This.
It's a sad truth but time is of the essence. Eventually it'll happen... Which will be a shame.
Windows Defender gets 100% in AV-Comparatives "Real-World Protection Test" Feb. 2018
- Thread starter legendcampos
- Start date
It's a sad truth but time is of the essence. Eventually it'll happen... Which will be a shame.
Hate to break it to everyone, but I don't believe Windows Defender can truly (in all reality) get 100% - mainly depends on the end-user(s) in question. Can it protect some? Sure, but who knows what could be on that system if one doesn't have super good internet usage. Personally, I don't trust Windows Defender. Has it gotten better over the years? I'd say that it is debatable as some users would say yes while others say no way. The best security is layered security and a good security config that includes good backup methods as a failsafe. Yes, I'm "paranoid" with my security setup; however, for good reason!
Good discussion here folks!
~Brian
Good discussion here folks!
~Brian
- Jun 14, 2011
- 1,861
Now change Windows Defender's name to any security soft available - still true
Now change Windows Defender's name to any security soft available - still true
@pablozi This is very true! That is why my configuration is how it currently is -- I have 'trust' issues! haha If something is able to get by all my defenses then out comes my imaging software and I'm back up and rolling in no time.
- Jun 14, 2011
- 1,861
And don't get me wrong - I am not a WD fanboy or product A or B hater.
Tests like the one we're discussing here doesn't prove anything - real life usage is the best test and everyone of us gets the different score.
My wife's laptop running W7 with MSE for I don't know how long - not a single infection vs my father's PC running AVG - infected with some spyware. Is AVG any worse than MSE? I don't think so - user and his/her habits are the key.
Tests like the one we're discussing here doesn't prove anything - real life usage is the best test and everyone of us gets the different score.
My wife's laptop running W7 with MSE for I don't know how long - not a single infection vs my father's PC running AVG - infected with some spyware. Is AVG any worse than MSE? I don't think so - user and his/her habits are the key.
The last stable release for Microsoft Security Essentials was around 15 months ago? It's recommended to use a product which is regularly updated to stay on top of known vulnerabilities and introduce new changes for tackling prevalent malware.
Your wife must be good at being cautious and keeping herself safe. That, or any malware she came close to being infected with was old and atrocious and thus was picked up with old signatures.
- Jun 14, 2011
- 1,861
I know but I see no other option for her at the moment - maybe later this year I will replace her laptop with the new one or with the Chromebook.
A Chromebook would be a really good option right now if it is appropriate for her work over Windows but I recon it won't be as good as it is now in a few years time.
However bear in mind that the Google Play store is not an 100% safe environment, so malicious Android applications and rogue Google Chrome extensions are still out there.
- Jun 14, 2011
- 1,861
- Feb 19, 2018
- 182
You're right that Windows defender doesn't provide protection as good as other third-party Antiviruses, but the level of protection it provides when combined with windows built in security measures like smartscreen, UAC, that's plenty for a user who adopts safe practices on the internet. Most other anti viruses are out there for trying to be as much as "idiot-proof" to be possible, so of course windows defender won't be at par with them. Moreover, windows defender is the only av that plays nice with other security softwares like comodo firewall, voodooshield etc. As for false positives, only windows defender is the only known av to me that hasn't trashed a machine by detecting some critical system file as malware. After all it all comes down user preferences, and abilities. There is no need to bash windows defender like it's as good as nothing(which is far from truth).
As far as Microsoft making money is concerned, so is most third party AVs. In fact they make money only through making antiviruses and they also use plenty of fear mongering among the users to boost AV sales. Microsoft is not any good corporation especially considering the way it exploits monopoly, but at least in this case they aren't being any worse than other AV companies.
- Jan 25, 2018
- 300
I don't bash Windows Defender like it is good for nothing. I use Windows Defender. Is Windows Defender and all the new security added to Windows 10 adequate ? That depends upon one's computing habits and risk-usage. So we have to assume that the average Windows user is a high-risk user. So, in that case, no it is not adequate. The way SmartScreen works alone seriously compromises security. Microsoft itself states that Windows Defender is a bare minimum security solution and encourages users to employ 3rd-party security solutions. The problem is that there are is a lot of over-statement of Windows Defender and Windows 10 security here and over at Wilders. People that do not know any better read these over-statements of Windows 10 security. The qualification of Windows Defender is this - it is sufficient IF you are a knowledgeable, experienced safe habit user. And I have promoted Windows Defender as such for years. Other than that, Windows default security is not sufficient for the typical, Average Joe user because he\she cannot cope with it - and that is no one's fault except for Microsoft's. There are tweaks, no documentation, etc - and that is just too much for Average Joe to handle. Hell, there are people out there that thought Windows Defender was a rogue, malicious AV and asked for malware removal assistance to get it off their systems - right here at MT.
