Windows Defender Updated!

[Legendkiller]

Report From Neowin.Net:
-{ Quote: "New updated versions of Windows Defender are available for download. Both 32-bit and 64-bit editions of Windows Defender have been republished yesterday, March 13, 2007. Windows
Defender will offer protection against pop-ups, slow performance, security threats and potentially unwanted software. Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 and Windows XP Service Pack 2 are the only operating systems supported by Windows Defender. With this release, Microsoft no longer supports Windows 2000.

“This is the most current release of Windows Defender. If Windows Defender informed you that an update is available, you are running an older version. We encourage you to upgrade to this version. If you have version 1.1.1592.0, you must first manually uninstall Windows Defender before you can install this newer version,” informed Microsoft.

This release features a revamped graphical user interface that has been redesigned in accordance with customer input. In this regard, Microsoft has labored to simplify common tasks but also to create an adaptive alert system with levels that directly reflect the severity of the threat.

A new anti-malware engine has been integrated into this release, and therefore, Windows Defender can now detect and remove an extended array of threats. The Redmond Company has additionally introduced smaller volumes of delta definition updates, reducing the updates download frequency together with the users' exposure window.

Microsoft has also crippled Windows Defender in such a manner that the tool will only remove critical threats from machines that are running non-genuine copies of Windows XP. “Low, Medium and High threats will be detected, but not removed unless your copy of Windows is genuine,” Microsoft added." }-
************************************************************
Download Page: Link (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyId=435BFCE7-DA2B-4A6A-AFA4-F7F14E605A0D&displaylang=en&mg_id=10134)

[cheater87]

I'll still keep Spyware Terminator.

[Legendkiller]

i did not find any of those updates mentioned by softpedia's reviewer....just waste of time....

[HAN]

After looking at the "new" version here at work, all they seem to have changed is the installer. ALL of the version numbers (Defender itself, the engine and the definitions) of the "new" Defender and the previous one are the same...

[aigle]

What about GUI, settings etc?

[HAN]

-{ Quote: "What about GUI, settings etc?" }-

The same. :)

[zapjb]

Still Cr*p!

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "The same. :)" }-
I am not a typical MS basher but WD is a poor antispyware.
MSAS was much better. Shameful.

[Perman]

Hi, folks: I was a loyal user of Giant AS, then a reluctant keeper of MSAS, turned to a deserter of WD(early version), never had a chance to glance it again until now. Just because WD 7 is available only to Win2003,WinXP and genuine copy users, I feel being treated like a VIP, I gave it another run.
The result is not too bad, generally speaking. I will keep it for further observation. Keeping an open mind perhaps,IMO, is a better approach towards this MS product. Time will tell. If you have disk room and RAM to spare, why not give it a spin, you may hit a jackpot :) Have a nice one, always.

[HAN]

My feeling is that Defender has a fairly decent real-time scanner. So if it's installed on a clean machine, IMO, it would do a pretty good job of warning you about intrusions. That said, it's cleanup ability is where it has quite a ways to go. (Add that it does not yet work correctly for Limited User accounts. It loads ok, and does trigger warnings on incidents. But it does not prevent events from continuing as it does in an Admin account.)

[Simon6776]

Would anyone like to comment on how this new version of WD compares to Spyware Blaster? I currently run SB, but the license is due for renewal in about a month. If WD is comparable, I may not bother with SB. I should stress, these are only intended as backups for my main protection, which is currently the F-Secure suite.

[lodore]

put it this way f-secure may have a slow boottime and use alot of processes but it will block tons of nasties out there.
it blocked 3 trojans by the on access scanner in the 2 years i used it
lodore

[lodore]

put it this way f-secure may have a slow boottime and use alot of processes but it will block tons of nasties out there.
it blocked 3 trojans by the on access scanner in the 2 years i used it
normaly f-secure did work fine for most of the time i used it and now i suspect that the ram was bad back then but i didnt know at that time.
lodore

[Simon6776]

So, your opinion, Lodore, is that neither WD or SB are needed?

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "Would anyone like to comment on how this new version of WD compares to Spyware Blaster? I currently run SB, but the license is due for renewal in about a month. If WD is comparable, I may not bother with SB. I should stress, these are only intended as backups for my main protection, which is currently the F-Secure suite." }-
Sb is just an immunizer and u don,t need to pay for it except if u choose for auto-updates. If u do manual updates, free is enough.

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "So, your opinion, Lodore, is that neither WD or SB are needed?" }-
It depends. I can say more if u tell about ur surfing habits, ur browsers, system and security appliances.

[Simon6776]

-{ Quote: "It depends. I can say more if u tell about ur surfing habits, ur browsers, system and security appliances." }-
F-Secure Internet Security 2007.

Mozilla (Sea Monkey) browser.

System - mid-high spec when built 4 years ago. 1.5Ghz CPU, 1Gb RAM.

