Windows Defender Is Becoming the Powerful Antivirus That Windows 10 Needs

But an image backup does not prevent an infection, it restores or repairs your system. You can become infected unknowingly and all kinds of damage can be done before you do a restore.

 

There are some infections that can't be prevented by anything. An image is a reaction to a problem that already happened. A spare tire won't prevent a flat tire. But it will get you going again.

 

Excellent analogy.

 

Well you sort of made my point, that an image won't prevent anything but will get you going again.

 

I think I was trying to make the same point. I never suggested that an image prevented anything despite some of the responses that make it sound as though I implied that it did. Images are recovery. Images are for when your security solution fails. They don't prevent infection or theft or ransomware or anything else. The allow you to recover when your failed security solution has already let you down, in which case that security solution also did not prevent those things. Most people should use both but I have seen too many people not care about a backup. Until they needed it. I'm just trying to encourage people to do it.

 

I still prefer to prevent a malware infection from happening in the first place, regardless of the effectiveness of my backup solution, and this is where my security solutions come into play. As for the O/S getting borked by ill advised changes by the user or crappy software or whatever similar type of disaster, then 100% agreed this is especially where the image backup is unbeatable for recovery.

Obviously I feel the same way about the image backup coming to the rescue because of a malware infection, but again, I'd much prefer to prevent the infection from ever taking place. At the end of the day, if I need my image backup to recover from a malware infection, I will be both grateful for having it come to my rescue, and incredibly upset with myself for allowing myself to get infected in the first place. Hope this ramble makes sense.

Very well stated!

 

My outlook AND routine rests on that very premise. In spite of the massive novel malwares they keep churning out, security programs dedicated to PC protection is also advanced more innovative (as always) in this cat-and-mouse tit-for-tat. It's always preferable to prevent potential disrupting intrusions by covering as many Windows vectors as possible even though that means returning to the old tried & reliable layering approach. Most security programs have tweaked their coverages to reduce their resource footprint without sacrificing protection which helps make layering much easier for systems to tolerate now than before when they could and would overburden a system.

Backup imaging is the failsafe on this end should something dastardly jump the fences (my chosen security solutions) of which there are enough to hopefully curtail having to resort to an image due to it. Luckily I've relied on images for adverse software or Windows issues then having to cover up for a failed security setup.

 

I create backups but only use them as an absolute last resort. If I have issues with Windows, I do my best to troubleshoot and fix the issues myself. It's often a learning experience, which makes it worth my while do to that, rather than restoring from a working image. In the very rare instance I get infected, I will try and clean the infections and only restore from a backup if there is some damage that can't be easily fixed. But I do my best to avoid getting infected in the first place, by always being careful about what files I open.

 

Probably?

I think you're proving my point.

 

I believe that security softwares and image backup both are necessary: they are complementary, but not superimposable. I agree, as many said here, that the better way to have a system safe is to prevent attaks and infections, and so, security solutions are the one choice. And it is also true that sometimes security protection can fail, and there we need a imaging software ( nobody here, I believe, mentioned that if it needs to restore an image after an infection, it would better to restore not a simple partition image, but a complete system image, to prevent a not detected infection to the Boot partition ).

But the imaging software is very helpful if our system has a crash, or other issues not dependent by malwares or intrusions, that can't be neutralized by a security software. So we need both the kind of programs.

ps: the last malware that infected my computer was Blaster ( probably also a bit of fortune, I know that I'm not invulnerable ), but being happily paranoid if I had a serious infection after cleaning my pc I would restore a previous image .

 

I don't understand why I have to explain why I'm a victim of data theft, as I can make things up about that in a forum where forum members use pseudonyms.

For all you know, several forum members don't want to talk about data theft. Also, many who experienced that aren't part of this forum.

How do you know that most forum members are not worth it when it comes to data theft? Were you able to get and verify their backgrounds?

Why do you think "professional" hackers (don't you mean malware developers?) select their targets? Does their malware get the background of computer users first and then decide whether or not to commit data theft?

How are you able to ascertain that data theft is highly unlikely? Where you able to test that?

Why do you think data theft should not be a silent operation? A malware developer can screw the user twice by holding data ransom and sending the decryption code upon receiving payment while stealing data at the same time?

What's the point of not using computers to store sensitive data? You will be left with computers that can't be used for commerce.

 

As I said earlier, backups don't prevent data theft. That's why a backup is not the only security.

