Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Secondmineboy, Jan 30, 2016.
They need to work on false positives too. That often causes more problems than malware.
...i just download foobar2000_v1.4_beta_9.exe and WDSC automatic clean & remove file (Trojan:Win32/Critet.BS)
...a lot of definition updates today for WD...
Why Windows Defender Antivirus is the most deployed in the enterprise.
More in blog post here : https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/mi...ivirus-is-the-most-deployed-in-the-enterprise
So we should expect far fewer breaches up coming?
The latest MRG Effitas test has been published - the MRG Effitas 360 Degree Assessment & Certification Q4 2017.
Microsoft doing very well.
In the "Q4 2017 In the Wild 360 / Full Spectrum Test", Microsoft successfully blocked 99.7% of the malicious samples and only missed one single sample.
Microsoft successfully blocked 100% of the ransomware samples and 100% of the financial malware samples.
In the PUA/adware test Microsoft blocked 98%, and only missed one sample.
Full report : https://www.mrg-effitas.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/MRG-Effitas-360-Assessment_2017_Q4_wm.pdf
No false positives in the last 10 years but performance could be better.
I had had a false positive on a work PC a few weeks ago. Then I had to explain the situation to an Operations Manager that wants to know why he is seeing it at which point I have to spend 2 days installing multiple other scanners on it to prove it is not actually infected. So even when it does not create actual physical damage it is not a non issue.
Been there before. With business on around the clock schedule and vital production schedules at full speed (and given so much news on intrusions) it's going to happen where a demand like that is solid policy in spite of the best competent & proven supervison over systems.
It is still quite impressive IMO that Microsoft/WD is charging ahead full speed to make it as near to best as it ever has been in it's history. There is always that risk for a false positive(s) but they are taking stronger steps it seems to address them as best as can be expected. It's nice to see that they have a handle on matters that of most critical importance with that particular component (WD) and perhaps they can also at some point sharpen the performance end of things too eventually. At least that's this user's take on it so far.
Although it's laudable that Defender currently scores so highly in the comparatives, remind yourself where it started on AV-C in February, 2016--bottom of barrel. No way could it tout the security of its Windows 10 debut with a straight face there. It has an extreme vested interest to put on a decent showing. I don't really give a whoop about these things anyway, it's more entertainment--I'll put up with the somewhat slower performance in favor of decent core protection and a more smoothly running OS.
Interesting to see which programs failed, standard AVs are more than adequate nowadays...
What does "Disputed' mean under Kaspersky?
Probably that they didn't accept missed sample decision by testing organisation.
The KB4089848 update fixed the UI on Windows Defender Exploit Guard for non en-us locale.
This is good to know, thank you. It was previously not working for other English languages either such as en-CA and en-GB.
Yet some 'experienced' folks keep complaining on anything related to WD.
Yesterday it was its 'poor detection', today is its 'performance' and 'false positives'.
Tomorrow will be 'unfair competition' because it's ...freeware
Today? Actually the discussion regarding performance has been here for quite a while
It's routine to expect that.
After all Windows Defender business is booming.
Mac, I can't understand why do you see everybody as a WD hater, it is true some people have a ridiculous approach to MS, but the same people will criticize any program for any reasons. I don't have to remind you about the Avira hate club which lately is not so active, but some criticism is definitely healthy in terms of improving a particular program feature.
I have 2 different fast laptops (Asus and Samsung) with Windows 10, same CPU (i7) and lots of memory (12 GB and 8 GB of RAM), and both are visibly faster using Avira rather than WD. Granted it is not an unbearable difference, as a matter of fact I'm planning to use WD when my Avira license expires, but to be fair Avira, Avast, AVG, Kaspersky, Panda, and Bitdefender have also free versions which might be faster than WD in some machines.
I think it is reasonable to conclude that if speed is an important issue, one should try these programs out and see which is the lightest, detection seems to be excellent with all of them including WD.
The problem with Windows Defender is that you don't have the choice of monitoring, it is only on-access while any other AVs, whatever light or not, also offer you scans on modification or execution.
AV-Test has published their test results for January-February 2018.
In the Windows Home User category, Microsoft got 100% block rates in each month of Real World testing and also 100% block rates in each month of Prevalent Malware testing.
This in combination with excellent results in the Performance and Usability categories, awarded Microsoft with the Top Product badge.
AV-Test's results : https://www.av-test.org/en/antiviru...18/microsoft-security-essentials-4.10-180547/
In the Windows Client Business User category, Microsoft got 100% block rates in each month of Real World testing, and in the Prevalent Malware testing Microsoft got block rates of 99.9% one month and 100% the next month.
And fine results in Performance and Usability categories.
AV-Test's results : https://www.av-test.org/en/antiviru...osoft-windows-defender-antivirus-4.12-180674/
You said the same here and you got so many replies but you kept radio silence since then......
Now you are repeating the same mantra in a place where nobody bothers to answer.
Separate names with a comma.