You are welcome, CoolWebSearch. And congratulations with the new PC. It's always a great feeling when getting some new hardware.
I've been watching and reading about how improved WD is. So, to test it out, I recently switched over from using Trend AV+ (worked well and light). Using W10 and so far so go. WD is using comparable (RAM) or less computer resources (CPU use and time) and can't feel any slow downs with anything (boot up, SSDs, browsing Web or files, etc.). I'm relatively careful and know what I'm doing, so I'll try it for a few months and use MBAM to do weekly scans.
Hi Pirate_fin, I'd be interested in learning more about this problem. What exactly happened -- full system freeze?! And, do you already have the "1511 Fall Update" applied to your Windows 10? Thanks Vlk
vlk, It might be a good opportunity to send a PM to Pirate_fin so as to leave this thread as a discussion about Windows Defender instead of going off topic about avast. ... Just a suggestion.
I noticed the new test results from AV-Test from September and October 2015 was out and this time done on Windows 10 x64. Running them through the calculator : 142*0,195=27,69=28 142*0,05=7,1=7 20754*0,001=20,75=21 20754*0,009=186,79=187 28+7+21+187=243 142+142+20754+20754=41792 243/41792=0,00581*100=0,58 100-0,58=99,42 So during the two months where AV-Test tested Windows Defender on Windows 10 x64, Windows Defender blocked 99,42% of the samples and only missed 0,58% (here on Wilders people are hitting each other in the head with links to charts usually without looking at the numbers behind the charts, so thought it would be nice if one of these threads took another direction then usual)
WD = Protection Score 3.5/6.0 https://www.av-test.org/en/antiviru...r-2015/microsoft-windows-defender-4.8-153747/ https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/october-2015/
Just trolling again are we Anon not much point in posting links to tests done with old/outdated versions of Defender.
Latest AV-TEST performance for Windows Defender on Windows 10 is 3s (industry average=3s). Windows Defender performance on Windows 10 was also tested at http://passmark.com/ftp/Consumer_Security_Products_Performance_Benchmarks_2016_Ed_2.pdf
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/windows-10-defender.378502/page-3#post-2543721 WD = Protection Score 3.5/6.0
You are absolutely correct. Anon is always trolling. He is obsessed with posting things he has not read through or understood. Apparently it is difficult for him to accept that MSE/Defender are the AV with the biggest user base in the world. Does any MSE/Defender user ever show up in other threads, just to spread bitter bile ?? No, they don't. They use their PC for what it was intended to be used for. I'm not sure why he's so bitter. But it's generally not healthy to suffer such obsession. The only advice I can give is to ignore him. As I posted a little further up on page, Windows Defender blocked 99,42% of everything they threw at it during the last two months. And it did that no matter what score they transform 99,42% into.
I think some people are jumping on anon a bit too eagerly. You may disagree with the way he/she behaves but it doesn't change the results that were posted. The test was accurate for the time it was performed (last month at the time of writing this post) and at that time the latest version of Defender was used. These things generally take some time to go through the various publishing steps. If you're looking for good news you should actually look at the detailed results from the first link. September 0-day protection was 80%, October 0-day protection was 95%. You can choose to interpret these results any way you wish, every testing company is different and uses different samples.
IMO, I have to agree. Labelling the test as outdated is nonsense. Any test published by AV-TEST is at least one month old! LoL
Microsoft again did very well in the latest prevalence testing by AV-Comparatives. It could be argued that this is a more accurate method of testing than the usual analysis run by AV-Test.org. http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/arc...-to-traditional-antimalware-test-scoring.aspx
Great to see another report released that has prevalence-weighted results. It's without a doubt a labor-intensive process to produce these reports. But the results provides much more meaningful information to the reader. I sincerely hope that we will see more and more tests presented like this, because this way we can see the actual impact on the end user. Traditional ranking will always be comparing oranges with apples. With prevalence-weighted results, nobody can hide behind an inflated score/percentage. It's a pleasure to read a report like this one - the AV-Comparatives Prevalence Report from 2015.
''Shields up on potentially unwanted applications in your enterprise'' --> opt-in feature for enabling detection of Potential Unwanted Applications. Probably setting the mentioned registry key will also work for non-enterprise versions (e.g. MSE, unmanaged Defender)
After updating my WD defs today WD found this Program:Win32/CompromisedCert.D http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/threat/encyclopedia/entry.aspx?name=Program:Win32/CompromisedCert.D&threatid=224188&enterprise=0#tab=2 An attacker can exploit a certificate using phishing or man-in-the-middle attacks to decrypt, modify or spoof HTTPS websites, such as banking, social media, or email websites. This could allow a malicious hacker to steal your user names, passwords, and confidential data. They could also carry out transactions without your knowledge, even when it seems like you have a secure browser connection to a website. I wonder if malwarbytes AE would have caught the exploit if it were to happen
Makes you wonder how many other companies root certificates private keys were leaked and posted on the web and how did MS discover they were stolen in the first place?
Nothing was stolen, it's the same debacle as with Superfish / Lenovo. https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thre...ot-ca-similar-to-lenovo-and-superfish.381693/
