- Nov 15, 2016
- 867
I agree that WD is ONE of the better behaved AV's. Since the creators update. Never looked pass WD.
- Status
- May 26, 2014
- 1,339
Yes, every software has flaws, but what is important is how the team deal with it and how its flaws impact other programs. (second picture)
Remember DoubleAgent?
New Attack Uses Microsoft's Application Verifier to Hijack Antivirus Software
Windows Defender is using "Protected Processes" so it was immune to this kind of attack.
- May 22, 2017
- 251
A little food for thought... How many native windows security Beta testers do you know? Now apply the same question to all 3rd party security suites and standalone AV's... then ask yourself why that may be.
Answer: 3rd party applications Beta test so frequently because of compatibility issues and bugs.
So it is quite fair to state that WD is more compatible and by far has less issues.
- Aug 17, 2013
- 1,905
Every single Windows 10 user is a beta tester for WD wether they like it or not. So to answer your Question WD has Millions of beta testers far more than any other AV. Even if someone is using a 3rd party AV Windows Defender is never fully turned off unless the user uses group policy to turn it off. So WD has millions of beta testers. Other vendors can only dream of that much exposure.
MS are known for not patching known critical vulnerabilities that leave every user open to attack. We are all Windows security beta testers for as long as we use Windows.
- Aug 17, 2013
- 1,905
MS have been known to leave vulnerabilities that can be exploited for years. But this isn't the blame game. I strongly disagree that Windows defender causes less problems than other security software, and that's the thing here it isn't just 3rd party AC's it's all 3rd party security solutions that can cause problems if we go by the Google engineers logic and that includes all our favourite default deny software, Sandbox software, the lot. And as strong as Windows 10 is and no matter how careful the user Windows just isn't strong enough alone for average users.Yes, every software has flaws, but what is important is how the team deal with it and how its flaws impact other programs. (second picture)
Remember DoubleAgent?
New Attack Uses Microsoft's Application Verifier to Hijack Antivirus Software
Windows Defender is using "Protected Processes" so it was immune to this kind of attack.
- Aug 17, 2013
- 1,905
And, of course Windows defender is more compatible it's built by and integrated by the same people who make the OS. They have far more knowledge about the OS than 3rd party vendors and yet 3rd party vendors still protect much better than Windows defender alone.
- Sep 28, 2015
- 543
It's like the babysitter who lets the kids do whatever the hell they want, of course they're gonna love her. 
All Microsoft has done for me so far is lessen security through futile attempts at increasing it.
That UAC? Takes about 5 mins until I'm sick and tired of that program I use on a regular basis asking me if I really want to start it every single time. So it's off.
In Outlook, one day I noticed you can't even download .exe files. I noticed when my developer sent me a new version of a program and I couldn't get the friggin thing out of my inbox. It was "not permitted". Took me half an hour to find a fix for that. Now I can receive all .exes. Had it reminded me with a mere general warning about executables, I'd have left it on.
There are probably a 1.000 ways to implement warnings and (bypassable!) restrictions in a reasonable manner, yet this is what they wound up with.
Since I expect them to employ just as much sense to any other solutions they cook up, I'll gladly stay away from their beautiful Defender and use a viable and strong alternative. Thanks, but no, thanks.
All Microsoft has done for me so far is lessen security through futile attempts at increasing it.
That UAC? Takes about 5 mins until I'm sick and tired of that program I use on a regular basis asking me if I really want to start it every single time. So it's off.
In Outlook, one day I noticed you can't even download .exe files. I noticed when my developer sent me a new version of a program and I couldn't get the friggin thing out of my inbox. It was "not permitted". Took me half an hour to find a fix for that. Now I can receive all .exes. Had it reminded me with a mere general warning about executables, I'd have left it on.
There are probably a 1.000 ways to implement warnings and (bypassable!) restrictions in a reasonable manner, yet this is what they wound up with.
Since I expect them to employ just as much sense to any other solutions they cook up, I'll gladly stay away from their beautiful Defender and use a viable and strong alternative. Thanks, but no, thanks.
because you don't understand UAC purpose. so let me tell you :
- UAC is an elevation blocker, not a security feature, it was made to prohibit unwanted elevation (aka a process asking for admin rights) and access to others user accounts. It was never made to stop malware; however because most malware needs elevation to do their nasty stuff, UAC become indirectly and mistakenly considered a security feature via the consequences of its behavior, then noobs believed and spread the fairy tales that UAC was made to block malware...
