Windows Defender Is Becoming the Powerful Antivirus That Windows 10 Needs

I don't keep anything important or personal in my computer just trivial stuff. I have 5 high capacity USB drives and several flash drives of 64 GB (they are very cheap nowadays). Still, I haven't had a single detection or warning as far as I can remember either using Avira, Kaspersky or lately Defender. If a home user spends money for security on a yearly basis, it may give him/her some peace of mind, but as far as I'm concerned it is wasted. Obviously running a business or being a well known wealthy family/celebrity would expose users to potential attacks

 

Well there's certainly no harm in better protecting your system. But for me, I don't feel the need to do so.

I spend many hours online and for the most part, I never actually encounter any malware.

 

The chances of a average domestic user running Windows 10 updated to be the target of a zero day exploit are less than one of them being hit by lightning when walking the streets in a sunny day, even so you dont see health people worrying about that second scenario.

The only reason threats seems to be rapid envolving is the fact that normal executable malware infections nowadays are brutally dealed by email filters, Windows SmartScreen, antivirus cloud reputation, browser reputation protection and so on, even "advanced" threats like LOLBins still needs that the user makes a mistake.

Windows users have never been so secure by default, most people simple doesnt care about buying antivirus anymore and they dont need to; folks need to learn about security and not about third party tools.

 

It is incredibly hard to find malware nowadays with normal usage, more so if there is an adblocker active.

 

100%. Paranoia is always a factor for AV overloading, but if you are rational and backup on a regular basis, you are secure. Also with Defender being built-in to Win10, look at the discounts currently available for most AVs. Unheard of discounts in many cases and several of the AV vendors most likely will be out of business soon. Fact is, excellent security can be free.

 

Windows Security feels heavy in my system, and I confirmed it when I tested it using benchmark programs like NovaBench.

Second, security programs are too expensive, and both performance and system impact may change every year or so.

Given that, I decided to settle for free versions with the best performance and security. For the latter, I found five that routinely do well: Kaspersky Security Cloud, Bitdefender Free, Avast Free, AVG Free, and Sophos Free. After trying each one, doing simple benchmarks, and looking out for any functional problems or annoyances (like slowdown in typing in websites to logins not saved to popup notifications for upgrades), I settled for AVG Free in silent mode, and did the same for other machines at home that I have to maintain (most users are beginners).

If Windows Security improves in terms of system impact, then I'll switch to it.

Meanwhile, I continued using backups, which have similar problems, especially cost. But I found AOMEI, which has very good promos for lifetime updates. The same goes for Adguard.

 

Well if someone gets infected; maybe for the first time gets hit really hard, it's pretty natural to feel paranoid and angry and want to go overboard w/security software.

I wouldn't berate or belittle anyone over that. Malware has evolved into something truly evil nowadays.

 

Well said! I think we all agree that the risk of getting infected isn't very big and I also don't suggest that "nomal" home users should pile up security tools like most of us do. But what's wrong with some extra hassle free security? And if people really "need" it is subjective at the end of the day.

LOL, yes exactly. Backups won't protect your data from being stolen.

Yes, I wouldn't recommend more complex security tools to the average home users but for example apps like SpyShelter Silent and AppCheck don't rely on user input and can be operated by anyone.

 

Right, nothing wrong at all, especially when that additional security protects against threats that AV could easily miss.

BTW, my rational for enhancing security beyond AV or Defender is not based on paranoia, but rather from having some understanding - by no means expert level ofc - of the threats that are in current circulation, and that one should not underestimate the abilities of those who create them. At the risk of sounding like a broken record for mentioning it again, there was the Blaster worm in the early 2000's that easily infiltrated an unpatched XP box exposed to the Internet with no user interaction whatsoever. Yes I know that was Swiss cheese XP and being behind a firewall stopped the worm, but it should illustrate that if a virus created nearly 20 years ago could so easily infect an O/S with far less complicated code than Win 10, then maybe, just maybe a talented bad actor could find similar weaknesses in Win 10 to exploit it just as easily.

EDIT

I forgot to mention, a week ago my firewall with Outbound restricted, alerted to an attempt by Firefox to connect to remote TCP port 8155 when I landed on an innocent looking tech website. It could very well have been harmless, but I only allow ports 80 & 433, and selectively 81-82, 8080. No need to count on Defender or AV as I prevented a potential threat in the first place by using some additional security.

 

The thread title itself shows that Microsoft has been working harder on the built-in security software, and that in turn puts to questions claims that the built-in software is good enough (apparently not, hence the need for improvement), that that plus common sense and backups are good enough, that so-and-so is fine because "I've not been infected for x years," etc.

The reality is that security software developers are continuously improving their products, which means the software is not good enough. That's because common sense and backups are not enough given increasing sophistication of malware (e.g., not just malfunctioning systems but also stolen data, and malware that may be delivered in various ways and even through "legitimate" sites and software), and that usage is different, which is why what's lighter for one is not for another, and what works for one doesn't do as well for another.

Meanwhile, when there are new features or patches made to operating systems, security programs, or other software, then new problems may emerge, such as slowdowns, malfunctioning software, annoyances, and even new vulnerabilities.

Finally, most users are beginners and for various reasons, and most do not have the time to test software, figure out what went wrong and fix it, and remain patient with loss of functionality, like folders containing documents that can't be accessed because security programs are blocking them, or even being reminded to backup data or the system regularly. What they want, in general, is a set and forget system, and preferably free or at low cost. And if they're relying on friends and relatives for technical support, the latter would also like the same in order to minimize the time needed to fix problems. And in terms of performance, most do not mind a slight decrease unless it makes them angry, like browsers freezing, videos for work not being encoded as fast, etc.

The hard part is working with users who have different needs and hardware available; e.g., a gamer who wants speed but doesn't care about backups, another who doesn't have money to buy an external HD to do backups, a third who only wants browsers not to freeze but has a lot of external HD space for backups. Notice that for some of them, something like Windows Security with set-and-forget daily backups will do, while for others lighter security programs will be needed. And none of them will bother with something like firewall popups or doing deep searches in forums to find answers to system problems that crop up, like specific BSODs.

 

I still say an good anti-virus, an updated system, and ad blocker and safe computer habits is all most people need.

Malware today isn't like malware of 10 years ago, the malware now is designed to make money, they target business's, not everyday joe's. Users today need to be more aware of phishing, people trying to scam you to get your information, a lot from malicious emails that people stupidly open. Not worms or trojans or any of the other crap anti-virus companies try to scare you with to sell their programs.

I'm just saying, protect yourself, but don't be paranoid and overdue it.

 

Agree 100%

 

Spot on

 

Yes exactly, when securing PC's for other users you need to take a look at how they make use of their machines. Certain people only need to use a certain amount of apps and never download any new ones, with these people you can easily lockdown the machine with for example whitelisting. While others don't want to be restricted but are still paranoid. Yet, they don't want to be bothered with all kind of alerts.

Win Defender and other well known AV's should normally take care of 98% procent of all malware, but you still need to make sure you cover the other 2%, in case you are dealing with more sophisticated attacks. Think of the CCleaner "supply chain" attack and the IObit forum hack.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/21/ccleaner-supply-chain-malware-targeted-tech-giants/
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/ne...-gang-taunts-iobit-with-repeated-forum-hacks/

 

Giant software gobbled up by M$, & now a respectable competitor. Previous NOD32, KIS, & Bitdefender. I'll now use WD+Mbam & the old ace in the hole Macrium.

 

Hi,

Anybody have the link for AndyFuls open source github tool, ConfigureDefender?
To download and install the changes for Window Defender?
And will one need Windows Pro and Enter-prize?

 

Here you go Mr. Moosie.

https://github.com/AndyFul/ConfigureDefender

You do not need Pro or Enterprise to run this.

 

https://github.com/AndyFul/ConfigureDefender/blob/master/ConfigureDefender3001.zip

That took longer to type this post than find the link.

 

@digmor crusher
Umm, I thought it was Pro or Enterprise,only.
Thank you for the info, much appreciate.


@ Krusty,
Depending on your typing speed. But anyway, Thank you
for posting it will come in handy for other individuals.

 

I have 2TB worth of data on my SSD. Strange that Windows Defender took a whooping 2 hours and 40 mins to do a full scan when other AVs take like 30 mins max.

 

@digmor crusher,

Thank you, for the information... you are very detail.
And follow-up on things......

@Krusty,
Again thank you for the link....I am sure it will come
in handy for other individuals.

 

You're welcome. Glad to help.

 

This sounds weird, luckily I never do full malware scans. But surely M$ needs to fix this.

 

Does anyone recommend any good policies to enable for hardening Windows Defender?

 

Windows Defender doesn't whitelist files right? as in, it keeps scanning them over and over again?