# Recent antivirus testing found Windows Defender to be a top performer



## Solid State Soul ( SSS ) (Aug 10, 2019)

" Microsoft's free AV software that comes with Windows scored high marks at AV-Test. Windows Defender detected all 307 zero-day malware samples, compared to an industry average of 97.1 percent. It also detected all 2,428 samples of "widespread malware discovered in the last week," though that is a slightly less impressive metric—the industry average is 99.8 percent. "

Full article below :  









						Recent antivirus testing found Windows Defender to be a top performer
					

Microsoft's free AV software that comes with Windows scored high marks at AV-Test.




					www.pcgamer.com


----------



## er557 (Aug 10, 2019)

All while maintaining zero useability and configuration options, constantly nagging about stuff you excluded already, being generally annoying, etc.
I will take a paid AV or at least the free clamWin software any day.


----------



## Solid State Soul ( SSS ) (Aug 10, 2019)

thought this might be interesting to share and talk about.



er557 said:


> All while maintaining zero useability and configuration options, constantly nagging about stuff you excluded already, being generally annoying, etc.
> I will take a paid AV or at least the free clamWin software any day.



For a free built in AV it certainly scored impressive results and might kill the need to pay for anti virus software but this is the thing about this discussion if any of you have valid reasons to why someone should opt for a third party AV software please feel free to share


----------



## er557 (Aug 10, 2019)

Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> thought this might be interesting to share and talk about.



And you are right, I have nothing against your post, just a lot of criticism against win defender.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 10, 2019)

er557 said:


> And you are right, I have nothing against your post, just a lot of criticism against win defender.



never had windows defender once nag me about anything... in fact it never detects anything on my end so i stopped even looking. what you downloading homie?


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 10, 2019)

er557 said:


> All while maintaining zero useability and configuration options, constantly nagging about stuff you excluded already, being generally annoying, etc.


Well, of course, that is totally untrue - clearly posted by someone who has never given the time to actually learn, or perhaps even use it - certainly not in the last year or so. 

FTR, I have never EVER had Windows Defender nag me about anything either. I do daily get a little notification window slide in from the notification area telling me it scanned my system (in the background so performance was NOT affected) and found nothing - meaning it never let anything malicious slip in in the first place. But I don't call that a "nag" because if I do nothing, that little notification windows slides away in few seconds on its own.

The fact of the matter is, if you go back and look at past comparative reviews, WD has scored as well or better than many top contenders when it comes to the all important "Protection" category. It may not have been the fastest at manual scans - but who does that often? But sadly and often just because it has the Microsoft brand on it, many are instantly biased against it - and quickly jump in to slam it even when they have little to no experience with it.  Especially recently.

FTR, I am a firm believer, regardless your primary scanner of choice, that everyone should have a secondary scanner available for "on-demand" scanning - just to make sure the primary scanner and/or the user (always the weakest link in security) didn't let something slip by. I generally recommend and use Malwarebytes and thus far (since MSE with W7 in 2009, and with WD for W8/10) Malwarebytes has never found anything on any of my 6 systems here but a couple "wanted" PUPs. And note two of my systems are regularly used by older grandkids and other guests who definitely do not have the security expertise, experience, or security discipline that I have.

Also FTR, I am NOT saying everyone needs to be using Windows Defender. Personally *I don't care what people use* AS LONG AS they use a decent anti-malware solution and keep it (along with the OS itself) current. I am just saying stop criticizing something you clearly don't know anything about. Do your home work. Maybe actually read the reports mentioned in the threads you joined for the purpose of criticizing. And note you don't have to use the top performer or drive around in an Abrams tank to be safe. You need to use a decent product, keep it current, and drive defensively (practice safe computing) by avoid being "click-happy" on unsolicited downloads, links, attachments and popups - the same thing you need to do, regardless your primary scanner of choice!

One last minor point. Because Microsoft is constantly improving and expanding Windows Defender, they have decided to rename it and it will soon be known as Microsoft Defender. I have never been a fan of Microsoft's often confusing naming conventions. For example, choosing "Windows Defender" for this product when there already was a different product with that same name is a perfect example. But ultimately, I think this name change is a good idea.


----------



## Totally (Aug 10, 2019)

Yeah, it's very inconspicuous. Don't notice it's even there until the 'scan completed' pops up periodically about every other day.


----------



## er557 (Aug 10, 2019)

@Bill_Bright : You dont need to be so passionate about defending MS products, as we only discuss everyone's opinion and usage habits. This is very self righteous of you telling me I dont have experience using it or the knowledge of how it works. I am an advanced user, and cannot be dependent on this excuse of an AV, because I require a comprehensive internet security product, complete with an interactive firewall, HIPS, and all the bells and whistles, such as eset internet security. It is simply not enough for me that defender is good at detecting malware, so let's agree to disagree.


----------



## hat (Aug 10, 2019)

I find it odd that everyone used to recommend Microsoft security essentials, and that's essentially what windows defender is now...


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 10, 2019)

hat said:


> I find it odd that everyone used to recommend Microsoft security essentials, and that's essentially what windows defender is now...


Very true.


er557 said:


> You dont need to be so passionate about defending MS products, as we only discuss everyone's opinion and usage habits.


Not true on either account. First, it is not about me defending MS products. It is me defending any product that is wrongfully accused of something. It is just that MS is constantly targeted. If you look around, you will see I will, with equal vigor, defend Intel, OEM coolers, "good" UPS with AVR, and any other product where claims that are untrue are expressed against it.

And second, it is NOT about opinion. You are entitled to your opinion and I will defend, with equal vigor, your right to express them - where appropriate. I didn't spend 24+ years in the military defending your rights only to turn around and trample on them! But you didn't just express your opinion. I did NOT, for example, say anything about you claiming WD was annoying, or your desire to use a different product. In fact, I made it clear (in *bold underline*, no less), *"I don't care what people use*."

But you claimed WD had "_zero useability and configuration options, constantly nagging about stuff you excluded already_". That is  factually incorrect - or falsehoods. And that is what I was defending WD about. 

And why did I underline "where appropriate" above? Because this thread was about WD scoring well in AV-Test's latest report. It was not about why we like or dislike it, or our opinions about it, or why we prefer ClamWin. 

***

Please note the last line in my signature block.