Surfing habits - usually fairly safe. Occasionally wander into torrent territory. Oh, and some dodgy forums. ;) ;D

-{ Quote: "Sb is just an immunizer and u don,t need to pay for it except if u choose for auto-updates. If u do manual updates, free is enough." }-
Yes, but it's fairly cheap for the auto updates, and I prefer that to remembering manual updates.

[lucas1985]

SWB > WD ;)

[lodore]

you dont really need SB
im not even gonna bother with SB on my new system.
f-secure should be enough even with sometimes bad habits.
if you havent already download superantispyware free version and use it for on demand scans.
if you want to buy a seprate antispyware program get superantispyware pro
lodore

[aigle]

-{ Quote: "F-Secure Internet Security 2007.

Mozilla (Sea Monkey) browser.

System - mid-high spec when built 4 years ago. 1.5Ghz CPU, 1Gb RAM.

Surfing habits - usually fairly safe. Occasionally wander into torrent territory. Oh, and some dodgy forums. " }-
.
Torrents might be risky, not sure, never used.
As a rule risky surfing can reak through of any security measure. But in my opinion Windows Defender will not protect anything more than F-Secure.
U can add on-demand AVG antispyware free and SuperAntispyware free.

-{ Quote: "
Yes, but it's fairly cheap for the auto updates, and I prefer that to remembering manual updates." }-

As u are using Mozilla, SB not needed. It can only control some cookies( if everI that u can do by ur browser very well.

[Simon6776]

OK, thanks guys.

Aigle, it's not usually the torrents themselves, it's the host websites that can be dodgy, but on a scale of 1 to 10, compared to warez /crack sites, which would be at least 8, if 10 is the riskiest, torrent sites come in at about 3½, providing you don't click on any ad-links. Obviously, anything downloaded is manually scanned before activating.

Lodore, yes, I had SuperASfree before, so I'll probably reinstall it, but it did seem to have some constant running processes, even though it's not supposed to be resident.

[cheater87]

I have Firefox and I still use SWB.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "OK, thanks guys.

Aigle, it's not usually the torrents themselves, it's the host websites that can be dodgy, but on a scale of 1 to 10, compared to warez /crack sites, which would be at least 8, if 10 is the riskiest, torrent sites come in at about 3½, providing you don't click on any ad-links. Obviously, anything downloaded is manually scanned before activating.

Lodore, yes, I had SuperASfree before, so I'll probably reinstall it, but it did seem to have some constant running processes, even though it's not supposed to be resident." }-

it onlu has one process called superantispyware.exe
once installed go to the prefrences and untick start superantispyware when windows starts then click close
lodore

[Simon6776]

OK, thanks.

[duke1959]

I thought I read that Windows Defender uses Heuristics for RealTime detection. This in my opinion would make it better for use with Firefox, and better than say AVG Anti-Spyware which uses only signatures for RT detection.

[lucas1985]

Although AVG AS might lack real time heuristics, it has much more signatures. It scored 81 % in a test made by AV-Test.org.
-{ Quote: "Torrents might be risky, not sure, never used." }-
P2Ping is more secure than browsing. P2P apps usually don´t do remote code execution. Use a whitelist (trusted servers) and a blacklist (IPs of MPAA/RIAA) and don´t download executable content.

[duke1959]

That's for On Demand Detection, and I can use the free version of AVG AS and SuperAntiSpyware to increase that percentage. I'm talking about prevention however, and it seems none of the Antispyware company's talk about how well their product "prevents" malware. Outside of HIPS programs that have had some testing done for RealTime detection, how many Antispyware programs have have been tested by a reputable source? I'm not knocking AVG AS, but even Ashampoo AS has Heuristics to detect unknown malware by behavior, and Windows Defender while it may not have the best On Demand Detection, not only uses Heuristics, but also the Microsoft SpyNet Community to help it increase it's RealTime "prevention" of unknown malware. I'm not saying it's better than AVG AS, Spyware Terminator, or some of the other paid programs, but then again how do we know for sure? Personally I don't really see a need for signature based AS programs using Firefox, but I do feel more secure with something that can detect any new or unknown malware in RealTime. That's why I'm beginning to believe that Windows Defender may be the way to go, and just use SAS, AVG AS, or A squared for On Demand.

[aigle]

Hi Duke, I believe all AS might be rather average in real time protection. I will suggest to stick with ur AV for real time signature based spyware detection and to use a HIPS for the real "real time" Spyware protection. If u still insist I guess BOClean might be best option( though I never used it but it is praised a lot) or AVG antipsyware or SAS Pro. All others might be heavy or rather poor. Windows defender- well I am sure it is not worth to be put on my system except for testing.

That,s all.

[duke1959]

Yeah I agree aigle. I am currently using Spyware Terminator which is likely to be enough protection for my needs. However do you think adding Comodo Pro FW would be of any help for added RealTime Protection because of its leak test capabilities?

[aigle]

Depend upon ur setup. I am not sure about ST HIPS but any goood HIPS will control most or all of leak tests. I am really not knowledgeable in FW matters.