Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
For baseline security Windows Defender Antivirus is raising the bar for third-party vendors to keep on improving their products. However one major advantage for Windows Defender Antivirus (Windows 10), is it has No visible Ads or Upsell prompts (ie. "Upgrade to Internet Security for Complete Protection").

Yes, you must agree to the Microsoft Terms and Privacy Policy.
 
Last edited:

woodrowbone

Level 9
Hmm, I read on Wikipedia that BD have half a billion users, same as WD reported in this thread.
If WD have 50% of the users it does not add upp, there must be much more than 1 billion of users out there, Avast for example have 400 million users, Kaspersky must be in that liege as well.
Or did I misunderstand shmu:s post?
/W
 

Robbie

Level 28
Verified
Content Creator
The fact Windows Defender is getting better within each update and patch is a fact. And it's true.

Now the real question is: do you guys think this test should be trusted? In a matter of: did Windows Defender really protect against 100% of 300+ zero-day threats or did they $$$?
 

Slyguy

Level 41
Verified
For baseline security Windows Defender Antivirus is raising the bar for third-party vendors to keep on improving their products. However one major advantage for Windows Defender Antivirus (Windows 10), is it has No visible Ads or Upsell prompts (ie. "Upgrade to Internet Security for Complete Protection").

Yes, you must agree to the Microsoft Terms and Privacy Policy.
This is the most important post in this thread IMO. Basically, all Microsoft is doing is raising the bar for third party paid applications. Nothing more, nothing less. Also, WD is quite heavy, and based on it's large threat surface it's going to be the most exploited game in town. Also, I doubt M$ can keep it on top for all that long because M$ is a fickle company that changes focus with the prevailing winds.

Over the next 5 years or so we'll see major players exit the market or consolidate. We'll see other products change focus. With WD becoming almost acceptable to use it's going to be a catalyst to drive major change and improvements in the industry as a whole.

Similar to how American's were plagued with the worst reliable, fuel guzzling, unsafe vehicles in the world for a long time because the Big Three had a stranglehold on the market, not through quality but through lobbying, political buy outs, tariffs, collusion and outright sabotage. But once the big overseas players got into the market it drove the Big Three to put out good vehicles, but it was tough early on as many of the bloated big three firms required government rescue until they understood a simple fact - they need to stop making trash.

I predict the same thing for the AV market. They don't have Linux, they know Android/iOS is a lost cause, Chromebooks they are irrelevant. That leaves Windows, and with WD becoming acceptable, nobody is going to tolerate bugs, bloat and trash suites... IF you want to know why BD2020 is so much improved, and Symantec/Norton are having a fire sale, there's your answer.
 

Nightwalker

Level 16
Verified
Content Creator
The fact Windows Defender is getting better within each update and patch is a fact. And it's true.

Now the real question is: do you guys think this test should be trusted? In a matter of: did Windows Defender really protect against 100% of 300+ zero-day threats or did they $$$?
Why this test shouldnt be trusted? Windows Defender is getting consistent results in every lab test for a while, if this was a question of $$$ like you suggested, Microsoft Security Essentials, in its era, should have been the TOP rated product and antivirus of the year and we know that it didnt happen.

If you dont believe in this test because of Windows Defender getting good results, why should you believe in the tests that it floped?

AV tests are just an artificial benchmark, there is no protection against 100 % of zero-day threats, but what is matter is that Windows Defender along with other security technologies make Windows 10 a very safe OS by default.
 

Burrito

Level 16
Verified
why black hats will focus on WD.:):)
Yes, both the size and the quality of WD will cause more malware developers to focus on WD. There was evidence of that this year at Black Hat.


For baseline security Windows Defender Antivirus is raising the bar for third-party vendors to keep on improving their products.
Yeah, isn't it great. WD is going to make all the AVs give us consumers more value.


Now the real question is: do you guys think this test should be trusted? In a matter of: did Windows Defender really protect against 100% of 300+ zero-day threats or did they $$$?
Nah, there was likely no $$$ involved. There is too much of a chance that would leak. There are multiple employees at the test labs. Venders are given access to testing methods and samples. There is too much of a chance a tester would get caught. The tester wouldn't do it -- that could be the end of their business. And Microsoft does have superior telemetry.... collection, and ability to address threats. And many don't know it, but Windows Defender has a machine learning (ML) module also -- just like the 'big boys.' The basic product (in my opinion) is not as robust as Kaspersky, Norton, Bitdefender.. at stopping threats. But it gets closer all the time.



Over the next 5 years or so we'll see major players exit the market or consolidate. We'll see other products change focus.
Exactly. There are so many entrants to the enterprise market... they all can't survive. The word is that multiple of them are looking to cash out. It publicly leaked that Carbon Black would like to be purchased. And there is another big name that has made it known that they are available for offers.


..and Symantec/Norton are having a fire sale...
Fire sale?

Webroot (consumer and enterprise) sold for $618 Million (peanuts)
Cylance sold to Blackberry for $1.4 Billion (A healthy price for an enterprise newcomer)
Symantec (enterprise only) sold to Broadcom for $10.7 Billion

Can you name an enterprise security company that has sold for more?
 