----------



## er557 (Aug 10, 2019)

I actually dont think that it is irrelevant to discuss the AV as a whole product we like or dont, but rather exactly on topic.
Please have a look at this chart representing commercial AV feature set as compared to WD



Also, the last section on this page talks about useability and interface functions of different AV.
https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/summary-report-2018


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 10, 2019)

er557 said:


> but rather exactly on topic.


It is not for THIS thread. That type discussion belongs in its own thread - elsewhere, not here.

So no, I will not have a look at that [outdated] chart because it irrelevant to this thread.


----------



## rtwjunkie (Aug 10, 2019)

er557 said:


> All while maintaining zero useability and configuration options, constantly nagging about stuff you excluded already, being generally annoying, etc.
> I will take a paid AV or at least the free clamWin software any day.


I have it on my HTPC and it does none of that.

Thanks for playing, though!


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 10, 2019)

Could the key difference here be that he has excluded something and you and bill have not?

Just a thought.  Never tested either way.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 10, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> Could the key difference here be that he has excluded something and you and bill have not?


Sure. Does that "exception" then lead to the conclusion WD "constantly nags"? Or that it has "zero usability or configuration options"? And to that, if zero configuration options, how could something be excluded? 

And more to the point, is that the intent of the OP's opening post?

Shouldn't the real goal here be to fight the bad guys and not pit one good guy against another? That's why I say I don't care what you use, just use something that is decent and keep it updated. If you look at any of those labs and their results (which, BTW, are all synthetic anyway), there is typically a very tiny spread among the top picks. In this case, the top 14 were separated by just 1/2 of 1 point in the most important category, "Protection".  6, including WD, earned top score. Pick one of those. Fight malware, not each other.


----------



## er557 (Aug 10, 2019)

Maybe just me, but I dont consider a solution to be an AV software, if having exactly three checkboxes and one select menu, and a very cumbersome and inconvenient method of choosing what to not scan, one that does not work and keep's detecting it back.


----------



## 64K (Aug 10, 2019)

I use Win 10 on my Gaming Rig and my work PC and it's fine. The only thing I can say is is that it sometimes takes a while to update on my work PC. Which could probaby be alleviated if they would spend a few dollars of their billions of dollars per year profit on Quality Control and beta testing in the first place.


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 10, 2019)

er557 said:


> Maybe just me, but I dont consider a solution to be an AV software, if having exactly three checkboxes and one select menu, and a very cumbersome and inconvenient method of choosing what to not scan, one that does not work and keep's detecting it back.



It sounds like Windows Defender/Security doesn't work for your use case. That's fine, we're not saying you are wrong, we are saying that for 99.9999999...% of people who use Windows, its built-in security software is good enough to protect them - they don't need to shell out extra money on third-party software that will do the same thing. That's a Very Good Thing in my books, because IMO the antivirus vendors have been selling FUD and snake oil for years, often along with horribly bloated scanning engines that harm more than help.

The more articles that prove the "Microsoft doesn't know security" nonsense is just that, the better.


----------



## Splinterdog (Aug 10, 2019)

Out of all the AVs I've tried out and also the ones that my customers have installed, including paid AVs, Defender (and previously MSE) is the least intrusive of them all by a very long shot.
Most of the others nag you constantly; Norton and AVG have simply become bloatware and end up as the tail wagging the dog. I can't stand them and I only ever use Defender on my machines with Malwarebytes reluctantly as a backup. But even Malwarebytes can be annoying, but then that's because I use the free version, with regular prompts to go Premium.


----------



## Space Lynx (Aug 10, 2019)

Splinterdog said:


> Out of all the AVs I've tried out and also the ones that my customers have installed, including paid AVs, Defender (and previously MSE) is the least intrusive of them all by a very long shot.
> Most of the others nag you constantly; Norton and AVG have simply become bloatware and end up as the tail wagging the dog. I can't stand them and I only ever use Defender on my machines with Malwarebytes reluctantly as a backup. But even Malwarebytes can be annoying, but then that's because I use the free version, with regular prompts to go Premium.



I had a lifetime license for Malwarebytes, but after all the reformats over the years (even with me deactivating before uninstalling, etc) the key wouldn't work one day earlier this year, so I contacted Malwarebytes, proved my receipt, and they still wouldn't honor it.  So I will be using windows defender only forever for free. Malwarebytes can shove it, including the free edition. I just game anyway, so I could care less anymore as long as my OS and drivers are up to date I should be fine.


----------



## Totally (Aug 10, 2019)

er557 said:


> @Bill_Bright : You dont need to be so passionate about defending MS products, as we only discuss everyone's opinion and usage habits. This is very self righteous of you telling me I dont have experience using it or the knowledge of how it works. I am an advanced user, and cannot be dependent on this excuse of an AV, because I require a comprehensive internet security product, complete with an interactive firewall, HIPS, and all the bells and whistles, such as eset internet security. It is simply not enough for me that defender is good at detecting malware, so let's agree to disagree.



Well then clearly Defender is not what you are looking for. It's like you walked on to a car dealership explained to the salesperson your needs outliningg a large SUV or truck but the proceed to walk over to the small/mid-sized sedan section and crap all over those because they can't do what to need/want. Do you act like this in RL and people take you seriously?


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 10, 2019)

Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> thought this might be interesting to share and talk about.
> 
> 
> 
> For a free built in AV it certainly scored impressive results and might kill the need to pay for anti virus software but this is the thing about this discussion if any of you have valid reasons to why someone should opt for a third party AV software please feel free to share



I have honestly NEVER paid for security apps... that sub was never ever necessary...

And yes, Windows Defender was good since a few years back, basically when they revamped to MS Security essentials it was OK.


----------



## R-T-B (Aug 10, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Does that "exception" then lead to the conclusion WD "constantly nags"?



For the exception?  Perhaps.

No comment on the rest.  I trust your judgement.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 11, 2019)

R-T-B said:


> For the exception? Perhaps.


But exceptions don't make the rule. No security solution is, or can be perfect in every category every time. I consider false positives as a serious flaw. Others may see longer scan times as a problem. To me, it is really all about protection. If someone can honestly say they stopped getting infected when they moved away from WD, then I might consider their position. Otherwise, it seems most likely to simply be anti-Microsoft biased rhetoric. And I find that sad considering Microsoft is really the only anti-malware provider who has a true incentive (financial and otherwise) to rid the world of malware. If malware were totally defeated, it would save Microsoft from relentless attacks from MS haters and attention seeking members of the IT press. Ridding the internet of just the bad publicity alone they always get whenever something goes wrong would be good (and fair) incentive for MS.

