crezz

Level 6
Verified
Even though Windows Defender performs well in tests, I am concerned that it is a standard part of the Windows operating system and thefeore very common. Wouldn't this make the Windows Defender program more vulnerable to attack than third party software such as Norton or Kaspersky ?
 

Nightwalker

Level 18
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Even though Windows Defender performs well in tests, I am concerned that it is a standard part of the Windows operating system and thefeore very common. Wouldn't this make the Windows Defender program more vulnerable to attack than third party software such as Norton or Kaspersky ?
Yes, you are somewhat right; Windows Defender because of its huge userbase is more prone to bypasses and attacks, but at the same time Microsoft cloud sees much more malware than other solutions, making its cloud protection much more powerful than the rest (at least in theory).

Cloud protection is a number game and Microsoft has an enormous advantage there, nonetheless because it is a standard part of Windows, the user wont face compatibility/conflict/upgrade problems like other third party solutions.

IMO Windows Defender deep integration, after everything considered, is a strong point, not a weakness.
 

Azure

Level 25
Verified
Content Creator
I remember one of the things critics complained about WD was the it was easy to disable and thus for malware to passthrough.

Now that WD has Tamper Protection it now might be harder to disable it.

What I find funny about all this is that the fact that Microsoft implemented Tamper Protection pretty much confirmed what the critics were talking about.

I will give kudos to Microsoft for listening to criticism and improving their product.
 

Local Host

Level 20
Verified
I remember one of the things critics complained about WD was the it was easy to disable and thus for malware to passthrough.

Now that WD has Tamper Protection it now might be harder to disable it.

What I find funny about all this is that the fact that Microsoft implemented Tamper Protection pretty much confirmed what the critics were talking about.

I will give kudos to Microsoft for listening to criticism and improving their product.
Honestly Tamper Protection has done little to protect Windows Defender, when it comes to remotely disable it so far.
 

Back3

Level 3
People want to watch videos, listen to music, play games..they want to use their computer like an Ipad to do things easily. So Microsoft is making Windows and it's antivirus more and more invisible and better. That's the way to go to sell more computers. People have to forget Windows and simply do things they want.
 

Raiden

Level 15
Verified
Content Creator
Very well deserved IMHO. MS has done a lot to improve WD and still continues to do so. It performs fairly constantly across many test and I am assuming that most of these tests are done at default settings like most tests. While I do agree that MS does leave a little to be desired when it comes to changing settings, but at least there are still settings to tweak.;) Quite frankly just using Configure defender will do it for you in like 3 seconds. Performance wise, it has improved quite a bit over the years as well and seems to keep getting better and better IMHO.

When WD get award is because uncle Bill pays, but when any other vendor get award is because software is so amazing?
I think it's quite simply that the old stigma about WD is still very present and some just don't want to believe that it is far better now, than it was before. Some will point to YouTube to post examples of it failing, but YouTube really isn't a good place to base decisions on IMHO and this is for all programs, not just WD. Like @Nightwalker said, tests in generally for all products should be taken with a grain of salt anyways. People are starting to come around to liking/accepting WD, but will still take some time. It's no different than when Norton finally turned things around, it's bad reputation stuck around for quite a while before people starting accepting that it did indeed get better.

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.
Agreed!

While it would be nice to have easy access to these settings via the interface, MS has done it this way for their own reasons. Quite frankly I think they just don't want people messing with it and potentially creating issues for themselves, especially if they don't know what they are doing. In all honesty, most programs have their default settings out of the box, which is to be a good balance between protection and performance. While many have easy access to change them if one so chooses, but lets be honest, most average users don't even go in to the settings, so I would hazard to guess that most people are just using default settings.

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 :)
It's true that when you look at everything as whole, the OS is indeed very capable of protecting itself. To b fair though, no program (WD, or any 3rd party) can give you 100% protection every time. Those who believe that they are getting 100% protection by using x product is really only fooling themselves. Your habits will really be the biggest factor in determining if one gets infected IMO. Follow good practices, chances are you will be malware free, practice poor habits, your luck will run out at some point, no matter which program you are using.

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.
I think part of the reason is that PUP's really aren't necessarily "malware", it's very much a grey area. Furthermore, I think the reason as to why WD and others have/had it off was there seemed to be this fear that they may get dragged to court because their software flagged a program as a PUP. It seems silly, but I think this may be the reason as to why PUP protection has traditionally been off by default in many programs. Heck even Google chrome could be considered a PUP if it is bundled with another piece of software and the user didn't have, or want Chrome. So, you can see why it's always be a difficult area. Maybe one day MS will change this setting, but for now they must have their reasons.
 
Last edited:

Cortex

Level 15
Verified
I think MS are doing a great job with WD - MS has unrivalled telemetry from millions of users esp using 10 & for most WD is a good choice & i'll probably recommend friends to use it instead of alternatives - For me as with most things MS supplies with Windows 10 the deliberate (and needed for most) lack of control is what I dislike which is why I usually use alternatives to most MS supplied modules. I can't ever see the day arriving that I will personally use WD no matter how good it is - I don't mind paying a reasonable amount for alternatives if it gives me some kind of control - Competition is always a good thing & if this applies pressure to other AV vendors that's good.
 