If a malware don't need elevation , UAC won't react at all.
If you get a UAC alerts , it means:
- the program you are using is needing higher rights, and normally only system tools needs those rights. if it is not one, it means the program is badly coded and ask for something it shouldn't get.
- you are doing admin tasks, using windows built-in tools, normally you shouldn't do tasks all day long. I have 1 alert a day , because i run Ccleaner or Process Hacker elevated.
- a malware ask for elevation. It shouldn't happen in the first place.
- you try to access or modify system areas or files, you shouldn't do this all day long too.
For this blames malware writers that used to spread malware via Outlook, blame the file that was not signed... don't blame MS that properly protected you and all the Average Joes.
Indeed, that is your choice; but don't blame MS because their "solution" doesn't fit your needs. since Win Def + Smartscreen are built-in system wide in Win8/10 , my customers rate of infection are drastically reduced (because of that i almost stop this job) and since now that MS will built-in EMET on the next Windows version, the attack vectors will be significantly reduced again.Since I expect them to employ just as much sense to any other solutions they cook up, I'll gladly stay away from their beautiful Defender and use a viable and strong alternative. Thanks, but no, thanks.
as Spock said once : "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"
Last edited by a moderator:
- Sep 28, 2015
- 543
You don't understand what a nuisance it. So let me tell you: When I install one of the many POS applications I offer on my clients' terminals, I will constantly be asked about allowing their start. Not only is that impractical, it's disruptive. This app will be startet upon each start of the terminal and why there is no simple check mark to not further notify regarding that particular application is beyond me.
I'm an average Joe as well and when I receive an executable from a known address of a known person that reaches me upon specific request I expect an option to allow it.
I blame Microsoft for dumbing down a perfectly fine product and reaching the opposite of their intention. I will not be locked up because some humans have been known to commit crimes. That's not the way it works.
You may be a proponent of making the world dumber because of dumb people, I'm not. This strategy only serves to make people even more ignorant to security because Windows "takes care of it all", while all it does is put them in a cage.
why a POS need elevation? why it need to modify the system? This is exactly what i explained above... this application is just badly coded. Blame the dev to be unable to make it run without elevation...
This will not solve your issue , but don't use emails for that , you have platforms for developers that made sharing files easier. (like slack.com)
im sorry but you have no idea of what you talking about (in term of security ), Win10 is 100 times safer that any previous version.
in the actual cyberspace, security is first priority , usability comes after.
Be realist, which Average Joe has the time and the dedication to learn security mechanisms in computer, they have more real issues to solve than that.
Average Joe just want surf in peace knowing that they are protected without needing to read a 20 pages obscure manual. And win10 is perfect for that.
So instead of complaining about your small easily solvable issues, think about people that couldn't and are now safer because MS took the right direction.
You can't ask an average citizen to become a skilled police officer just to protect himself . Police officers are paid to protect them.
Last edited by a moderator:
- May 22, 2017
- 251
This, while clever on your part is not entirely accurate. Windows defender is used by millions because it is stable enough to do so. Beta testing is generally not allowed to open public and mostly seen in closed "by invite" forums, and for good reason. Another thing to consider is all applications will have bugs and need fixes as time and technology evolve. This said, why would you want to add insult to injury by placing another application on that will result in widening your attack surface from additional bugs and incompatibilities.
As for staying on topic, most 3rd party suites utilize toolbars, extensions, and scan https. Because of stability and compatibility issues, this actually does not strengthen your security but can lead to widening your attack surface as well.
The solution for average users is not to keep pilling security onto their system, but rather in them learning as stated above, to use what they have and learn safer habits. It will not matter if you place a 3rd party application on, for an average user, because if they want to run something, they will do so even if the 3rd party application blocks it, by disabling the security so they can.
Last edited:
- Apr 16, 2017
- 2,094
I use my $250 chromebook when I'm in "average joe" surfing mode. simple peace of mind.
I do have an asus win10, but have not opened it in months, maybe this long weekend I'll play with it get it updated and remove 3d-party av. I keep hearing that win10 is not exactly private or that MS snoops even more, is that OT? Why? Seems this question is related to which win OS you use.