Of course with any and all of the other anti-malware providers, if malware were totally defeated, where would that leave them? Out of business, that's where. So what financial incentive does ClamWin, Norton, McAfee, AVG, Avira, Kaspersky, Malwarebytes, BitDefender, etc have to rid the world of malware? None, nada, zilch. 

So I will put my money (pun intended) on the one product maker who truly benefits by thwarting malware - especially when their offering has already proven to do so well.


----------



## Lorec (Aug 11, 2019)

only ten years ago, disabling WD was a mandatory on a clean install. 
After that installing Avast or Avg. 
I stopped that practice after I noticed Avast became malware itself lol 
Glad to know WD actually does something.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 11, 2019)

Lorec said:


> only ten years ago, disabling WD was a mandatory on a clean install.


 Come on, folks! Please do your homework before posting! Especially before posting nonsense that makes YOU look silly!

The anti-malware program, "Windows Defender" was not even around 10 years ago. It came out with Windows 8, which came out in 2012 - which took about 10 seconds with Google to verify!  And it NEVER ever was mandatory to disable it because it worked very effectively back then too.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 11, 2019)

Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> thought this might be interesting to share and talk about.


And it is. It's actually very impressive.


Solid State Soul ( SSS ) said:


> For a free built in AV it certainly scored impressive results and might kill the need to pay for anti virus software


While that seems like a reasonable point, we're talking about Microsoft, a company that has done little to instill trust and indeed has done much to earn mistrust. Companies who offer antivirus/antimalware software go out of their way to earn the trust of the public because they know they need to do so to compete.

I don't care if it's the best AV on the planet, I'm still going to delete it completely in favor of something from a company that can be trusted.


----------



## Lorec (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Come on, folks! Please do your homework before posting! Especially before posting nonsense that makes YOU look silly!
> 
> The anti-malware program, "Windows Defender" was not even around 10 years ago. It came out with Windows 8, which came out in 2012 - which took about 10 seconds with Google to verify!  And it NEVER ever was mandatory to disable it because it worked very effectively back then too.


Thank You sir for brutally pointing it out  
I do feel silly.
I sure made mistake there, it was disabling windows firewall when using 3rd party one... didnt put much thought into what I was writing, sorry


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Come on, folks! Please do your homework before posting! Especially before posting nonsense that makes YOU look silly!
> 
> The anti-malware program, "Windows Defender" was not even around 10 years ago. It came out with Windows 8, which came out in 2012 - which took about 10 seconds with Google to verify!  And it NEVER ever was mandatory to disable it because it worked very effectively back then too.



Yes and no. Windows Defender pre MSE was just an anti malware program. Windows defender via windows 8 was built on a similar engine (using the same definitions) and like MSE was a full AV (not to be confused with defender pre-MSE. In all cases at anypoint when MSE was installed on a defender machine Defender was automatically shut down (cant run dual engines.)

That said, no real reason tot manually shut it off, most 3rd party AVs did it for you. Today Microsoft closely ties in with third party AVs and auto shutdown of  them is much less of a bother. Previously auto shutdown of some third party AVs would not work correctly and would degrade system performance.

Defender in Windows 10 is now built using the engine of Windows Defender ATP without some of the ATP features. While all AV generally comes down to personal preference (and hopefully people consider functionality and detection rates) Windows Defender now like windows defender, MSE and windows defender of old are nothing alike. 

For anyone to say that it is still "garbage" is being a bit ignorant. Certainly not all AVs are built for everyone, and usage cases play a big role, personal preference comes into play when AV software does the same thing and you say just dont want as many pop-ups etc etc.

No one should discount todays defender though. It deals with some pretty knarly things in my testing.


----------



## Mussels (Aug 11, 2019)

My problem with defender is all the false positives for 'tool' programs it deletes on me (for example, i've had keygens for antique DOS era games and it went nuts just because keygen was in the file name)


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 11, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> For anyone to say that it is still "garbage" is being a bit ignorant.


That depends on your perspective. When an AV silently deletes files it "thinks" are suspicious(even though they're not) without asking the user first, it can be troublesome, annoying and even aggravating. Currently there are no settings(and I literally just checked today as I'm testing the newest version of LTSC) to require WD to prompt the user for input. It just deletes things. Unacceptable on every level. To me, that is garbage behavior and one of the main reasons why I don't trust WD and do not tolerate it on my systems. Removal is the only acceptable option.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 11, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> That depends on your perspective. When an AV silently deletes files it "thinks" are suspicious(even though they're not) without asking the user first, it can be troublesome, annoying and even aggravating. Currently there are no settings(and I literally just checked today as I'm testing the newest version of LTSC) to require WD to prompt the user for input. It just deletes things. Unacceptable on every level. To me, that is garbage behavior and one of the main reason why I don't trust WD and do not tolerate it on my systems.



That doesn't mean it doesn't work though. Settings like that are also the default on almost every AV on the market. As for telling you it deleted something It shows up in my notification bar everytime. Maybe the settings you seek are in the Notification bar settings like alot of other software that integrates with it.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 11, 2019)

Mussels said:


> My problem with defender is all the false positives for 'tool' programs it deletes on me (for example, i've had keygens for antique DOS era games and it went nuts just because keygen was in the file name)


Exactly. You beat me to the punch.. LOL!



Solaris17 said:


> That doesn't mean it doesn't work though.


Whether it works or not is irrelevant.


Solaris17 said:


> Settings like that are also the default on almost every AV on the market.


I've been trying out a lot of them and that's just not true. In fact I haven't found one that doesn't have option to prompt the user for action. None of them automatically delete files either(unless the user sets that option in the config). They are moved to a quarantine folder and logged, a move that can be undone upon user input.


Solaris17 said:


> As for telling you it deleted something It shows up in my notification bar everytime. Maybe the settings you seek are in the Notification bar settings like alot of other software that integrates with it.


Perhaps but then that is a design failure. Program settings need to found in the program not elsewhere no one is going to look.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 11, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> I don't care if it's the AV on the planet, I'm still going to delete it completely in favor of something for a company that can be trusted.


