Windows Defender Is Becoming the Powerful Antivirus That Windows 10 Needs

Do you get the WD occasional reports via toast bar? if not, that is what is disabled.

 

Because SS was originally designed to filter web-based threats while WD local ones.

 

It makes no difference from a protection point of view.

Windows Defender Antivirus are fully functional and getting updates, Windows Defender SmartScreen are fully functional and Windows Firewall are fully functional.

You still get notifications if anything malicious are found and cleaned or if a reboot or a Windows Defender Offline scan are required.

 

There's just no live feed of information for you from the app.
Same as all other apps.
If that setting (universal or individual) are unticked, then apps only run when you click it.

 

Has anyone noticed "checking for updates" in Settings is taking an unusually long time lately? Minutes rather than seconds. I force--update Defender definitions and it typically takes a couple of seconds. Could this global cyber crisis be at the root of it? I did all this fixing, stopping and starting services, no dice. Finally, I located this webpage that appears to time the update process and it stopped at 3 minutes, confirming my issue but I don't know if I should be "whooping with joy" about that. Anybody? It eventually does apply updates, though.

 

I agree. It could do with special status on that list.
Personally I only disable a few apps from running at will in the background, and none of the native apps are among those I restrict.

 

Can confirm, same here for me.

 

A very interesting whitepaper here detailing the cloud capabilities of Windows Defender.

 

Thank you for confirming, Trooper, that's really helpful. Maybe it's the tangible ripple effects of the cyber crisis, and you can see its effects instead of just reading or hearing about it, right?

 

No problem. Hopefully it is something that gets sorted out soon.

 

The only thing that bothers me is dumb logic. Of course all of these components are meant to work as a whole. That doesn't take away the fact that Win Defender did a lousy job. It doesn't matter if Win SmartScreen would have blocked the missed samples, because it was an AV test. What does matter if the cloud feature was disabled or not, because that's part of the AV.

Actually, I'm starting to think they don't understand. Either that or we're being trolled. Just look at guest latest reply, he is all over the place, I ain't even going to reply. To all newbies reading this thread, don't fall for it, and get your self a good AV (free or not) like Avast or Avira, don't count on Win Defender, it's simply not good enough.

 

Let me ask you a question. Let's say that Win SmartScreen is capable of blocking 100% of all malware and it's always the first to block malicious apps from loading. Then how on earth are you going to test AV's? See my point? To clarify, I don't actually know if SmartScreen blocks or alerts before AV's get a chance, perhaps it's the other way around. But that isn't relevant.

Let's say if 500 malware samples are tested and for example Malwarebytes or Win Defender manage to only block 400, they did a lousy job. No matter if Win SmartScreen is disabled or not. And no matter if Win SmartScreen would have blocked the 100 missed samples. I don't see what's so hard to understand about it.

 

I understand your point, thats why I suggested to MRG-Effitas (they are considering the ideia) to do a special scenario test, where what is tested isnt Windows Defender standalone, but all the security features that Microsoft has developed along the years that may render many third party antivirus solutions obsolete.

This kind of special scenario wont be very well received by many antivirus developers because they trive on fearmongering, they want Windows users to feel very insecure without their products that may or may not add much to Windows security.

 

Well yes of course. But Win SS is another subject, I already said that. They should test it separately, I wonder how many of the samples it would have blocked. And I also wonder how many legit apps it will block, because that may be the biggest problem when you rely on white-listing.

 

I don't think there will be almost any difference since the cloud tech behind WD and SS is the same according to the Microsoft whitepaper posted here and the input of some testers.
So probably all the complains about the tests will be pointless.

 

One question about options "Block At First Sight".
Is this options turned ON by default or we must do it?

 

@Djigi

Block at first sight should be enable by default as long as the following are enabled

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/wi...ock-at-first-sight-windows-defender-antivirus
The feature is automatically enabled as long as Cloud-based protection and Automatic sample submission are both turned on.

Also the feature is only available to Windows 10 Anniversary Update and above

 

OK, then. Windows security system technically should be tested in isolation as it's unique. I suggested to test the operating system as-is, with no manipulation. If results are different or unchanged, then we know better and the argument will be null. I argued persistently because the test procedure isn't proper the way it's presented to us. Clearly MRG thought so also, or they wouldn't have conceded to at least consider it. Whether they'll actually implement it remains to be seen.

Edit: Think about this: Many third party AV share their engines, etc. Microsoft's are all proprietary.

 

the problem is not jut about the results, it is about all about the methodology.
If you claim to do a "real test world" you have to use the OS as any users would use it , with its default setting then adding a 3rd party solution (or not with WD) on top of the OS without manipulating the OS settings.
If you don't do that this isn't even close to a real test world anymore.

Exactly my point, but some people here are just focused on some numbers in a chart...which will be irrelevant the next day...they miss the big picture.

 

It doesn't matter if WD or a third party antivirus is being tested, it's not a real world test, because the majority of users will have SmartScreen enabled.

 

Perfect answer. The system should be tested at defaults, as-is. Like the third parties are.

 

Even a kid can understand that...

 

Then it won't be fair because SS could inflate other products detections