I think the best solution for this is to find the best setup for your own which you feel most comfortable and relatively safe
many users, like me, buy PCs to use, to work, study, not to overprotect them. Whatever the purpose of windows security is, usability and productivity should be more prioritized than security
for many people, using UAC at max is very distracting because it keeps prompting the same things again and again without memorizing the previous selection. For example, CCleaner, the program many people are using, which requires UAC elevation to clean up. The developer adds a startup task into task scheduler to avoid future UAC prompts
I found using SUA + UAC max are also quite annoying, especially for average Joe. They would say that "Why I can't install anything? What did you do to my computer?"
moreover, people usually say this: if it doesn't break, don't fix it. The setup can protect my windows 7 so when I upgrade to W10, just keep it, no need to change
everyone agrees that WD, on its own, regardless of other modules like WF, SUA, UAC and SS, is weaker than most of the well-known AVs and it has failed to protect against many 0-day malwares, MT hub proved that. Why shouldn't we use better AVs or tools, such as appguard, Voodooshield? Why we have to use UAC and SUA to fix WD's bad protection and to complicate our lives? How about Avast + SS? Lighter and stronger, aren't they? CF with CS's setup + disable cloud => almost impenetrable?
I rather spend my nerves to do something else other than reading and choosing UAC prompts every day
many users, like me, buy PCs to use, to work, study, not to overprotect them. Whatever the purpose of windows security is, usability and productivity should be more prioritized than security
for many people, using UAC at max is very distracting because it keeps prompting the same things again and again without memorizing the previous selection. For example, CCleaner, the program many people are using, which requires UAC elevation to clean up. The developer adds a startup task into task scheduler to avoid future UAC prompts
I found using SUA + UAC max are also quite annoying, especially for average Joe. They would say that "Why I can't install anything? What did you do to my computer?"
moreover, people usually say this: if it doesn't break, don't fix it. The setup can protect my windows 7 so when I upgrade to W10, just keep it, no need to change
everyone agrees that WD, on its own, regardless of other modules like WF, SUA, UAC and SS, is weaker than most of the well-known AVs and it has failed to protect against many 0-day malwares, MT hub proved that. Why shouldn't we use better AVs or tools, such as appguard, Voodooshield? Why we have to use UAC and SUA to fix WD's bad protection and to complicate our lives? How about Avast + SS? Lighter and stronger, aren't they? CF with CS's setup + disable cloud => almost impenetrable?
I rather spend my nerves to do something else other than reading and choosing UAC prompts every day
- Mar 27, 2017
- 94
Looking at this from a strictly development point of view, if WD wasn't the most well behaved AV then it'd be pretty troubling. The WD development team most likely has access to the Windows source code which would make developing a product for Windows significantly easier. Trying to figure out how Windows works sometimes can be nearly impossible but if you had the code to look at, plus access to the folks that actually wrote the code, integration would be a breeze. And integrating properly prevents many of the compatibility issues that arise with other security software.
Us non-Microsoft developers have to deal with esoteric documentation and opaque data structures trying to understand exactly what's going on. It'd be great to be able to just call up the File System team, for example, to have them answer a question about the proper way to do something. So it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that WD works the smoothest.
Us non-Microsoft developers have to deal with esoteric documentation and opaque data structures trying to understand exactly what's going on. It'd be great to be able to just call up the File System team, for example, to have them answer a question about the proper way to do something. So it really shouldn't come as much of a surprise that WD works the smoothest.
- Aug 17, 2013
- 1,905
Nothing clever about my reply I'm stating honest facts. There was a vulnerability in WD very recently that left users open to exploit, and, unless you're saying Windows defender is 100 percent perfect then I hate to break it to you but every WD user is beta testing. . You seem like you're just looking for an argument and I've not got time to argue with someone who clearly has extremely limited knowledge regarding computer security. If ever other AV or security app weakens the OS then why isn't Windows Defender out performing all the big players both in official tests and Youtube tests, and..here in the malware hub. EVERY piece of software you install creates a larger attack surface. WD is a nice addition to Windows and a welcome one, but it's ineffective and that's a fact. I've never read of Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Avira and even Comodo with it's internet security essentials being exploited because they add software to the browser, but I have read of Windows defender being exploited, and, as a part of Windows OS that's always going to be the case.
If you go by your logic we should NEVER install anything that doesn't already come pre installed and integrated with Windows, nothing at all.
If you can show me proof of ALL the top security vendors being breached because they add a browser extension or security or scan HTTPS I'd be happy to read it. But, if a Google engineer says it then it must be true. He made a statement and that statement was fueled by the fact that a user choosing a better security product than WD makes it harder for him to secure the browser, well I'm sorry but a user has a right to secure his system in anyway he wants. What about safepay extensions that open a sandboxed browser are those insecure too? Adbockers etc too. I beleive web guards are important to the average user which you seem to be, the sooner a threat is blocked the better.