There are no antivirus that routinely trash Windows by detecting critical system files. If all of the AVs were doing that, then no one would be using any of them. The one that did it most recently was Webroot.
Microsoft is the most exploitative of all the corporations out there. Everyone likes to point the finger at Google, but it isn't Google, it is Microsoft. Microsoft is just better doing it under the radar.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Jan 25, 2018
- 300
I'm sorry for my repeated publication, MalwareTips gives me error when sending, although the publication has been inserted. I do not know why it happened. please moderation for delete that.
Attachments
- Feb 19, 2018
- 182
I don't know of any recent comments on behalf of Microsoft regarding encouragement for using third party antiviruses, but if you're referring to the news articles from the 2013 well then it was a misinterpretation by media and was promptly dismissed by Microsoft.
If there is any new announcement regarding this from Microsoft, then please help me to find it because my Google-fu is failing.
Well Microsoft handles PR pretty badly, and to most average joe norton and McAfee are the only AV vendors, everyone else is trash. That's just lack of knowledge nothing else.
I am not saying every antivirus trashes PCs regularly. But it's not uncommon, almost every year we get a case. Third party AVs are all susceptible to this because they don't know windows as good as MS, so they have more chances to trash it. And when this happens, it hurts pretty badly because in many cases a fornat and restore is only way.
Also windows defender is also the AV that has least conflicts with other softwares. In my personal experience I turning on ssl scanning in ESET nod 32 broke Firefox for me, so things like this keep happening all the time. Third party AVs have good detection ratio but they come with their own caveat.
After witnessing the windows 10 upgrade fiasco, I strongly agree with you in this one.
Last edited:
I don't know of any recent comments on behalf of Microsoft regarding encouragement for using third party antiviruses, but if you're referring to the news articles from the 2013 well then it was a misinterpretation by media and was promptly dismissed by Microsoft.
If there is any new announcement regarding this from Microsoft, then please help me to find it because my Google-fu is failing.
Well Microsoft handles PR pretty badly, and to most average joe norton and McAfee are the only AV vendors, everyone else is trash. That's just lack of knowledge nothing else.
I am not saying every antivirus trashes PCs regularly. But it's not uncommon, almost every year we get a case. Third party AVs are all susceptible to this because they don't know windows as good as MS, so they have more chances to trash it. And when this happens, it hurts pretty badly because in many cases a fornat and restore is only way.
Also windows defender is also the AV that has least conflicts with other softwares. In my personal experience I turning on ssl scanning in ESET nod 32 broke Firefox for me, so things like this keep happening all the time. Third party AVs have good detection ratio but they come with their own caveat.
After witnessing the windows 10 upgrade fiasco, I strongly agree with you in this one.
The truth is, Average Joe cannot handle Windows security period - whether it is default Windows security or a 3rd-party security solution. So when I say "better off with one versus the other" I am talking about the "lesser of two evils." All a user need do is install a 3rd-party security solution and start playing with the settings and sure enough, in no time at all, they will get themselves into trouble. Either bugs or they themselves will break something. There's always bug. A never-ending supply. It just comes with the territory. It's a part of all products.
I have watched average people struggle with Windows and Windows security over-and-over-and-over. They just cannot handle it. It requires way too much effort for them to get to the point where they can be competently secure on Windows. Windows security is not install and forget. One has to learn and practice with their security solutions of choice - a topic that is almost never discussed on the forums.
However, I have observed that people learn Chromebook and become secure on it much faster - although that isn't going to last forever. The caveat is that people must be educated on Chromebook pitfalls - the Google Store, Android on Chromebook and the criminals are going to mess it up for everyone.
It's just an observation. 99.9999999 % of people won't move to Chromebook because they want or think they need Windows. And like I said, Chromebook's monopoly on security won't last forever.
Some people think it strange that I promote Chromebook so hard. It's meant for the person who just cannot cope with Windows security. It's meant for those that are not willing to spend the time and effort to learn a 3rd-party security solution. Virtually 100% of people that are on the forums are security-focused individuals who are driven to put-in time and effort to secure their Windows systems. Once in a while comes along an individual that is adamant that "I want a plug-and-play solution with high security from the moment I take it out of the box and I don't want to mess with Windows - not one bit." And the only one out there is Chromebook.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Jun 14, 2011
- 1,861
Not for consumers?Is this Microsoft or is this the Israeli AV company it bought 1-2 years ago and they finally integrated their products into WD?
"... the acquisition will build on the successful work Microsoft is already doing to help commercial Windows 10 customers detect, investigate and respond to advanced attacks on their networks with Windows Defender Advanced Threat Protection (WDATP)" - Source: Microsoft News
Similar threads
