Robbie

Level 30
Verified
Content Creator
Malware Tester
As Softpedia reports, the independent IT security institute AV-TEST spent May and June continuously evaluating 20 home user security products using their default settings to see which offered the best protection. Only four of those products achieved a top score, and one of them was Windows Defender.

The other three are F-Secure SAFE 17, Kaspersky Internet Security 19.0, and Norton Security 22.17. The big difference between these and Windows Defender is the fact Microsoft includes Windows Defender for free with Windows 10, where as the others require a paid subscription to continue being fully-functional.


1565459141211.png
1565459206014.png


According to this "professional test", Windows Defender was tested under "307 zero-day malware files, and 2428 ordinary malware files"... detecting, apparently... 100% of it. I mean, every single zero-day malware file and the rest... lol.

Opinions?

READ FULL ARTICLE: Windows Defender Achieves 'Best Antivirus' Status
 

Nightwalker

Level 18
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
There's clearly a lot of choice on the antivirus market and most of the options offer good protection, but Microsoft is now setting a very high bar. It beats most of the competition and is completely free for Windows 10 users. Everyone else really needs to up their game and their value proposition if they want to keep selling security software to Windows users.
Perfect conclusion, I fully agree with the author.

Anyway this is a professional test, just because Windows Defender is getting good results doesnt change the fact that AV-Test is an AMTSO member, so a professional tester.

Always take antivirus tests with a grain of salt, but not because of WD high scores.

Edit: Fix some typo.
 

Syafiq

Level 11
Verified
What's AMTSO?
Here is what I found ;)
AMTSO is the Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization, a community of over 60 security and testing companies from around the world.
 

Nightwalker

Level 18
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
What's AMTSO?
 

SFox

Level 3
Verified
Windows Defender needs a normal interface in which it would be possible to configure all the functions. And then, to enable protection against PUP, you need to delve into the registry :))) Well, which of ordinary users will get there? Who will be picking it?))) Why not put everything into the Windows Defender interface?
 

oldschool

Level 42
Verified
Windows Defender needs a normal interface in which it would be possible to configure all the functions. And then, to enable protection against PUP, you need to delve into the registry :))) Well, which of ordinary users will get there? Who will be picking it?))) Why not put everything into the Windows Defender interface?
I actually agree with this, but one reason may be that uninformed users might run into problems implementing some of the features and the results of selections.
 

SFox

Level 3
Verified
I actually agree with this, but one reason may be that uninformed users might run into problems implementing some of the features and the results of selections.
If problems arise, the user should be able to reset to default state. With Microsoft security products, everything is scattered around the system. To configure the firewall, you need to dig into the "enhanced mode", where it is difficult to parse; to configure the antivirus, dig into the registry.
 

Arequire

Level 24
Verified
Content Creator
but one reason may be that uninformed users might run into problems
This.
Everyone here needs to keep in mind that the majority of people using Windows have absolutely no idea what executables, child processes, scripts, macros, etc. are. If Microsoft starts allowing the masses the ability to easily manipulate these settings it'll just end up causing a spike in false positives that they're not going to be able to understand, let alone fix.
 

oldschool

Level 42
Verified
Not only is everything scattered all over the system, users need to know the secret mantra for most things Windows - security related or not. It's taken me 2+ years to learn what I know about Windows and i'm no true geek e.g. programming, testing, deep knowledge of processes, etc.
 

SFox

Level 3
Verified
I think so. Microsoft antivirus itself is weak. He doesn’t give 100% protection against known and unknown threats, no matter how beautiful and “funny pictures” professional laboratories show us. But! Together with all the protective mechanisms of the system as a whole, we receive, if not 100%, then 99.9% protection. This is at least: 1) a Windows firewall configured to block not only incoming but also outgoing ones, with rules for accessing the Internet only for a limited range of programs; 2) Windows Defender, configured not only in the interface, but also in the registry to search for potentially unwanted programs; 3) protection against exploits; 4) Windows SmartScreen 5) configured for all DEP, ASLR programs 6) UAC at maximum and 7) standard user account (sua). And configured for maximum security, Edge browser. Here in this version, I would believe in 99.9% protection. This is just my opinion :)
 

SFox

Level 3
Verified
I don't disagree. M$ has its reasons and it's not saying!
Is protection against potentially unwanted and potentially dangerous programs unnecessary in the antivirus? Take, for example, Kaspersky Anti-Virus. Previously, this function was disabled by default and none of ordinary users climbed into the jungle of settings to enable it. As a result, the systems are full of adware and other unnecessary and annoying programs, not to mention potentially dangerous programs. And now, when installing Kaspersky Anti-Virus, the user is prompted to enable this function, and even a checkmark by himself, the user only needs to click OK when installing the antivirus. As a result, more secure systems. Windows Defender has the same story. The function is disabled by default.
 

uduoix

Level 5
I think so. Microsoft antivirus itself is weak. He doesn’t give 100% protection against known and unknown threats, no matter how beautiful and “funny pictures” professional laboratories show us. But! Together with all the protective mechanisms of the system as a whole, we receive, if not 100%, then 99.9% protection. This is at least: 1) a Windows firewall configured to block not only incoming but also outgoing ones, with rules for accessing the Internet only for a limited range of programs; 2) Windows Defender, configured not only in the interface, but also in the registry to search for potentially unwanted programs; 3) protection against exploits; 4) Windows SmartScreen 5) configured for all DEP, ASLR programs 6) UAC at maximum and 7) standard user account (sua). And configured for maximum security, Edge browser. Here in this version, I would believe in 99.9% protection. This is just my opinion :)
Who does?
 

oldschool

Level 42
Verified
I think so. Microsoft antivirus itself is weak. He doesn’t give 100% protection against known and unknown threats, no matter how beautiful and “funny pictures” professional laboratories show us. But! Together with all the protective mechanisms of the system as a whole, we receive, if not 100%, then 99.9% protection. This is at least: 1) a Windows firewall configured to block not only incoming but also outgoing ones, with rules for accessing the Internet only for a limited range of programs; 2) Windows Defender, configured not only in the interface, but also in the registry to search for potentially unwanted programs; 3) protection against exploits; 4) Windows SmartScreen 5) configured for all DEP, ASLR programs 6) UAC at maximum and 7) standard user account (sua). And configured for maximum security, Edge browser. Here in this version, I would believe in 99.9% protection. This is just my opinion :)
All but your suggestions for firewall are included in ConfigureDefender.