that Microsoft's developers mostly get it right when coding Defender. Certain aspects of Defender are developed and maintained by subcontractors and\or sub-divisions not located in the USA. For example, Eastern Europe, Turkey and India. The answer to the question "What is best AV?" is dependent upon what type of malware or exploit a user gets smacked with. At the end of the day, all the AV lab and Youtube test results do not matter. These all provide speculative results. The only thing that matters is how an AV handles any attack or infection that the user experiences personally. As far as integration into Windows OS, it is correct that Microsoft does it better than any 3rd party AV. Does that translate into better protections? Perhaps in some corner cases that none of us are likely to encounter. Therefore, does it really matter? Hardened Microsoft Defender and hardening the OS provide better overall protection with the caveat that the user has a certain level of understanding and ability to manage their own security. [/QUOTE]

Verification