Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Local Host" data-source="post: 801089">WD&#039;s performance has improved with the latest build, but is still miles away from third-party suites like Kaspersky. Not to mention the high rate of false positives it has with unknown files.It simply gets in the way of work to much, and I will never recommend WD to anyone until they solve all those problems, not to mention the lack of proper customization in the Security Center (having to rely on third-party software to configure it properly is ridiculous).People recommend WD&#039;s in default-deny setups, in terms of security I find it hard to believe is any better than a suite like Kaspersky (that WD&#039;s setup is easily bypassed by malware), WD&#039;s behaviour blocker leaves a lot to be desired, the cloud is okay and the signatures are weak.Microsoft focus more on the Enterprise with ATP and other tools, which make WD more usable, for Home Usage I would never recommend it as I said before.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Local Host, post: 801089"] WD's performance has improved with the latest build, but is still miles away from third-party suites like Kaspersky. Not to mention the high rate of false positives it has with unknown files. It simply gets in the way of work to much, and I will never recommend WD to anyone until they solve all those problems, not to mention the lack of proper customization in the Security Center (having to rely on third-party software to configure it properly is ridiculous). People recommend WD's in default-deny setups, in terms of security I find it hard to believe is any better than a suite like Kaspersky (that WD's setup is easily bypassed by malware), WD's behaviour blocker leaves a lot to be desired, the cloud is okay and the signatures are weak. Microsoft focus more on the Enterprise with ATP and other tools, which make WD more usable, for Home Usage I would never recommend it as I said before. [/QUOTE]

Verification