Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Andy Ful" data-source="post: 1117776" data-attributes="member: 32260">I think that skipping SmartScreen is more interesting for AV Labs and AV vendors (including Microsoft). For users, the situation is more complex.Microsoft did not decide to make SmartScreen an internal part of Defender. So testing Defender without SmartScreen is justified.However, there is an interesting question. Should AV testing also include the Windows built-in default protection (Defender + SmartScreen + Edge)?Almost all new computers are secured this way and many people use such protection without changing anything.It is a problematic situation. Even an average third-party AV + SmartScreen could get very good scores in the Home AV tests, and the results of top AVs + SmartScreen would not be much better. Instead of Real-World AV tests, we would have SmartScreen tests and offline AV tests. But still, top AVs with disabled SmartScreen could shine in the false positives tests.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Andy Ful, post: 1117776, member: 32260"] I think that skipping SmartScreen is more interesting for AV Labs and AV vendors (including Microsoft). For users, the situation is more complex. Microsoft did not decide to make SmartScreen an internal part of Defender. So testing Defender without SmartScreen is justified. However, there is an interesting question. Should AV testing also include the Windows built-in default protection (Defender + SmartScreen + Edge)? Almost all new computers are secured this way and many people use such protection without changing anything. It is a problematic situation. Even an average third-party AV + SmartScreen could get very good scores in the Home AV tests, and the results of top AVs + SmartScreen would not be much better. Instead of Real-World AV tests, we would have SmartScreen tests and offline AV tests. But still, top AVs with disabled SmartScreen could shine in the false positives tests. [/QUOTE]

Verification