Last edited:

bribon77

Level 27
Verified
Now the real question is: do you guys think this test should be trusted? In a matter of: did Windows Defender really protect against 100% of 300+ zero-day threats or did they $$$?
Yes I think so. If this or any company lies, its useful life would be the same as that of a butterfly, that is, we would know that it is not reliable, something that has not been like this, has been working for years and nothing has been said about this Company.
 

Robbie

Level 28
Verified
Content Creator
Why this test shouldnt be trusted? Windows Defender is getting consistent results in every lab test for a while, if this was a question of $$$ like you suggested, Microsoft Security Essentials, in its era, should have been the TOP rated product and antivirus of the year and we know that it didnt happen.

If you dont believe in this test because of Windows Defender getting good results, why should you believe in the tests that it floped?

AV tests are just an artificial benchmark, there is no protection against 100 % of zero-day threats, but what is matter is that Windows Defender along with other security technologies make Windows 10 a very safe OS by default.
Why shouldn't this test be trusted? Because we should all take them with a grain of salt like we have always done. I never trusted online tests, I try to perform my own tests. I have seen horrible products get perfect protection rates and see the total opposite on real life scenarios. Of course, sometimes this doesn't mean they're fake/paid, but more likely performed under unrealistic scenarios (like youtubers do).

MSE case is a total different case, since Microsoft never showed interest in antivirus when MSE was the product they offered, unlike Defender where they created special security teams and budget for developing security. Back then they even suggest downloading an antivirus. Now they suggest against it.

And I never suggested it was paid. I asked for opinions.
 

Nightwalker

Level 16
Verified
Content Creator
Why shouldn't this test be trusted? Because we should all take them with a grain of salt like we have always done. I never trusted online tests, I try to perform my own tests. I have seen horrible products get perfect protection rates and see the total opposite on real life scenarios. Of course, sometimes this doesn't mean they're fake/paid, but more likely performed under unrealistic scenarios (like youtubers do).

MSE case is a total different case, since Microsoft never showed interest in antivirus when MSE was the product they offered, unlike Defender where they created special security teams and budget for developing security. Back then they even suggest downloading an antivirus. Now they suggest against it.

And I never suggested it was paid. I asked for opinions.
I will quote myself about this:

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.

Everything considered, this interest that Microsoft is showing on antivirus market is one of the best things that could have happened for the average home user.
 

Raiden

Level 13
Verified
Content Creator
Hmm, I read on Wikipedia that BD have half a billion users, same as WD reported in this thread.
If WD have 50% of the users it does not add upp, there must be much more than 1 billion of users out there, Avast for example have 400 million users, Kaspersky must be in that liege as well.
Or did I misunderstand shmu:s post?
/W
IMHO I think a lot of those numbers you see from various companies are inflated by a lot and are used a marketing gimmicks. In all honesty, most companies may track as they get new users, but something tells me that they never subtract when they loose customers for various reasons (at least the number they show on their website/marketing info), so I wouldn't rely on them 100%.;)


Everything considered, this interest that Microsoft is showing on antivirus market is one of the best things that could have happened for the average home user.
This is very true!

I agree that all tests in general for all products should be taken with a grain of salt, but they do provide some insight at times. In the case of WD it didn't really perform all that well not long ago with these exact same tests/testing organizations, but slowly over time you see it improving bit by bit, until we reach where we are today. It seems to be scoring 100% fairly consistently now a days, so I do have to give them props for their improvement, but I am in no way delusioned into thinking that it means I will always be protected 100%. No product, no matter how good can offer 100% protection every time and that's a fact.

I think with the current and continued improvements to WD it is definitely pushing other companies to do better. It's forcing them to actually improve their products and not just add useless stuff like a password manager, etc... After which they go "hey we released a new version, come check it out!" Meanwhile it's the same as last year, sometimes with a new UI and that's it. Personally I think "free" AV's will eventually die off as people are getting tired of being subjected to ads and such. They see that WD can do the same thing, but better as it isn't in your face. Like it or not, WD is making it harder to justify 3rd parties and it isn't helping when they are constantly in the news as of late because they are found to be causing more issues than the built in security of W10.

All in all I agree, that overall this betters the average home owner as it; a: pushes 3rd parties to actually improve their product and b: Windows security as a whole has been improving and continues to do. Thus by having WD where it's at, it is able to provide more protection compared to having no AV, or having a 3rd party program without an expired subscription.
 
Last edited:

DeepWeb

Level 23
Verified
LMAO!!!!
But honestly, Windows Defender has been scoring high ever since Microsoft bought up a bunch of Israeli cybersecurity firms and incorporated their engines into Windows Defender. Since then it has always had detection rates in the upper 90s.

My point is, while Windows Defender has the same ugly UI from 2015, the engine underneath has been massively revamped. I still wouldn't trust it tho. :ROFLMAO:
 

shmu26

Level 82
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Hmm, I read on Wikipedia that BD have half a billion users, same as WD reported in this thread.
If WD have 50% of the users it does not add upp, there must be much more than 1 billion of users out there, Avast for example have 400 million users, Kaspersky must be in that liege as well.
Or did I misunderstand shmu:s post?
/W
I guess it's all a question of how many PCs there are in the world... maybe there are more than a billion?