App Review Windows Defender vs Malware in 2021 (The PC Security Channel)

[Andy Ful]

This is Microsoft's responsibility and it does an atrocious job of explaining just about anything involving Windows. Absolutely terrible.


Actually, it is more than mere opinion. It is fact.


AV cannot protect users against themselves, but a lot of people mistakenly think that it can.


99% of people spend money on AV and use the default settings. This makes it, more or less, a waste of their money as they can only get value-added increases in security if they tweak settings.

Thanks. I was afraid that I might be the most radical member here.

 

[roger_m]

99% of people spend money on AV and use the default settings. This makes it, more or less, a waste of their money as they can only get value-added increases in security if they tweak settings.

I disagree. While tweaking can improve security, you typically don't need to do that to get decent protection. Some antivirus provide arguably better protection than MD does, even with the default settings. As well as that, a big reason people use third party antiviruses, is often not to get better protection than MD. For some people, myself included, MD causes noticeable slowdowns at times, so they choose an alternative that doesn't slow down their computers. It makes sense to do that, and I won't use any antivirus that makes my system run noticeably slower. Some people want an antivirus with more features than MD has.

In my case, my choice of antivirus is not based on having the best protection. I use one that has the functionality I want, doesn't slow down my computer and provides good protection, even if there are some alternatives that provide better protection.

 

[mlnevese]

I disagree. While tweaking can improve security, you typically don't need to do that to get decent protection. Some antivirus provide arguably better protection than MD does, even with the default settings. As well as that, a big reason people use third party antiviruses, is often not to get better protection than MD. For some people, myself included, MD causes noticeable slowdowns at times, so they choose an alternative that doesn't slow down their computers. It makes sense to do that, and I won't use any antivirus that makes my system run noticeably slower. Some people want an antivirus with more features than MD has.

In my case, my choice of antivirus is not based on having the best protection. I use one that has the functionality I want, doesn't slow down my computer and provides good protection, even if there are some alternatives that provide better protection.

Some people tweak their systems so much it becomes unusable or unstable. The problem is people go blindly applying all tweaks they find on the net without understanding what it does and without knowing how to revert the changes. Then they blame Windows or their security solution for problems that the user created.

 

[roger_m]

It has been well-proven over the years that Microsoft Defender is already decent protection. Therefore, there is no need to buy third party security software.

As I stated, there are some very good reasons for some people to use third party antiviruses. It's not just about protection.

You are using third party AV to solve a specific use-case that has nothing to do with protection. We get that. But most people do not need to buy an AV to solve system slowdown as that happens to only a small minority of all users.

Plenty of people complain about slowdowns with MD, even some people with high-end systems. Of course on the other hand, many people have no issues with its performance. In my case, as I said, it's not just about slowdowns, I prefer to have more control over my antivirus than MD allows.

For protection, Microsoft Defender is sufficient for most people. For the those that are happy clickers, prolific downloaders, and children, then no AV is sufficient.

That's true. But just because MD is sufficient, it is not enough reason to not use other antiviruses. If you're happy with MD use it. If you're not, there it's fine to use something else. A common reason I see for people using MD rather than third party antiviruses, is that it doesn't cause any issues. However, my main antivirus literally never causes any issues either.

Some people tweak their systems so much it becomes unusable or unstable. The problem is people go blindly applying all tweaks they find on the net without understanding what it does and without knowing how to revert the changes. Then they blame Windows or their security solution for problems that the user created.

I don't do any hardening or excessive tweaking of my computer and as a result, I never have any issues with Windows Update and feature updates. For the most part, for me, Windows is very stable and works well. By seeing the number of people who often have issues with their systems, such as major problems with updates, I'm well aware how much heavily tweaking a system can affect Windows. For my usage, I just don't see the point of doing so, as it is exceptionally rare for me to encounter any actual malware.

 

[Kongo]

It has been well-proven over the years that Microsoft Defender is already decent protection. Therefore, there is no need to buy third party security software. Of those that do buy AV do not do tweaks. They just install it and then go with whatever is the default settings. Optimal settings made by AV engineers are meant for home users that cannot handle configuring the software. In terms of actual security, optimized default configuration does not provide optimal security.

You are using third party AV to solve a specific use-case that has nothing to do with protection. We get that. But most people do not need to buy an AV to solve system slowdown as that happens to only a small minority of all users.

For protection, Microsoft Defender is sufficient for most people. For the those that are happy clickers, prolific downloaders, and children, then no AV is sufficient.

@roger_m didnt question the fact that MD provides enough protection for most people. He said that some third-party AVs have more features and are lighter for some users. Saying that only a minority of people have slowdowns with MD makes no sense, as you don’t even know how many people have performance issues with MD. Some people don’t have the latest hardware, so for them another AV solution could work out better than MD.

