Windows Defender isn't a panacea - so it shouldn't be compared to an internet security suite. Within its stated purpose and design, it is a product with good and bad points, strengths and weaknesses. Whether or not it will protect the system against an exploit payload, malvertising\re-direct payload, or any other malicious file is not guaranteed. Being a conservative, knowledgeable security conscious user goes a long way in staying safe, but also it is no guarantee - it only reduces infection risk. Probabilities play a role in systems not getting infected. Security software and user behaviors are all about risk reduction - and not the elimination of risk.
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
The IT security industry cannot protect users from themselves. Never could, and never will - even with all the Next-Gen\Ai this or that, multi-layered security, absolute default-deny, and what have you.
User decisions, choices and actions - whether deliberate or without thought - can always manage to unravel the very best security that the industry has to offer.
- Aug 16, 2013
- 67
Very good review. I mean a high detection rate is important, sure, but even a pretty good reactivity in real protecion. In my opinion i don't like MS as AV for a good and strong solution to protect the PC. If i have to choose i'll always use an indipendent software for this purpose
I believe the user behaviour is determinant to prevent attacks on its system. If the user doesn't visit shady websites, has an ad blocker, doesn't click every link or open every email and make regular backups, this is enough to prevent most infections and Windows Defender should be enough. Still, I don't see any reason to use Windows Defender. Over the years WD has been considerably inferior to many paid and free alternatives available. Even if you consider system impact it is not the best and there are alternatives with similar performance and better protection. So, why to stick with WD if you can get anything better at low cost and low effort?
Because not everyone needs something which may be "better" in terms of more functionality. WD was always fine for me performance-wise.
How and what to use to protect a system is a personal choice. That fact, more often than not, gets lost in security forum discussions.
If I recall correctly, @Spawn used default Windows protections for 6 years or so and never got infected. During all those years was he simply lucky ? Someone will have to ask him to get his perspective.
Just about everybody knows that Windows Defender's capabilities are limited, but that doesn't mean it is worthless or automatically insufficient. Are there more capable protection options - of course. If one wants to protect the system more comprehensively, then obviously Windows Defender as a standalone solution cannot accomplish that goal.
If I recall correctly, @Spawn used default Windows protections for 6 years or so and never got infected. During all those years was he simply lucky ? Someone will have to ask him to get his perspective.
Just about everybody knows that Windows Defender's capabilities are limited, but that doesn't mean it is worthless or automatically insufficient. Are there more capable protection options - of course. If one wants to protect the system more comprehensively, then obviously Windows Defender as a standalone solution cannot accomplish that goal.
Last edited by a moderator:
Windows Defender is safe enough if the user feels safe enough behind it. If the user has doubts about it, then it has to do with their browsing habits. From there, they can either fix their habits or get behind a stronger line of defence.
WD is enough for geeks who know what they are doing but it's not enough nowadays for average users who are default-allow
WD is not the lightest, could be one of the heaviest, and has one of the the lowest level of protection compared to other better free solutions
why is it the heaviest? I trust my fan noise and the latency I could notice when I was using it for months
This video is a great demonstration for novice users and for ITs who fix their client's PCs that they should not rely on WD. Installing other better free AVs, avast with proper settings for example, would significantly reduce the chance to get infections. Many users refuse to learn so we cannot force them to do A, B or C like we usually do
I met a guy who always criticizes everyone for everything. He said I was stupid and always said that WD was the best AV that he never ever got infected. When I checked his laptop, I said "you are ******* infected and you don't know that?". Sometimes you are not using a good AV, you don't know what second opinion scanners are and you don't get any notification from your AV, it means you can be infected but you don't know you are infected
WD is not the lightest, could be one of the heaviest, and has one of the the lowest level of protection compared to other better free solutions
why is it the heaviest? I trust my fan noise and the latency I could notice when I was using it for months
This video is a great demonstration for novice users and for ITs who fix their client's PCs that they should not rely on WD. Installing other better free AVs, avast with proper settings for example, would significantly reduce the chance to get infections. Many users refuse to learn so we cannot force them to do A, B or C like we usually do
I met a guy who always criticizes everyone for everything. He said I was stupid and always said that WD was the best AV that he never ever got infected. When I checked his laptop, I said "you are ******* infected and you don't know that?". Sometimes you are not using a good AV, you don't know what second opinion scanners are and you don't get any notification from your AV, it means you can be infected but you don't know you are infected
Last edited:
souhrid
Level 5
- Jun 29, 2012
- 226
First of all i had to look into dictionary to understand what "stereotypical" meansA very stereotypical comment.
Have you used Windows Defender on Windows 10 Anniversary Update, for at least 6 months? If you ran into malware, How did you do it and Why did you do that?