 

You are assuming a lot, if data theft was so ubiquitous we would certainly have a lot of posts about it, but as I said, except for ‘reasonablePrivacy’, I’ve never heard of anybody on this forum having been a victim of it. Banking online is a risky business if one has a fortune in an account, credit card companies by and large will compensate any illegal use of the card as long as one can prove they lost their card in a timely fashion. I have no desire to engage in a lengthy conversation about this topic, my core defense remains MS Defender and my backup/restore program. Obviously if people wish to have specific programs to deal with exfiltration of data, they can go ahead and do it for their peace of mind.

 

Not to be flip or anything, but who cares what someone else does with his/her computer? Who cares? You do you.

Frankly, I think backups are very wise. But this falls under "remediation" to me. Not "preventative" like Defender would be (one hopes). Use isolation, virtualization and network monitoring if you want to cut down on data loss.

 

A very good point. Use a Linux VM that contains no valuable data to browse the internet. That would make any data theft way more difficult than using any security software. Or go one farther and use a Linux boot disk.

 

Yes exactly an not to forget that certain people may be targeted because of their job. So for example if you're a software developer with Microsoft, hackers might try to steal data from your machine and might use you as an entry point to the M$ intranet. So I don't understand this back and forth, back ups are important, but not more important than trying to prevent infections from occuring in the first place, that's all.

 

Yeah, I fully agree with you, backups are crucial, but they are not a security barrier, just remediation, nothing more, nothing less.

 

This probably should have just been the first post on the subject, and in that case likely the last as well.

 

You're assuming a lot. How do you know that members of this forum represent the population? How can you tell if what members in this forum is true unless they reveal their identity and proof of attack or otherwise?

The fact that you admit that banking online is risky proves my point. And what is "a fortune" for you? And how does compensation of illegal use make data theft acceptable?

Let's see your points in relation to this topic thread: doesn't Windows Security also have means to prevent data theft, and isn't that the whole point of having security systems?

Here's how I see it: malware can not only encrypt data it can also steal it. It won't find out first if the user has "a fortune" or similar nonsense. It can steal what it can get and then encrypt local data, and it doesn't have to announce theft. If the user pays to have the data decrypted, then the hacker gets ransom money and retains a copy of data stolen. From there, even with decrypted data, or even without paying the ransom and restoring data, the user can't do anything about data stolen except change passwords, monitor credit card accounts, etc.

If computers can't be used for sensitive data, then there's little use for them except for leisurely activity. In which case, there's no more problem with data theft, but everything involving commerce will be more difficult.

Therefore, we have to accept the fact that most people use computers (and even things like phones) for such tasks (maybe you're an exception?), which means the claim that backups will do and that data theft is acceptable because there will be compensation is ridiculous.

In which case, Windows Security has to do better, which if I follow the thread title, is the whole point of this thread.

 

Right. Security involves both, and more.

 

This is why you need to run something along side your standalone solution. Nothing is infallible.

By the way! Voodooshield can stop magniber no problem. It doesn't even allow the unknown unverifed MSI file to start any of its processes at all.

But as cruelsister1 demonstrated, even the free version of comodo firewall, that hasn't been updated in 2 years can stop magniber.

It seems a lot like they're going to discontinue the free versions of comodo though, so I decided to pay for the pro version of CIS a little while ago. They came out with a new version much more recently for the pro version.

 

Exactly! Do what works for you. I would just personally recommend getting some good security so that you won't ever have to worry about your system getting messed up in the first place.

And as I said before, voodooshield can stop magniber just fine. It doesn't even allow the processes of MSI installers to start in the first place when an unverifed unknown MSI installer tries to start.

For awhile I was using defender UI on aggressive with voodoo and MBAM, but now I'm using the paid version of comodo along side those other two.

A two year old build of comodo firewall can stop maniber with no issue.

 

Understood- In the meantime it serves and serves well.

 

Yes, I think this is the mistake that people on this forum make when they say that an AV, ''not being click happy'' and back ups are enough. It may indeed be enough for many of us, but not for certain people that could be targeted because of their job perhaps. And it doesn't even have to be someone's job, what about some jealous ex that tries to steal his ex-girlfriend's email, cloud and social media credentials via customized malware? Back ups won't help against that either.

 

Certain people don't have to be targeted, it doesn't have to involve non-strangers, and malware doesn't have to be customized.