Serious Discussion Some guy asks if Windows Defender/Microsoft Defender is enough and this is the amazing answer he got back

[Khushal]

B, Avira, and Symantec could not detect it, too.

unlike defendnot it has nothing to do with WSC so it should be harmless for them

 

[bazang]

Windows - a consumer focused O.S, meaning they should be accessible to all users, not just IT pros.

Windows was never designed nor intended to be used by consumers (home users). It was developed for enterprises and governments. The Home edition was only created because Microsoft could earn billions by offering a cheaper version of the OS to PC and laptop OEMs for the consumer market.

Microsoft has deliberately - by intent - left all the legacy "bad design" as you call it for the express purpose of foiling typical home users (non-enthusiasts) as it understands that users tend not to mess with "bad designs" that they do not understand.

The most user-friendly areas of Windows Home are the ones purpose-built to get home users to buy stuff. Other than that, and a paltry number of UI improvements in the Settings and Windows Security Center front-ends, Microsoft has left Windows security configuration essentially all legacy.

What Microsoft really wants is a closed app ecosystem with blocked software sideloading, such as Apple's. It also really wants to implement forced updates, upgrades with no possible opt-outs and Windows S Mode with additional hardening for the Home/Consumer markets. People, being the complainers and troublemakers that they are, are the reason Microsoft has not made Windows far better and secure.

At some future point in time, Microsoft's internal roadmap for Windows is remove all access to most configurable areas of Windows Home now accessible to the user.

Most OEMs and software publishers just don't like home users. Supporting that group of users is both expensive and a liability. It's not profitable because it is resource intensive (expensive) and the users won't pay prices with profit margins that make it worthwhile.

 

[Jonny Quest]

If a person does not know what they are doing on a digital device or within this digital world, then they should be prohibited from owning only a old school dumb smart phone, no XBox, no PS1, no PC, no tablet, and definitely never a smart phone.

As I keep repeating... people are ALWAYS the problem. Software cannot compensate for people and their ignorance and stupidity.

Perhaps one day AI will be able to Pimp Daddy Powdered Palm Bitch Slap users when they do their insecure nonsense.

Participating within the global ether should require a license - just like a driving license - because insecure users harm others way more than they harm themselves.

A little extreme of a reply to @Sorrentos post, IMO. The greater harm that has become me, are the employees? that download, click a malware link, pdf etc. in the corporate world where companies servers get hacked...do we prohibit them? Unfortunately though, they are the ones doing greater harm to people whose information has now been compromised and out there for sale on the dark web. If common people doing their common online shtick on their personal devices screw up, that's on them, for them to deal with, I'm not going to say they can't or shouldn't own a PC, tablet or smartphone.

 

[Parkinsond]

unlike defendnot it has nothing to do with WSC so it should be harmless for them

K, Avast, AVG, and B detect scripts for activating W and Office; they are harmless to them.

 

[Parkinsond]

Windows was never designed nor intended to be used by consumers (home users). It was developed for enterprises and governments. The Home edition was only created because Microsoft could earn billions by offering a cheaper version of the OS to PC and laptop OEMs for the consumer market.

Microsoft has deliberately - by intent - left all the legacy "bad design" as you call it for the express purpose of foiling typical home users (non-enthusiasts) as it understands that users tend not to mess with "bad designs" that they do not understand.

At some future point in time, Microsoft's internal roadmap for Windows is remove all access to most configurable areas of Windows Home now accessible to the user.

Most OEMs and software publishers just don't like home users. Supporting that group of users is both expensive and a liability. It's not profitable because it is resource intensive (expensive) and the users won't pay prices with profit margins that make it worthwhile.

MS is evil

 

[Khushal]

K, Avast, AVG, and B detect scripts for activating W and Office; they are harmless to them.

that was deliberate on the insistence of microsoft

 

[bazang]

MS is evil

Microsoft has done more for home users than any other tech company.

Look inside your refrigerator. There are things in there that are far, far more evil and harmful than Microsoft will ever be.

 

[Jonny Quest]

Microsoft has done more for home users than any other tech company.

Look inside your refrigerator. There are things in there that are far, far more evil and harmful than Microsoft will ever be.

LOL, love it, great answer on both fronts I would not have been able to run my business, have made a living without Microsoft and all the equipment software that ran on Windows OS.

 

[Khushal]

Microsoft has done more for home users than any other tech company.

Look inside your refrigerator. There are things in there that are far, far more evil and harmful than Microsoft will ever be.

True—my fridge might clog arteries, but it never tried to upsell me OneDrive storage.

 

[Parkinsond]

LOL, love it, great answer on both fronts I would not have been able to run my business, have made a living without Microsoft and all the equipment software that ran on Windows OS.

Me too; I appreciate MS letting poor home users use their OS in trade of just their data; very kind of Bill.

 

[Jonny Quest]

Me too; I appreciate MS letting poor home users use their OS in trade of just their data; very kind of Bill.

As well as Facebook, Google, my AV (anonymous information of course )etc.... The Microsoft part doesn't bother me. I can make some Privacy settings, and understand that's just the way it is going in. I'm too productive and happy with it as a OS, so no worries on my end in that regard

 

[Parkinsond]

As well as Facebook, Google, my AV (anonymous information of course )etc.... The Microsoft part doesn't bother me. I can make some Privacy settings, and understand that's just the way it is going in. I'm too productive and happy with it as a OS, so no worries on my end in that regard.