Then that is a naive approach, and sad from someone who clearly has demonstrated exceptional knowledge around here. 

In the past, you have put much trust in the these testing labs. But now, because they rate WD at the top, now you can't trust them? That's silly. 

Instead, you are going to trust a company that needs malware to succeed in order for that company to survive? How does that make sense? Are you going to trust Kaspersky, a company where the CEO was trained by the CIA and is known to have ties with the Russian government and known to work for them? Are you going to trust the companies with HQs in China, a country known for its cyber-terrorist agendas? Are going to trust companies that clearly have an agenda to coerce users into paying exorbitant prices for software proven to be no more effective than the free versions, then nearly trap them into paying again and again in renewal fees?



Solaris17 said:


> Yes and no. Windows Defender pre MSE was just an anti malware program.


 NO IT WASN"T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's no Yes to it. Come on! Again folks - do your homework!  It is not hard!  Windows Defender before was just an anti-spyware program. It was the rebranded Giant Software Anti-spyware program Microsoft bought from Giant, renamed, then given away for free.


> My problem with defender is all the false positives for 'tool' programs it deletes on me


I have never, not once, had WD delete something on me. I think over the years I have had a couple false positives (which is NOT good), but I have never had it delete anything without my approval first.


lexluthermiester said:


> When an AV silently deletes files it "thinks" are suspicious(even though they're not) without asking the user first, it can be troublesome, annoying and even aggravating.


True, if true. But it is not. It may quarantine a file - just as EVERY program does - but you can easily recover them and you can easily configure WD to make them exceptions.  

I also feel it is important to point out there is a reason these testing labs test frequently - because the makers are constantly making adjustments and improvements to their products. To suggest because a program did this or that last year, or several years ago, therefore it must still be bad if just plain ludicrous, and IMO irresponsible as advisors.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> In the past, you have put much trust in the these testing labs. But now, because they rate WD at the top, now you can't trust them? That's silly.


It's not silly at all. I do not trust Windows Defender because of demonstrable misbehavior's.


Bill_Bright said:


> True, if true. But it is not. It may quarantine a file - just as EVERY program does


I just tested this today Bill, with known safe files that are known to flag as false positives. WD deletes them as soon as it discovers them, it does not move them to quarantine and does not prompt the user. This is on a fresh install with no changes to the default configuration.


Bill_Bright said:


> To suggest because a program did this or that last year, or several years ago, therefore it must still be bad if just plain ludicrous, and IMO irresponsible as advisors.


Not suggesting that. See above.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 11, 2019)

It is clear people don't like WD because it has the MS brand on it. What I find hilarious and sad at the same time is if one were to look back through these this forum, they will easily see those who dislike WD cite the testing labs as valid reasons for not liking WD. Now that more and more testing labs continually rate WD high, or even top rated, they find other excuses not to like it.  

For the record, if you go back and look at what I have consistently said about those testing labs, you will see I have consistently said those labs results are unreliable because they are synthetic. They don't represent the real-world. And Microsoft does not code to score well on those tests because they don't need the high scores for marketing fodder. Why? Because WD is not for sell. Its free! So instead, Microsoft codes to perform well in the real-world - which it does very effectively.

If WD performed poorly, where are the millions and millions of infected users that must be out there?


lexluthermiester said:


> I just tested this today Bill, with known safe files that are known to flag as false positives.


Oh? Did you report them to MS? Or just complain about them? Please provide links to those files so we can check them out too - with the latest version of WD.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> NO IT WASN"T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There's no Yes to it. Come on! Again folks - do your homework! It is not hard! Windows Defender before was just an anti-spyware program. It was the rebranded Giant Software Anti-spyware program Microsoft bought from Giant, renamed, then given away for free.



Sorry thats what I meant. Looks like you just got hung up on malware instad of spyware. In the current sec industry we dont really consider them different.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Oh? Did you report them to MS? Or just complain about them? Please provide links to those files so we can check them out too - with the latest version of WD.


These are files that have been reported as safe many times. Some are emulation related editors and are still flagged because of the way they run and what they do. Go look for any save-state editor for NES or SNES related emulator save states. Most of them are flagged and are deleted. Trainers for PC games are also flagged. WD deletes all. These are safe files and are used to deliberately test AV/AM software.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 11, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> I've been trying out a lot of them and that's just not true. In fact I haven't found one that doesn't have option to prompt the user for action. None of them automatically delete files either(unless the user sets that option in the config). They are moved to a quarantine folder and logged, a move that can be undone upon user input.



Maybe I wasnt clear enough but many of them do NOT prompt for user action on quarantine, and neither does Defender, with that said I have never seen Defender auto "delete" but I have seen it auto quarantine.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 11, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> Maybe I wasnt clear enough but many of them do NOT prompt for user action on quarantine, and neither does Defender


Ah, I think I misread/misunderstood. I'm sorry about that.


----------



## Melvis (Aug 11, 2019)

What a load of BS


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 11, 2019)

Melvis said:


> What a load of BS


?


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 11, 2019)

Solaris17 said:


> Maybe I wasnt clear enough but many of them do NOT prompt for user action on quarantine, and neither does Defender, with that said I have never seen Defender auto "delete" but I have seen it auto quarantine.



This is correct. They get auto quarantined but not deleted and there is no prompt. Which is why people generally do not notice WD doing its business. The scanning it does periodically happens during low load/vacant cores moments as well to be the leadt intrusive as possible.

I really like WD these days. Its in a perfect place wrt the balance between secure and non intrusive or annoying. The only other app that came close to that was the early Panda Cloud Av suite. Later it went to shit just like kaspersky, avast, avg... all of them AVs I have always avoided because as @Bill_Bright correctly pointed out the business model is to feint insecurity so these apps have some perceived function...

As for the 'trust issue' I see noted here... MS is the one company closest to Windows OS and kernel knowledge, with the longest track record keeping it safe - and displaying a learning process in doing so. That last bit is important: WD is what it is today because it gained iterative improvements that were not commercially driven. That should instill trust, IMO more than any other Av supplier...


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 11, 2019)

I don't question it's effectiveness, but unfortunately on slow HDDs it made the machines that I have worked on (basically most laptops) unusable as it constantly scans the drives.


