Comodo with Windows Defender?

A little correction. MS started with MS Antispyware Beta (and it looked a lot to Sunbelt Software's CounterSpy). Then evolved to Windows Defender. Back in that time Ewido looked like A-squared later bought by AVG and integrated in their Anti-Spyware (later integrated to AVG Antivirus and now part of avast). Webroot SpySweeper and PCTools SpywareDoctor was very popular as well.

Btw Before Emsisoft made A-squared their software was called Anti-Trojan 5.5 if I remember correctly. It was very popular along with DiamondCS T.D.S. 3

WD like most of the antivirus software programs often was a target for the malware writers. I still remember one of the ZeroAccess rootkit versions which rendered MD/MSE useless by messing up with the permissions, services and junction points. It was a really pain in the neck to fix the system and make MD/MSE work again but this happened to other pure AV solutions as well. Since malware writers are always step ahead that led to the need of using zero-day solutions like HIPS/BB/Sandbox/Virtualization/Advanced Heuristics etc. In other words WD is not so bad if using in combo like Comodo Firewall, PrivateFirewall or other similar solution. If not then I would go for an integrated solution like EAM or so on. And not because I am paranoid or I can't protect myself without advanced security software but because I know the risk out there (since I am a long time member of malware removal experts).

Have a good day all!

 

Forgot about this one...

Correct A-Squared was officially released in 2003 but Anti-Trojan predated it.

 

Ummm, sorry, but that is not totally correct.

It started with the purchase of "Giant Antispyware". Microsoft rebranded it to (the first) "Windows Defender" which, as indicated, was an antispyware only product. Microsoft also made this product free to everyone - a major and significant first step in their new philosophy to put security first so they would stop getting blamed for the security mess we were put in by the actions of the badguys and the failure of the current anti-malware industry to stop them.

And by the way, contrary to what was claimed a few posts up, it was not "almost useless". In fact, at the time, Giant AntiSpyware was generally considered the best anti-spyware product on the market. See also, Microsoft Acquires Anti-Spyware Leader Giant Company.

While Sunbelt initially claimed otherwise and while the "looks" may have been similar, Giant Antispyware and this anti-spyware version of Windows Defender had no relation with Sunbelt, as Sunbelt later acknowledged, and as noted here.

Then, in another one of Microsoft's misguided marketing decisions and confusing naming schemes , Microsoft Security Essentials (which had no relation with previous version of Windows Defender - the anti-spyware program) was renamed to Windows Defender (the antimalware program) for W8.

That's true. But please note that I said, "Even the best anti-malware providers can only guess and speculate what the bad guys will come up with next."

Yes, they do all share information about the malicious code - and I very much applaud the industry for doing that. But my comment was about new and thus far not yet discovered code. That is where the companies can only guess and speculate about what the bad guys will come up with next.

That said, while they do share information about malicious code, they don't share their proprietary methods for blocking it. So if the company that first discovers the code is one that also produces antimalware products, they have first crack at developing code to patch the vulnerabilities - thus my comment about them being first to the plate with a defense.

Also, and for further clarification for those "not behind the curtain" there is a big difference between fixing "flaws" (program vulnerabilities, bugs, etc.) and developing code to block exploitation of those vulnerabilities.

The antimalware industry creates solutions to block malicious code designed to exploit an existing vulnerability or flaw.They don't fix the flaw.

An actual fix (program or file update) is most often used by the program (or OS) developer to permanently correct the code (or patch the flaw) so it is no longer capable of being exploited. Once the update is applied, the malicious code is nullified and totally pointless.

This is exactly why the Equifax Hack was so tragic. A patch to prevent the exploitation of that specifically targeted vulnerability was made available months earlier. But those responsible to apply that patch ignored and neglected their responsibilities and failed to apply the patch ! So once again demonstrating that the user is always the weakest link in security.

And FTR, while Emsisoft may have been a pioneer in behavior analysis, they were not the first to come up with the idea, or the only company with the innovations. So in spite of all the self promotion in this thread, it is important to note being a pioneer does not make one the best, or only solution. Nor does it mean the alternatives are less or incapable of doing the job.

 

I, feel, like, this, thread, has, become, off-topic, without, addressing, the, OP.

Instead of arguing about semantics and acting narcissistic, could we just discuss the opening post? Does WD offer anything else apart from signature\generic detections?

 

No, it really does not add anything. But it also won't hurt anything by having it enabled. If WD catches something, fine; if it does not, then CF is there to catch you when you fall.

In actuality it is easier to leave WD enabled (I do) then to disable it as the procedure to disable it is a pain to accomplish and just not worth the effort. Note that this is for Windows 10. For Win 7 and 8 WD just blows (sometimes you have to call a Spade a Spade).

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...erful-antivirus-that-windows-10-needs.383448/

start from the end

 

Hi, hanks for the rely.
I disable/ enable WD via group policy using two saved reg enteries. All it needs few clicks and a reboot.

https://www.tenforums.com/tutorials/5918-turn-off-windows-defender-windows-10-a.html