Windows Defender - June 2019 Report

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

I know what I'm talking about and verified by real test. Avast is not good in default settings (you must agree) but when you combine fully tweaked avast with syshardener, it is harder to penetrate
I've been playing around with avast for 5 years and kaspersky for 2 years
I know their strengths and weaknesses

Kaspersky default >> avast default
kapsersky tweaked > avast tweaked
kaspersky tweaked (free) + syshardener < avast tweaked + syshardener

Just out of curiosity since this thread is pertaining to WD. How would you rate WD tweaked MAX with configure defender and Syshardener, compared to the options you mentioned? It seams like Syshardener would pretty much close up any of the remaining gaps in WD.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Just out of curiosity since this thread is pertaining to WD. How would you rate WD tweaked MAX with configure defender and Syshardener, compared to the options you mentioned? It seams like Syshardener would pretty much close up any of the remaining gaps in WD.

there is 1 more gap: protection against exe files => syshardener can't solve
tweaked WD has better exe detection but it can't reach near default-deny level of avast's hardened mode
same goes to kaspersky

smartscreen and BAFS are good replacements for hardened mode but we know they don't work all the time
kaspersky free/cloud free has no default-deny component. It fully relies on its best in class BB, cloud and heuristics

basically syshardener + smartscreen + bandizip can prevent 98-99% of infection vectors (except from USB flash drive => use runbysmartscreen) as askalan demonstrated but we need a real AV to be able to sleep better

 

[oldschool]

there is 1 more gap: protection against exe files => syshardener can't solve
tweaked WD has better exe detection but it can't reach near default-deny level of avast's hardened mode
same goes to kaspersky

smartscreen and BAFS are good replacements for hardened mode but we know they don't work all the time
kaspersky free/cloud free has no default-deny component. It fully relies on its best in class BB, cloud and heuristics

basically syshardener + smartscreen + bandizip can prevent 98-99% of infection vectors (except from USB flash drive => use runbysmartscreen) as askalan demonstrated but we need a real AV to be able to sleep better

Which is why VoodooShield + WD is a good setup for some people.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Which is why VoodooShield + WD is a good setup for some people.

exactly. By the way, I may use Voodooshield + panda free (for example) to get lower resource consumption

 

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Which is why VoodooShield + WD is a good setup for some people.

If default-deny is the weakness of WD is WD + Hard Configurator @ Windows 10 Recommended Enhanced profile then as good or maybe even better than WD + VoodooShield?

 

[oldschool]

If default-deny is the weakness of WD is WD + Hard Configurator @ Windows 10 Recommended Enhanced profile then as good or maybe even better than WD + VoodooShield?

Even H_C @ Recommended (Default) > VS, I would say, for sheer protection ability.

 

[Andy Ful]

Even H_C @ Recommended (Default) > VS, I would say, for sheer protection ability.

In theory, H_C smart default-deny setup (with forced SmartScreen) should have stronger protection than VS in Autopilot mode, because it is more restrictive. Yet, this difference would be probably not meaningful in the real world for home users.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I will test WD max settings + Security center = visible
We've seen enough of WD in default settings

 

[Andy Ful]

On the contrary to most AVs, changing most settings in WD requires rebooting the computer. For example, when one disables WD real-time protection without touching anything else, some other settings like Network Protection or ASR rules are automatically turned off. After enabling real-time protection these settings are not automatically turn on (they will after reboot).

 

[Wraith]

Avast/AVG free: only comparable to kaspersky after being tweaked for better security, performance and telemetry is blocked. After being fully tweaked, avast is even less vulnerable than kaspersky, no joke

Spot ON. SysHardener and Avast (set to Hardened Mode Aggressive) make a terrific combo. I use this setup for my friends who want free and light protection. For Avast just choose custom install and select only the 4 shields. But even then if the user is stupid enough to run a crack, the user will disable Avast, execute the crack and get infected. Then the blame will be put on Avast.

 

[Wraith]

Avast better than kaspersky ? xD PLEASE .......

Absolutely yes my friend. In the proper hands and with a proper partner like SH, Avast free(tweaked) is better than Kaspersky free.

 

[Andy Ful]

Absolutely yes my friend. In the proper hands and with a proper partner like SH, Avast free(tweaked) is better than Kaspersky free.

Avast set to Hardened Aggressive mode is stronger than Kaspersky free, or KIS on default settings. But, KIS with TAM and blocked script Interpreters via Application Control is stronger than Avast (any settings) + SysHardener. But, I doubt if any user could feel the difference.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Avast set to Hardened Aggressive mode is stronger than Kaspersky free, or KIS on default settings. But, KIS with TAM and blocked script Interpreters via Application Control is stronger than Avast (any settings) + SysHardener. But, I doubt if any user could feel the difference.

It's true but TAM or hardened application control are extremely bad for usability. they not only block so many apps and dlls but also lower system performance by half (eppecially TAM)
hardened mode aggressive is much milder and doesn't break as many as TAM + the impact on performance is not as noticeable. I could only live with TAM for 30 minutes before disabling it forever because it blocked some of my games => I had to manually whitelist a lot of blocked files. It's clearly not for inexperienced users as hardened mode (avast claims)
Scripts can be handled by script blockers so no need to worry about them. When users use syshardener with a few customizations for example, they don't care about scripts anymore
there are few ways/scripts that avast +SH can be infected but the chance is super slim and the vectors are rarely used for home users (powershell, cmd,...)

by the way, we are comparing free AVs

 

[harlan4096]

I'm working for months with TAM on (KTS2020b) + stronger tweaks in AC (Trust signed app -> disabled, unknown to high restricted) and other tweaks in rules for Trusted group apps ... and in general without main issues here... yeah, sometimes I get a block if I want to install a new application (usually still not known in KSN or not digitally signed or with not a proper or legit signature), but You can allow the execution manually (once and forget) and life continues...

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I just edited my latest post on the hub
The test was with MAX settings, not default

 

[beavisviruses]

Absolutely yes my friend. In the proper hands and with a proper partner like SH, Avast free(tweaked) is better than Kaspersky free.

better vs free not vs pro protection

 

[Dex4Sure]

Depends really on what you're doing and your system config. I personally run insider build (slow ring) so using 3rd party AV would be out of question as it would more than likely introduce instability for OS version that is not 100% stable to begin with.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

better vs free not vs pro protection

nobody here wants to pay for avast pro so that's a completely different story
the improvements are minimal compared to the free version

similar to kaspersky, if you don't know how to utilize application control/trusted application mode, safe money or firewall, it's not worth the money spent because free and pro will function basically identically
kaspersy's application control is the module you pay for
avast's hardened mode is the worth paying module, but it's available in free version

 

[Wraith]

better vs free not vs pro protection

Of course I'm comparing free softwares. KIS paid cannot be compared to Avast free. KIS is the best suite in the market till date.

 

[Andy Ful]

Of course I'm comparing free softwares. KIS paid cannot be compared to Avast free. KIS is the best suite in the market till date.

KIS as a product should not be compared to Avast free as a product. They are not in a similar class of products. The first is more comprehensive.

KIS with default settings can be compared as the concrete security setup with Avast free set to Hardened Aggressive mode + SysHardener. In my opinion, the second setup is stronger (If the user does not intentionally bypass it). Anyway, the first setup will be more usable for most users.