----------



## Assimilator (Aug 11, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I don't question it's effectiveness, but unfortunately on slow HDDs it made the machines that I have worked on (basically most laptops) unusable as it constantly scans the drives.



If your OS drive is an HDD you're going to have problems regardless of what anti-virus you're using...


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 11, 2019)

Assimilator said:


> If your OS drive is an HDD you're going to have problems regardless of what anti-virus you're using...



True, but this issue does stick out and I have not experienced it with other AVs. Most laptops are still sold without an SSD.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 11, 2019)

Vya Domus said:
			
		

> ...as it constantly scans the drives.


What???????? That's total nonsense!    OMG!!!! Doesn't any body care about the truth? Or their own integrity? No security program, including Windows Defender "constantly" scans drives. Period. Certainly even the most ardent MS and WD haters know instantly that that's a bunch of BS! 

WD is NOT perfect. I already said that. I fully accept that there are several fully capable alternatives out there and I already stated (twice!) and I don't care what you use! Just use something and keep it current. But come on folks! Don't make up stuff that is just blatantly false! That's doing the readers, this site, and yourself a disservice. 

Like any and every decent "real-time" security solution, Windows Defender is constantly scanning data that is moving into and out of memory. But it does NOT constantly scan our drives. A quick look at our drive activity lights shows us that.



Vya Domus said:


> I don't question it's effectiveness, but unfortunately on slow HDDs it made the machines that I have worked on (basically most laptops) unusable...


I am glad you don't question it's effectiveness because, after all, protecting our systems is first and foremost the primary responsibility of any security solution. But I note you can go through just about any tech/security site and find examples where users complain that their security program (pick a program, any program) bogs down their systems. This is a major reason many users dump Norton and McAfee - at one time the Hertz and Avis of the security software industry. I dare say every anti-malware solution has been (is currently being ) accused of bogging systems down. 

Up until W7, AVG was my long time favorite solution. But it too started getting full of bloat. It was when I migrated to W7 and started using MSE that I then discovered how badly AVG slowed my systems down. With a little home work, you can find similar stories with any product. But I think it important to remember that Windows Defender does not have a "free" and "pro/premium" versions - that is extra features built in that get activated when you pay up.  There is no revenue earning component to WD that adds bloat.  



Solaris17 said:


> Sorry thats what I meant. Looks like you just got hung up on malware instad of spyware. In the current sec industry we dont really consider them different.


I get hung up on technical comments being technically inaccurate, or just blatantly untrue! This site, at least in my opinion, is about providing readers the true facts. So with all due respect (and I mean that most sincerely), you sure cannot say "we" because I've been in the "secure" IT industry professionally for over 45 years. And "we" know and understand there is a huge difference between "malware" and "spyware" in the context that you initially used it. And when coding anti-malware solutions, developers code for different types of malware differently too. Yes, there are a lot of common elements, but a lot of unique elements too.

Spyware is malware, but not all malware is spyware. Malware is an all-inclusive and generalized term for all *mal*icious soft*ware*. Malware includes viruses, worms, Trojans, ransomware, spyware, and more. 

The difference is akin to the difference between "vehicle" and "motorcycle". A motorcycle is a vehicle, but for sure, not all vehicles are motorcycles. So to say malware and spyware are not different is like saying all vehicles are alike. Just not true. 

So to the point and to clarify, the "pre-MSE" version of Windows Defender (which is the same as the pre-Windows 8 version) was an anti-spyware product only. It could not, thus did not make any attempt to protect against viruses, Trojans, worms or other types of malware - only spyware. 

If you want to blame someone over that confusion, blame Microsoft for that. I do! How stupid is it to have two different programs with the exact same name? IMO, the current W8/W10 version of Windows Defender should have been named Microsoft Defender or some other name from day 1. But Microsoft's misguided and confusing policies to use identical or similar names for multiple products is for another discussion.

Yes, today, "we" in the industry often say "malware" to be all inclusive. And anti-malware solutions typically include anti-spyware code. But "pre-MSE" was specifically referenced. And back then, is was not uncommon for users to have installed on their systems, separate anti-spyware, anti-rootkit, anti-virus, anti-Trojan, etc. software programs. Today, it is common to have just one security application running in real-time, an anti-malware program to address all malware.

Malware and spyware are not interchangeable terms any more than spyware and ransomware are.  

****

Once again, folks, I ask everyone set aside their biases, past experiences, and pre-conceived notions. WD is constantly evolving. It is simply wrong and shortsighted to assume (or worse, to report) that WD today has the same shortcomings as WD from 1, 2, or 7 years ago. It would be like saying the 2019 Honda Accord is the same car as the 2009 Honda Accord.


----------



## Solaris17 (Aug 11, 2019)

Yikes, I didn't even read all of that because the first sentence was just you getting angry at people yet again. You should try to be more calm when speaking to people. Looking at your previous posts it seems like you have "45 years of experience" in almost everything discussed on this forum. I am certain then at this point that you know you look less credible when you can't keep your cool in normal conversation that has no consequence to you one way or another.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> What???????? That's total nonsense!   OMG!!!! Doesn't any body care about the truth? Or their own integrity? No security program, including Windows Defender "constantly" scans drives. Period. Certainly even the most ardent MS and WD haters know instantly that that's a bunch of BS!



Well, it does, seen it happen every time. The worse the speed of the drive the worse it gets.









						Disk usage 100% - FIXED - Defender is the Problem
					

(NOTE: Read also my second post with Update) My laptop was purchased with Windows 8 which has since been upgraded to Windows 10. I've been using Windows Defender and performance in general has always



					answers.microsoft.com
				











						Windows Defender using 100% Disk after startup
					

windows defender using 100% disk. and this cause system to slow down and i am unable to play game without disabling real-time protection. System config. HDD :1 TB RAM: 8 GB CPU: Intel i5 5th gen



					answers.microsoft.com
				











						High Disk Activity; Antimalware service defender on W10 WRITES Gigabytes - bad for SSD
					

I am having the frequently asked problem of solid disk activity, unable to use my system for 10-15 seconds. Lenovo T520, 8G, 256G SSD. This ONLY started since the Windows 10 Anniversary update. So



					answers.microsoft.com
				











						Windows Defender - high CPU and disk usage
					

About a week ago I noticed that Windows Defender ("Antimalware Service Executable") is using 25-50% of my CPU at all times. It's also taking between 140 and 600MB of RAM (my system has 16GB of RAM so



					answers.microsoft.com
				




This is a *REAL THING*. Go ahead and tell all these people that they're delusional and all they're saying is complete made-up bullshit.