 

[low L!fe]

I will not use this program even if it gets first place
The reason I don't trust him
note: Windows 10 21H1 Improve Windows Defender

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

Overall from a protection standpoint, MD is very capable and can technically be more than enough for most users. That being said, as much as I like using MD...it doesn't meet everyone's needs. There are plenty of great things about it that make it a better option than using a 3rd party AV IMO, but there is more to the picture than protection alone. Performance, UI, usability, access to settings, etc...are all factors that someone needs to look at when deciding which program to use.

While MD has great protection, it doesn't always meet everyone's needs when it comes to performance, usability, etc....
While you can make changes to it's settings via PowerShell, registry and group policy...unless you are tech savvy, or use one of @Andy Ful 's programs, changing those settings is out of reach for most people.

All in all there is no such thing as a perfect product. This is why it is far more important to test each program yourself, on you computer, using your workflow, in order to decide which one of the best one for you. Asking forum members which one to use and relying on that alone isn't good enough either. Most prople will just mention the one they use/like, not necessarily which is best for YOU.

From a protection stand point, it is true no product is perfect and every AV will miss things. It's why it's very important to practice safe computing habits along side running an AV. The moral of the story here is to not soly focus on protection, but to take into account all aspects of a particular AV to decide which one is truly best for you.

 

[monkeylove]

One can no longer rely on safe habits as there have been news of malware appearing in bank websites, ads, etc., or parts of websites and servers that are not seen, and others now able to run file less, and they are appearing more consistently. That said, claims that we're looking at fearmongering makes no sense. And as more features are added to computer applications coupled with new hardware and devices, then expect more vulnerabilities that alone may lead to more crashes, if not more gaps for exploits.

In which case, Microsoft has fared badly, and not only in terms of security programs but even providing things like backup programs. And the fact that hardening features aren't still on by default means they're still trying to catch up.

Given that, these videos and the sites mentioned earlier are all important, and consumers should at least consider them and test trial programs for performance impact before deciding what to use. Online claims about one not getting infected for years or that the program that one uses is the lightest are also all pointless because computers are configured and used differently.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

Some people tweak their systems so much it becomes unusable or unstable. The problem is people go blindly applying all tweaks they find on the net without understanding what it does and without knowing how to revert the changes. Then they blame Windows or their security solution for problems that the user created.

This is also mostly the case for web browser (beside OS tweaking) and sadly makes us more and easier trackable.
On OS level this increase the problematic cases which can't all be addressed on Microsoft side but users doesn't understand this. It's an never ending story.

In my perfect world, the OS would be equally on all systems with same secure settings which can't be changed and with one default browser which can't be changed too.

 

[Andy Ful]

This is also mostly the case for web browser (beside OS tweaking) and sadly makes us more and easier trackable.
On OS level this increase the problematic cases which can't all be addressed on Microsoft side but users doesn't understand this. It's an never ending story.

In my perfect world, the OS would be equally on all systems with same secure settings which can't be changed and with one default browser which can't be changed too.

Chromebook?

 

[Kongo]

This is also mostly the case for web browser (beside OS tweaking) and sadly makes us more and easier trackable.
On OS level this increase the problematic cases which can't all be addressed on Microsoft side but users doesn't understand this. It's an never ending story.

In my perfect world, the OS would be equally on all systems with same secure settings which can't be changed and with one default browser which can't be changed too.

Quite a boring world if you ask me

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

Chromebook?

Generally yes but privacy wise still a no-go.

Quite a boring world if you ask me

Well, in my world you can config your wallpaper like you want with even automatic random ones. Oh and random light+dark mode as everyone need changes.
Better?

 

[Kongo]

Generally yes but privacy wise still a no-go.


Well, in my world you can config your wallpaper like you want with even automatic random ones. Oh and random light+dark mode as everyone need changes.
Better?

Much better.

 

[Brahman]

This is also mostly the case for web browser (beside OS tweaking) and sadly makes us more and easier trackable.
On OS level this increase the problematic cases which can't all be addressed on Microsoft side but users doesn't understand this. It's an never ending story.

In my perfect world, the OS would be equally on all systems with same secure settings which can't be changed and with one default browser which can't be changed too.

On the contrary I think that would be a recepie for disaster or a ticking time bomb. Every one has the same os with same settings and one and the same bugs and backdoors, it would be a gold mine for hackers, malware writers....I seriously think the fragmentation is a good thing for security.

 

[ForgottenSeer 85179]

On the contrary I think that would be a recepie for disaster or a ticking time bomb. Every one has the same os with same settings and one and the same bugs and backdoors, it would be a gold mine for hackers, malware writers....I seriously think the fragmentation is a good thing for security.

I disagree. Fixing one bug on all systems is easier then fixing bugs with different setups.
Development would be also a lot faster which means faster updates and because of less fragmented setups also less needed updates.

Also if you talk about back doors, it doesn't matter how your config is.

But I get your point

 

[Andy Ful]

Everything might depend on the motivation of cybercriminals. One aggregated attack via never-seen exploit could be globally devastating. In nature, diversity has an advantage for complex systems.