. I (average user) have lived with WD without getting infected. But i have learnt lots of tips and tricks from MalwareTips 
- Jan 26, 2016
- 150
Totally agree. To those saying the user needs to "use their brains" and not click on everything they see or download from just anywhere, then you should talk to people like my mother who wouldn't have a clue what's safe or not even if I try teaching her what to look out for and avoid. So for basic, non-computer literate, click-happy users, I would never recommend WD. If anything they need a more advanced security solution to be able to protect them from themselves.
I disagree. I have used Windows Defender for all my family for months; my computers are clean. As long as you teach your family to think before they click, set UAC to max, enable Smartscreen, and tell them to ask you if they don't know, they should be fine. Mine was, even my mom (elderly).
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL flawed videos as usual ... you clicked yes on UAC with every unknown files then " oh i got Cerber !!!," come on gimme a break.... pff....youtesters....same crap over and over...
i stopped watching.
oh by the way, how those malware sample comes from ? downloaded from internet on the testing system? because if not, smartscreen won't detect them.
Smartscreen detect only files downloaded in the current system because they will have the current system 's tag "mark of the web" If coming from another system , they won't.
you can replicate this by downloading the file by the VM-ed browser and the same file on the real system. Then disable internet (blocking Smartscreen reputation check) , and run each of them separately on the VM.
result: the exe downloaded from the real system and imported in the VM won't be blocked.
My conclusion: you want compare fairly WD ? compare it with just the scanner module of other products , not with the HIPS/BB/webfilters enabled. and most of all, learn the basic of security.
only amateur...
WD and all native security was made to give to the average user basic protection without any hassle and incompatibilities. Not to backup idiots happy clickers.
this videos is exactly the essence BS of youtesters. They do in videos what they will never do on their system...and don't even understand security.
serious and skilled IT don't care of youtesters, they have their skills.
Happy clickers are lost cause, because they don't even try to use their brain when it comes to computer...ask your mother if she would drink from an opened bottle some strangers gave her , surely not...
If you mother is an happy clicker and can't follow 3 safe habits , then you should enforce SUA or guest account with passworded UAC, disable elevation of unsigned files , etc... then put a system-wide virtualization software like Shadow Defender or an some Software Restriction Policy because even with the best security soft she will manage to be infected somedays.
i stopped watching.
oh by the way, how those malware sample comes from ? downloaded from internet on the testing system? because if not, smartscreen won't detect them.
Smartscreen detect only files downloaded in the current system because they will have the current system 's tag "mark of the web" If coming from another system , they won't.
you can replicate this by downloading the file by the VM-ed browser and the same file on the real system. Then disable internet (blocking Smartscreen reputation check) , and run each of them separately on the VM.
result: the exe downloaded from the real system and imported in the VM won't be blocked.
My conclusion: you want compare fairly WD ? compare it with just the scanner module of other products , not with the HIPS/BB/webfilters enabled. and most of all, learn the basic of security.
only amateur...
WD and all native security was made to give to the average user basic protection without any hassle and incompatibilities. Not to backup idiots happy clickers.
this videos is exactly the essence BS of youtesters. They do in videos what they will never do on their system...and don't even understand security.
serious and skilled IT don't care of youtesters, they have their skills.
Happy clickers are lost cause, because they don't even try to use their brain when it comes to computer...ask your mother if she would drink from an opened bottle some strangers gave her , surely not...
If you mother is an happy clicker and can't follow 3 safe habits , then you should enforce SUA or guest account with passworded UAC, disable elevation of unsigned files , etc... then put a system-wide virtualization software like Shadow Defender or an some Software Restriction Policy because even with the best security soft she will manage to be infected somedays.
Last edited by a moderator:
I will try to follow your guides for my parents in VN. they completely ignore UAC because they don't have enough IT skills and they don't understand english, just common words. They often call me to ask about a simple task (word, excel, download location,...) and I have to use teamviewer to help. Shadow defender can be great but difficult for them because sometimes they install something and after a reboot, it's gone => they will call me again. I'm too far to help
That is the problem, people install what please them without checking what the apps do. so, as bare minimum, limited accounts are required.
Not for Windows' native security , because it would be difficult to find a malware that bypass it on its own.
if i would make a basic guideline, it would be:
1- use a SUA (this one could be argued since Windows don't create SUA by default)
2- download the malware samples in the test machine so smartscreen will do what it is supposed to do.
3- click "no" to every Smartscreen & UAC prompts
- Jan 27, 2017
- 139
Thank you very much. Your basic guideline is very much appreciated. Hopefully others will use and benefit from it as well.
You are welcome.
And to feed you with some native security tests : Microsoft Edge Tops Browser Protection Tests | SecurityWeek.Com
i dont know the methodology used, so take it as information, not as absolute truth.
- Jan 27, 2017
- 139
So it is probably fair to say that this is more of a 'real test' than the average security hobbyist could ever produce. Correct?
Similar threads