You just never want to admit to anything that does not go along with your preconceived ideas, ever, despite all evidence.


----------



## micropage7 (Aug 11, 2019)

Lorec said:


> only ten years ago, disabling WD was a mandatory on a clean install.
> After that installing Avast or Avg.
> I stopped that practice after I noticed Avast became malware itself lol
> Glad to know WD actually does something.


that's years ago, i still use avast since it feels lighter than AVG and so far it performs pretty well
At certain points Microsoft want to push their product (in this case) accepted by consumer more by this testing


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 11, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> Well, it does, seen it happen every time. The worse the speed of the drive the worse it gets.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have noticed this too but it was ONLY on Windows 10 in the first year or so. When they started pushing the feature releases it did go away and Ive never seen it again. I had assumed it was Windows doing caching and getting the indexing service up to speed, but I have never, and I mean NEVER seen it happen on my new W10 machine when I upgraded to 8700K, which also had a new OS SSD (used smaller SSD before, HDD was only data).

So it might be real but Im quite sure ir was unintended and patched out... and besides, @Assimilator is right in that if your OS drive is still an HDD you have bigger issues to fix.

Edit: went through those links and it confirms what Ive said above. 3 out of 4 topics from 2016 and the one from 2018 WD is not even suspect or offered in solutions.

TL DR not a real thing anymore.


----------



## er557 (Aug 11, 2019)

As in regard to the separate anti spyware, anti rootkit, anti trojan solutions, I'm all for it, but only as 3rd party scanners when applicable, no real time. the only real time apps I use is eset internet security(plus firewall-very important to choose what to block or not), winpatrol- to check system changes in real time, like auto start and services, ; and peerblock- a comprehensive block -list based ip blocker system wide. I also use spybot s&d to immunize the hosts file and the windows spy/nag ware, and winaero tweaker to harden even more.

Between all of them, With eset internet security, the firewall, winpatrol, peerblock, spybot s&d hosts file hardening, anti beacon immunization, and window's own security measures, I can even afford to run unknown files and they usually are incapable of doing anything or get a grip on the system, as I catch them in the act and fire up task manager, without the need for a sandbox. But that's for advanced users that can memorize their system properties and check for strangers there.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 11, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> You just never want to admit to anything that does not go along with your preconceived ideas, ever, despite all evidence.


I have repeatedly said WD is not perfect. But neither is any other solution.

I suggest those here who continue to bash WD based on their past experiences with it, complain to AV-Test because it seems according to you guys, now that they give WD a top rating, they clearly must not have a clue what they are talking about. They only know what they are doing when they down-rate WD.   

Bitdefender Constant High Disk Usage (100%)
Avast constant disk usage
Norton constant disk usage
Webroot constant disk usage
ESET constant disk usage
Trend Micro constant disk usage

Do I really need to go on?

Yep! Clearly Windows Defender is the worst anti-malware solution ever made, and always will be because things never change. I guess there must be 100s of millions of WD users out there totally infected - they're just too stupid to know it. 

@Solid State Soul ( SSS ) - I am sorry your thread was blown way out of proportion by those who refuse to accept Microsoft could ever make a decent product. But I thank you for posting that link. It was very enlightening to learn how far some will go to discredit MS and WD.


----------



## er557 (Aug 11, 2019)

Melvis said:


> What a load of BS


who /what/ where/ about what    in the hell are you talking??



As to the infamous disk usage, it is two clicks away from fixing, in any AV product, as of course it is the scheduled scan that can be managed, sometimes it is configured to run after some signature updates. Disable the scheduled scan- and you're home free, just remember to do manual scans, as the real time protection should not cause disk usage at all.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Yep! Clearly Windows Defender is the worst anti-malware solution ever made, and always will be because things never change. I guess there must be 100s of millions of WD users out there totally infected - they're just too stupid to know it.



I never said Windows Defender is the worst AV ever made, it's you alone and your weird pro WD agenda that insists on this topic which I have never even touched.



Bill_Bright said:


> Do I really need to go on?



Yes, I am sure you need to go on. I have noticed from previous discussions you have an insatiable need to disagree with people and point out how wise you are and us dumb asses don't know anything.



Bill_Bright said:


> I suggest those here who continue to bash WD based on their past experiences with it, complain to AV-Test because it seems according to you guys, now that they give WD a top rating, they clearly must not have a clue what they are talking about. They only know what they are doing when they down-rate WD.
> 
> Bitdefender Constant High Disk Usage (100%)
> Avast constant disk usage
> ...



That's funny, apparently what I said wasn't some made up BS afterall. Not only that but you've found similar issues with other AVs.

Here's a summary of how this discussion went :

Me: product X has this problem.

You : No, you are making up stuff, this is bullshit.

Me : Shows proof of how this problem is real.

You : Yeah but X, Y, Z ... have this problem too so I still wont admit I am wrong.

This is truly amazing, you always entertain me.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 11, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> I never said Windows Defender is the worst AV ever made, it's you alone and your weird pro WD agenda that insists on this topic which I have never even touched.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Click the links you quoted and you will see this is old news. Not sure why you keep hammering on it because Bill is actually right here, even if he might not be aware of the current situation in this case... Disregarding the rest of the discussion, I like these facts straightened out and not left up for further speculation. Because @Bill_Bright  is right in him saying people find the craziest excuses to bash an MS product, and 9 out of 10 times, there is a story behind something not working as intended, and MS tends to fix it as well. This WD disk usage is an example of that. And what you are doing, intentional or implicit or not, is paint a context of MS and its services being crappy (when in fact, they're _leading _in this industry!), that is what's ticking Bill off. Let's not fool each other here...

As a matter of fact, if those other links from other AVs are more recent, WD is actually _better _on unsanctioned disk usage than those others.


----------



## Vya Domus (Aug 11, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> And what you are doing, intentional or implicit or not, is paint a context of MS and its services being crappy



No, I didn't. I have simply expressed my experience with it and a problem thay I have encountered. I even said I don't question it's usefulness.

I am afraid it's actually you too here that are trying to fool me by putting words in my mouth.