- May 22, 2017
- 251
Not looking for any kind of argument, i was just stating my opinion as we are all free to do here. What you take away from reading my opinion, i can not control.
Last edited:
on SUA, Ccleaner will not ask elevation , it ask because you are on admin account
that is MS fault , if hey took the Linux way earlier, those questions won't happen.
on Win7 you MUST use a 3rd Party product, you have no choice; on Win10 you have it.
Remember Windows built-in security isn't made to be the "best" defense , it was made to give decent protection with minimum hassle for every users. That concept is very hard to grasp for security forum members... In fact when i talk about it with noobs , they get it right away; but security geeks , i must drill it...
And you shouldn't have prompts, unless you do admin tasks. I get 1 prompt a day and because i provoke it, not because i use a soft that needs elevation.I rather spend my nerves to do something else other than reading and choosing UAC prompts every day
- Sep 28, 2015
- 543
Actually, I have no idea. But it's the most stable, reliable application for that particular purpose that I know and it includes all functions my customers demand. I'm in no place to have them rewrite their app or switching to a program with mediocre functions just because of the Windows UAC prompt. But I know my customers don't want to see them, so UAC gets turned off. Had MS thought for a minute and made the requests adressable as "ignore", UAC protection would still be around for the rest of the system. Now, it's off completely. Sometimes well meant isn't well done.
You don't really think I get third parties to switch to all kinds of apps while e-mail has been around for decades and is working just fine? No chance. Since this is only on Outlook problem, Outlook doesn't get used any more.
Yep, I'm utterly clueless. I never stated that Windows 10 isn't safer than earlier versions, though. No idea where you got that from.
In the actual world, where the humans live, computers are used to get stuff done. That cashier at Wal-Mart wants to cut through the queue and not answer prompts. The waitress wants to hack in her orders for the cook with as few clicks as possible in order to make it to the next table. You go tell them how unimportant usablility is or try to sell their boss a perfectly secure but awkwardly usable solution. Please tape it for me.
I probably don't have to mention that they don't really torrent and mostly use that one app only all day for years. Yes, constantly repeated UAC prompts for that same program make a world of sense.
With everything in life comes responsibility. You want to operate a car or operate heavy machinery, you gotta watch out. Even get a licence. When you use a computer, you better know what you're doing as well. If you ignore every lick of common (not even computer-related) sense, you will get infected. And that will have you make use of that hat stand the next time around.
What MS does is dumb down solutions that needn't be dumbed down. That's curing the symptom instead of the disease.
On a side note, just another fine example came to mind that stems from the same kind of folks that are just too removed from the real world: We had this password policy where every user had to change their password after 30 days for an application we needed once or twice a week. Since everybody already had a thousand PINs and passwords, they just added the number of the month to their password. So secure.
Then the rule changed and it also had to include all kinds of symbols and cases. In the end, one after another repeatedly lost their access until even the last guy did and we had to call the IT guys to reset all accounts again at least twice a year.
Our productivity went down-hill, since we often had to wait for "the guy with the password", IT had more unnecessary jobs and we weren't a lick safer. Great job. This is exactly MS's mindset.
- Mar 12, 2016
- 250
lols.. and for make any kind of action ( installing, copy, delete, move...) u had 100 popups abouth yes not cancel give acces.. no thx.. too many things
I doubt Google engineers are aware of every single antivirus/antimalware in existence.
Is Windows Defender a well behaved AV? It would make sense that it was.
Is it the only one? Perhaps not. It might be possible some exist that are also well behaved but not popular enough to caught Google's eye
Regarding Ccleaner and UAC prompts. I can confirm that on my SUA account CCleaner will not ask for elevation.
Personally I don't mind UAC even on the highest setting. The only moments it annoyed me wasn't actually UAC fault but rather a certain popular security software that I assume wasn't properly design for SUA accounts.
Is Windows Defender a well behaved AV? It would make sense that it was.
Is it the only one? Perhaps not. It might be possible some exist that are also well behaved but not popular enough to caught Google's eye
Regarding Ccleaner and UAC prompts. I can confirm that on my SUA account CCleaner will not ask for elevation.
Personally I don't mind UAC even on the highest setting. The only moments it annoyed me wasn't actually UAC fault but rather a certain popular security software that I assume wasn't properly design for SUA accounts.
- Status
Similar threads