Could not agree more.
Everytime when asked to try linux, I refuse.
I love Windows with its cons, love MS, and love Bill.

 

[bazang]

True—my fridge might clog arteries, but it never tried to upsell me OneDrive storage.

Heart Clog. This is the Way.

 

[Fan-of-spyshelter]

That logic doesn't hold up. A complicated UI isn’t a security measure—it’s just bad design. If Microsoft wanted to prevent casual users from messing with security settings, that’s exactly what User Access Control (UAC) is for.

Security tools like Defender and Firewall are built into Windows - a consumer focused O.S, meaning they should be accessible to all users, not just IT pros. A confusing interface doesn’t make things safer—it makes users more likely to ignore or disable security features out of frustration.

Microsoft has historically prioritized user-friendly interfaces across its software ecosystem, so the argument that they intentionally maintain a complex UI to discourage users contradicts their broader design philosophy.

Good security is about making protection effortless, not gatekeeping it behind a convoluted interface.

for you, users want strong security…
but also every casual user want to have full access to to understand this security,
and change it anytime they want, because “UI should be easy.”

That’s like leaving the keys to the vault on the front desk —
“because hiding them would be bad UX.”

i am sorry, but this is non sens.

 

[annaegorov]

Could not agree more.
Everytime when asked to try linux, I refuse.
I love Windows with its cons, love MS, and love Bill.

Well maybe not Bill, he is heavy invested into "Depopulation" Big thing from those raised in the 60's and 70's. He writes about it, and Klaus Schwab speaks openly about it.

 

[Zero Knowledge]

I think the chaos of Windows security keep most of us interested in computers and technology. Those of us who are still left on this forums and others that is. Linux is just so mechanical, terminal this and terminal that. Sometimes you enjoy the pointy clicky nature of Windows and it's swiss cheese security.

 

[Parkinsond]

Sometimes you enjoy the pointy clicky nature of Windows and it's swiss cheese security.

Usability vs security.

 

[monkeylove]

The adequate solution is to configure and operate the digital device in a manner that prevents anything other than whitelisted code from executing. It certainly is possible and there are millions of systems out there that work in that mode without issue. The difference are the users who are not "users that want to use stuff" and do all manner of stupid stuff.


Services are paid and the device is managed by the people who operate those services. There is a very high degree of automation in many available security services.


But they sure can afford to buy expensive digital devices. Just as long as those kinds of "users that want to use stuff" get to do what they want while jeopardizing everybody else's security and economic well-being in an inter-connected world.

There is a personal accountability and responsibility in owning a digital device. If the user cannot meet those duties, then they should not be permitted to purchase a device in the first place. Corporations will sell idiots as many digital devices as the idiots are willing to pay. Then those idiots end up infecting multiple other idiots, and the infection chain grows exponentially from there. The costs of all that just gets passed onto those who fulfill their obligations and do pay for software and services. So everybody else except the idiots pay the price of their idiocy.

But, economically, it is better for all to have a heavily malware infected world - the tens of millions of jobs created globally to cope with the consequences of the actions of hundreds and hundreds of millions of idiots.

Right: default-deny, etc. But there are false positives. In addition, legitimate software and sites may also involve malware, so even users who don't do "stupid stuff" may be affected. It's like the belief that backups can reverse data theft.

Exactly, and the cost may be high, and likely too higher even for most users.

The devices are much cheaper now. The services, though, are pricey.

Personal accountability and responsibility as requirements for using such devices are for idealists. For realists, it's maximizing sales by selling as many devices as possible.

Having a heavily-infected world as desireable is also what idealists think, together with the naive view that such a world will not exist as long as "millions of idiots" are controlled. Realists, OTOH, see things the other way round: malware will not only continue to exist but will always catch up with sophisticated technology, and given that there will always be "idiots," including those who think they're not.

Put simply, more malware's being made that can't be seen or felt, that can operate in the background, that can't be detected until it's too late, that can appear in "legitimate" software and websites, that don't need user interaction, and that can target embedded software.

 

[monkeylove]

I think the chaos of Windows security keep most of us interested in computers and technology. Those of us who are still left on this forums and others that is. Linux is just so mechanical, terminal this and terminal that. Sometimes you enjoy the pointy clicky nature of Windows and it's swiss cheese security.

One time I tried one flavor and after an update, it failed to load. I found the fix buried in the tenth page of one forum thread, and it involved entering several lines of instructions in "terminal this and terminal that".

It's a cute experience if you're a hobbyist, but not if you're an "idiot" like a scientist or engineer who has to meet a deadline.

 

[Parkinsond]

Put simply, more malware's being made that can't be seen or felt, that can operate in the background, that can't be detected until it's too late, that can appear in "legitimate" software and websites, that don't need user interaction, and that can target embedded software.

Speaking about "legitimate" websites, K just flagged js in EaseUS Partition Master Free, inspite of being clean on VT.

VirusTotal

VirusTotal

www.virustotal.com