----------



## Vayra86 (Aug 11, 2019)

Vya Domus said:


> No, I didn't. I have simply expressed my experience with it and a problem thay I have encountered. I even said I don't question it's usefulness.
> 
> I am afraid it's actually you too here that are trying to fool me by putting words in my mouth.



Fine, then you're not, just saying it looked that way in the context of the discussion. Care to touch on the other points I made? Because this wasn't really the core of my post, was it. I have yet to see this problem confirmed in 2017/2018 or later, which mirrors my own experience with W10.

And nobody is saying you're wrong, by the way, I've seen this myself on my own system. But I could never pinpoint the cause, could only conclude that it went away over time.



Bill_Bright said:


> Yep! Clearly Windows Defender is the worst anti-malware solution ever made, and always will be because things never change. I guess there must be 100s of millions of WD users out there totally infected - they're just too stupid to know it.



This is kinda blowing things way out of proportion... nobody said this either...


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 11, 2019)

Vayra86 said:


> This is kinda blowing things way out of proportion... nobody said this either...


I know. I was being facetious - trying to illustrate how ridiculous this thread has become. My apologies if some thought I was serious. 

If you go back and look at previous debates, you will see where AV-Test results were used frequently to justify the argument that WD was inadequate or whatever adjective you want to use there. Now AV-Test gives it (and just 2 other programs) top scores, and suddenly AV-Test results are being totally ignored! And ignored for all sorts of reasons, some totally false, others totally outdated. Why is that? It makes no sense and I find that so frustrating. 

So I simply find it so frustrating when clearly intelligent people intentionally choose to ignore facts or make up their own facts. This is not about which program some one "likes" better. It is about test results conducted on all products on a level playing field by a reputable laboratory, and people picking and choosing based on biases, outdated information, and falsehoods. Not facts. How does that help readers?


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Come on, folks! Please do your homework before posting! Especially before posting nonsense that makes YOU look silly!
> 
> The anti-malware program, "Windows Defender" was not even around 10 years ago. It came out with Windows 8, which came out in 2012 - which took about 10 seconds with Google to verify!  And it NEVER ever was mandatory to disable it because it worked very effectively back then too.



As a Antivirus no, but Antimalware yes, thus WinDef has been around since Vista in 2006 so it is about 13 years old.



er557 said:


> As in regard to the separate anti spyware, anti rootkit, anti trojan solutions, I'm all for it, but only as 3rd party scanners when applicable, no real time. the only real time apps I use is eset internet security(plus firewall-very important to choose what to block or not), winpatrol- to check system changes in real time, like auto start and services, ; and peerblock- a comprehensive block -list based ip blocker system wide. I also use spybot s&d to immunize the hosts file and the windows spy/nag ware, and winaero tweaker to harden even more.
> 
> Between all of them, With eset internet security, the firewall, winpatrol, peerblock, spybot s&d hosts file hardening, anti beacon immunization, and window's own security measures, I can even afford to run unknown files and they usually are incapable of doing anything or get a grip on the system, as I catch them in the act and fire up task manager, without the need for a sandbox. But that's for advanced users that can memorize their system properties and check for strangers there.



Add SpywareBlaster to that list It has been around since 2005 and does not use resources unless if you open it and update it from time to time.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 11, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> As a Antivirus, no but Antimalware yes, thus WinDef has been around since Vista in 2006


 No! It was never an antivirus program! The "old" Windows Defender (which is a totally different program from that found in W8/W10) was an anti-spyware only program. This is easily verified with google. 

Microsoft buys Giant Anti-Spyware.

Then, Microsoft Updates Anti-Spyware Utility, Renames it Windows Defender.

As far as the names, think Outlook, Outlook Express, and Outlook.com. Almost the same confusing issue as two different programs named Windows Defender.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> No! It was never an antivirus program! The "old" Windows Defender (which is a totally different program from that found in W8/W10) was an anti-spyware only program. This is easily verified with google.
> 
> Microsoft buys Giant Anti-Spyware.
> 
> ...



WD started off as Antimalware but is now considered Antivirus, either way it was just to help those who may be confused. TBF it uses resources to run in background/update.

It stated off as a program download in XP then has been implemented Since Vista.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> What???????? That's total nonsense!  OMG!!!! Doesn't any body care about the truth? Or their own integrity? No security program, including Windows Defender "constantly" scans drives. Period. Certainly even the most ardent MS and WD haters know instantly that that's a bunch of BS!


Have to agree with this. None of them do. Every one of them, even WD, scan on a "first read access/first write access" basis specifically to keep latency down. All of them keep track of which file they have read so the process isn't repeated, unless the files have changed.



Vya Domus said:


> This is a *REAL THING*. Go ahead and tell all these people that they're delusional and all they're saying is complete made-up bullshit.


I really dislike defending WD like this, but most of those are initial scans, IE, the first scan WD is doing and it does those scans during system inactivity, generally. Most AV's do this or will prompt the user to do one. The rest are scans looking for potential trouble, again during system inactivity.


----------



## Easo (Aug 11, 2019)

I am an system admin working with SCCM. Let's just say it makes my life much easier when dealing with integrated AV solution, which plays well together with another MS product. The product itself definitely has improved quite a lot over the last 3-4 years.
P.S.
Yes, I am aware that vendor lock-in is a thing, no matter how convenient it might be.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 11, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> I've been trying out a lot of them and that's just not true. In fact I haven't found one that doesn't have option to prompt the user for action. None of them automatically delete files either(unless the user sets that option in the config). They are moved to a quarantine folder and logged, a move that can be undone upon user input.



Interesting because WD on my mining rigs would only quarantine files, granted repeatedly, and would never silently delete them.  I was also notified.

Bone stock, bare minimum machines.


----------



## Deleted member 163934 (Aug 11, 2019)

I'll play the role of the bad actor. It's just a roleplay from my part nothing else.
What do I expect people to have as antivirus? Well WD.
What do I expect people to have as antivirus in the next near future? Well WD (with win 7 end of life nearby and with the low market share of win 8.1 I actually expect win 10 + wd).

What antivirus is gonna be the one I want to be sure my malicious program is gonna be able to bypass? Well WD.

See what I want to say? I expect someone with for example Windows 10 to be using WD so If I'm the bad actor my main concern will be to find a way to make my malicious program happy bypass WD protection.