ZeroDay

Level 28
Verified
Malware Tester
I haven't read all the comments yet (I'm going to do that now) I just point out something @Andy Ful Said in another thread because he made a very good point - If people don't believe the results for Windows/Microsoft defender in these AVTEST results then they can't trust the results for their favourite product too.

I also agree with the comments I've read so far for Microsoft not integrating all the WD tweaks into one UI and, I'll add to those reasons. I think another reason for MS not including all the WD settings/tweaks in one UI could be for legal purposes. Imagine if WD+WD FW had one UI including all the settings and tweaks usually only available via GPE or editing the registry. There would be a massive backlash from third party security companies because MS would be clearly and blatantly including a full blown security suite for every single user of Windows 10. The backlash would be much bigger than the Internet explorer one.
 

Raiden

Level 15
Verified
Content Creator
I think MS are doing a great job with WD - MS has unrivalled telemetry from millions of users esp using 10 & for most WD is a good choice & i'll probably recommend friends to use it instead of alternatives - For me as with most things MS supplies with Windows 10 the deliberate (and needed for most) lack of control is what I dislike which is why I usually use alternatives to most MS supplied modules. I can't ever see the day arriving that I will personally use WD no matter how good it is - I don't mind paying a reasonable amount for alternatives if it gives me some kind of control - Competition is always a good thing & if this applies pressure to other AV vendors that's good.
You make a very good point!

This is one of the reasons as to why I always try to tell people to try products for themselves and see what they think. What I like may not necessarily be what you like and that totally OK. There are so many great options/ways to stay secure that I don't see the need for this back and forth that happens at times (generally speaking). It's one of the reasons as to why I'm not overly fond of A vs B threads as often it turns into a popularity contest, rather than being helpful. Choosing the product that gets the most recommendations may not necessarily be the right option for you. Most products have a trial option and if you are deciding which one to use, use the trials and see for yourself. I really try to emphasize that people should use what ever they like and works best for them and their needs. That combined with safe practices will pretty much keep you safe.

I haven't read all the comments yet (I'm going to do that now) I just point out something @Andy Ful Said in another thread because he made a very good point - If people don't believe the results for Windows/Microsoft defender in these AVTEST results then they can't trust the results for their favourite product too.
Your a total Fanboy!


hehe just kidding.:p

I agree with everything you said, especially when highlighting what @Andy Ful said in another thread.

To be honest, this is one of my sources of frustration at times, people cherry picking results and tests. It's ok if your a little skeptical initially, especially when a product hasn't done well in the past, but as is the case for WD, it has been performing at a consistent level for a while now and it's just not with one testing organization. So, I think it's safe to say that it has indeed improved quite a bit. Same goes for any product really, just because a product has done poorly in the past, doesn't mean that it has to remain there forever and isn't allowed to improve. I mean no one had any issues with AV-comparatives or AV test in the past when WD was scoring around 70-75%, but all of a sudden it's in the high 90's-100%, ohh this test is rigged, fake, MS paid them for that result, etc...

If you are going to flat out disregard any test result because you didn't like that WD, or another product scored high, well then you have to disregard the result for your favorite product also, because it's either all the test results for all products are wrong, or they are right. There's no, well this result for this product is ok, but that result is wrong. The results are the results, good and bad. I also think it's hard to compare tests to one another because their methodology and the malware used will be different. If a test is testing everything, web protection and all, you cannot necessarily compare it to a test from the HUB lets say, because the HUB doesn't test web protection, so it's not as easy to compare them directly.

Lastly, it's really about understanding the results and what they mean. For example. WD tends to score high in FP on AV-compartaives, but most other organizations it does very well with FP's. When one takes the time to understand the results, one would see that AV-comparatives includes a chart with the break down of where the FP's occurred, programs with low prevalence, medium, high etc... If one looks, they would see that the vast majority of FP's occur in the very low to low category for WD, meanwhile Medium and High it does very well. All some people see and comment on however is the total number on the graph, not the FP chart.

Anyways that's enough of my rambling hehe, just remember all tests for all products should be taken with a grain of salt anyways. Try products for yourself and use which ever you like the best.(y)
 

oldschool

Level 42
Verified
Does this also apply to Windows Defender in Win 8.1?
If you're referring to @shmu26 post

Windows Defender has 50% of the market now, so it has a lot of cloud power. Over half a billion computers are contributing to the data base in real time.
then the answer is yes. WD total machine usage includes 8.1 and 10. I believe there is a difference in WD features available in 8.1. W10 possibly has more. :unsure:
 

monkeylove

Level 3
Does that mean that the news should refer to Windows Defender for Windows 10 only? For Win 8:


Interestingly enough, for Windows 7: