Windows Defender Is Becoming the Powerful Antivirus That Windows 10 Needs

Why not?

 

Very happy with WD - have never had a virus on 2 pc's or a laptop at home with it installed. Does not cause conflict problems as some other AV's I've tried do. Oveall for free it is a real bargain for most users who do not want to or know how to deal with many decisions and administrative tasks (like my spouse)

 

You take MRG Effitas with a bit of an informed eye; likewise, you take the well-crafted words of certain sh..., uh, supporters with the same, if not more so. Could have some validity there, but for me and others: status quo. It would take a direct hit with some of that nastiness to make me change my ways. Hasn't happened yet on this trouble-free system.

 

Read the methodology.

 

Anything wrong?

 

Point 6 & 14 : no mention of UAC and smartscreen , which have consequence on how WD will behave while all other solutions have all their proactive features enabled while WD is just used as a single scanner.

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/thr...tion-programme-q-1-201-7.393921/#post-2674213

 

guest, are you saying the MRG test is--and has been--actively biased against Microsoft? Answering that would involve digging into the personality profiles of the testers, something that would never be openly published. Now that interests me!

Edit: I found one dated article alluding to tester bias, that's about it. Doesn't answer this specific question, though Technically, this should be over in the MRG thread, so I'll shaddap now.

 

All test labs does the same, they use full features of 3rd party AVs while using a WD just as a basic scanner, not very fair in my opinion.

"you don't compare a family Volvo with a tuned Skyline"

 

As they are separate products, there is no need to mention them. WD is the thing that would be replaced by a 3rd party product. You don't replace UAC or SmartScreen when you add a 3rd party product, so you can't apply them to only being used in conjunction with WD and nothing else. No, it isn't an apples to apples comparison (WD vs. a suite), but you can't claim the testing of something doesn't count because you didn't use it with additional optional components which can be used with any of the products tested.

 

@xxJackxx exactly so WD shouldn't even be compared with others unless the others are also single scanners.

As i say you don't compare a sport car with a family one.

 

To be honest on which side I am at on this topic I think that definately windows10 with all its filters and defender is good.

But a unsuspecting user who wants to open a email attachment in IT business just ignores the warning and if its something brand new it will get past and infect the machine.

Windows defender is completely signature based.No cloud/BB/Sanbox etc.

This is good but not enough and malware writers will find ways and yawn at this.If they want to protect us against ransomware they will have to do better than this.Another day i saw someone running win10 turned up infected with something that ate their memory.

Being a malware hunter myself I don't endorse relying solely on win10 and defender.Its probaby better idea to replace defender for something else that has better lines of defense.

 

Does anyone really take these tests seriously and chooses AV/Ms based on them?

Of course Defender's detection rate is lower, it's a default AV/M solution on billions of devices - literally every malware author will test his code against it and iterate the malware until it's not detected... However, with the 'block at first sight' feature, it's not such a problem.

Problem is that WD is updating its signatures through WU => only once a day, should be twice. But you can easily set that up.

 

I suspect the point of comparing them is to see what is gained (or lost) by adding the 3rd party software. I don't really think the intention is "ha ha, WD sucks, these products are better" as much as it is a "this is what you get out of the box, and this is what you get with a 3rd party product."

 

I don't think it's fair to say there's "no cloud". In virus & threat protection settings there is an option to turn on cloud-based protection which apparently works best with automatic sample submission enabled.

 

Who said that? Windows Defender has behavior blocker and powerful cloud protection (say hello to "Block at First Sight).

More info here:
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...ock-at-first-sight-windows-defender-antivirus
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...rotection-features-windows-defender-antivirus
http://news.softpedia.com/news/micr...t-s-more-advanced-than-you-think-515544.shtml

 

A couple of points to note:

This applies to CU version.

These features only apply to Enterprise vers. of Win 10.

 

No, the protection features are the same (except for Windows Defender ATP), the AUDIENCE is different.

Home users doesnt need and generally dont use Group Policy, System Center Configuration Manage, PowerShell cmdlets, and Windows Management Instrumentation (WMI) to configurate their protection.

 

Windows 10 Pro has group policy, and I saw all the settings there to enable Block at First Sight. Guessing here that Block at First Sight is enabled by default on Windows 10 Pro. Under group policy it was not configured.

 

Hi guys is WD enough for windows 7 to run as f/time AV?. sick of all these bloated AVS

 

The one built-in on Win7 it is not the same , it is an anti-spyware/PuP , the Win7 of Win8/10 Windows Defender version is a standalone scanner called "Microsoft Security Essential" (MSE).
And on Win7 i won't use it.

 

i know, they tested WD because it is present, but i rather put WD on a different category "single RT scanners" like Zemana, ClamAV, etc...not with elaborate AV like KAV, Avast, NOD32, etc...which posses HIPS/BB/sandboxes to complement their AV engine.

Anyway Tests labs can't pretend to do real tests scenarios by disabling default settings of Windows. They do because those feature (UAC, Smartscreen,etc...) will block most of their samples.
After all tests labs are just indirect advertisers for AV vendors.

 

See: https://www.wilderssecurity.com/threads/process-mitigation-management-tool.393096/#post-2674408

 

Yes very nice, Win10 is definitely the most secure version.

 

AMSI baby!!!! Native protection for scriptors is something I've wanted for years.. Don't know anything about any WIN10 beta builds (as I don't fish in troubled waters), but anyone still using Win7 that cares about malware is misguided in not switching to 10.

 

Nightwalker- yeah, this is an issue with WD. I've never ever seen such a concerted effort to take a specific product down.