This is my main concern regarding WD.
It can happy be always the best scoring antivirus in all protection tests, this is not gonna remove the fact that it's what the bad actor expecting to face as antivirus.

Ofc you can have a secondary antivirus and use it only for on demand scans. Main question is, what has happened between the moment you got infected and the moment you performed the on demand scan that detected the malicious program? Doubt you gonna run the second antivirus on demand scan daily (if you do that you clearly don't trust your main antivirus so why on earth you used it as main antivirus?!?)

Yes you can say all antiviruses are in the main boat. Not really. It's hard for me to say what other antivirus people might have running there, except WD. Finding ways to bypass most/all of them is time consuming and for sure will make the code for the malicious program kinda big. Also let's say I figure out ways to bypass most of the antiviruses maybe just maybe I might not be willing to lose them all in a single malicious program (as soon as someone will detect it it will also figure out how I'm bypassing the antiviruses, if I know how to bypass most of them but I only bypass only one of them then most of the things I know about the rest of the antiviruses can be used in future malicious programs  ).

Being the most used/most expected to be used also makes you the main target. Being the main target helps you become the best if and only if you have the resources to invest in bug hunting programs and you also have the interest to become the best (without having a payed version and with no real income coming from an antivirus... let's just say I have my own doubts about both of them in WD case (talking about bug hunting program and become the best). this world rotates around money, and usualy when something doesn't actualy produce money (in a direct way) it doesn't really see money for development (during the meetings there will always be someone that will say that this particular project doesn't produces money and as result it should not be a priority...)).

/end of bad actor roleplay

If you want to care less about viruses and antiviruses you can always use a Linux distro (yes I know Linux is a no go in some cases, but Windows is also a no go in some cases). Except servers and Android the market share of Linux is really low and doesn't really present a real interest for someone to develop a virus (for particular targets yes, for general targeting not really). And in Android case it's just easier to make a cool application with malicious code and put it in Google Play, it's not like it will be a first (application on Google Play =/= safe application).
Downside of using a Linux distro is that it's easier to be traced because you are a minority...
I have a really old IDE hdd still capable to work (no bads, it's just loud) (don't laugh this hdd is from 2002, it's a Maxtor but in reality everything is designed by Quantum)(I still have some motherboards with nvidia chipset that have ide ports). It's a painfull experience to use Windows + any antivirus on it, on the other hand a distro like Lubuntu is running really well.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 11, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> I get hung up on technical comments being technically inaccurate, or just blatantly untrue! This site, at least in my opinion, is about providing readers the true facts. So with all due respect (and I mean that most sincerely), you sure cannot say "we" because I've been in the "secure" IT industry professionally for over 45 years. And "we" know and understand there is a huge difference between "malware" and "spyware" in the context that you initially used it. And when coding anti-malware solutions, developers code for different types of malware differently too. Yes, there are a lot of common elements, but a lot of unique elements too.



Unfortunately, in the infosec industry, malware is used to describe any software that does something with malicious intent.  That includes spying on you.

I think you need to have a talk with CompTIA and lend them your expertise.

https://asmed.com/comptia-a-malicious-software-malware/

As taught in nearly all CompTIA training:



> *What does Malicious Software (Malware) mean?*
> Malicious software, commonly known as malware, is any software that brings harm to a computer system. Malware can be in the form of worms, viruses, trojans, spyware, adware and rootkits, etc., which steal protected data, delete documents or add software not approved by a user.



And AVG:

https://www.avg.com/en/signal/what-is-malware



Spoiler



*What does malware do?*

All kinds of things. It’s a very broad category, and what malware does or how malware works changes from file to file. The following is a list of common types of malware, but it's hardly exhaustive:


*Virus*: Like their biological namesakes, viruses attach themselves to clean files and infect other clean files. They can spread uncontrollably, damaging a system’s core functionality and deleting or corrupting files. They usually appear as an executable file (.exe).
*Trojans*: This kind of malware disguises itself as legitimate software, or is hidden in legitimate software that has been tampered with. It tends to act discreetly and create backdoors in your security to let other malware in.
*Spyware*: No surprise here — spyware is malware designed to spy on you. It hides in the background and takes notes on what you do online, including your passwords, credit card numbers, surfing habits, and more.
*Worms*: Worms infect entire networks of devices, either local or across the internet, by using network interfaces. It uses each consecutively infected machine to infect others.
*Ransomware*: This kind of malware typically locks down your computer and your files, and threatens to erase everything unless you pay a ransom.
*Adware*: Though not always malicious in nature, aggressive advertising software can undermine your security just to serve you ads — which can give other malware an easy way in. Plus, let’s face it: pop-ups are _really_annoying.
*Botnets*: Botnets are networks of infected computers that are made to work together under the control of an attacker.




And Norton:

https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-malware.html



Spoiler



*What is malware and how can we prevent it?*

Malware is an abbreviated form of “malicious software.” This is software that is specifically designed to gain access to or damage a computer, usually without the knowledge of the owner. There are various types of malware, including spyware, ransomware, viruses, worms, Trojan horses, adware, or any type of malicious code that infiltrates a computer.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 11, 2019)

eidairaman1 said:


> WD started off as Antimalware but is now considered Antivirus,


Sorry, but that just is not true. Please read the links I provided - that you even quoted.  The first version started out strictly as a rebranded Giant AntiSpyware (see the first link). Today's version is a totally different program and is an anti-malware program. Like virtually all anti-malware solutions today, it scans for all sorts of malware, not just viruses - even though some products may still call themselves anti-virus solutions. I know of no security program today that scans only for viruses. 

I know some still consider malware separate from viruses, but viruses are malware too.


moproblems99 said:


> Unfortunately, in the infosec industry, malware is used to describe any software that does something with malicious intent. That includes spying on you.
> 
> I think you need to have a talk with CompTIA and lend them your expertise.


Huh? I think you need to go back and see who you mean to address that reply too. Did you see the underlined portion of my comment you just quoted? And did you see in post #47 above where I said,


Bill_Bright said:


> Malware is an all-inclusive and generalized term for all *mal*icious soft*ware*. Malware includes viruses, worms, Trojans, ransomware, spyware, and more.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 12, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> Huh? I think you need to go back and see who you mean to address that reply too. Did you see the underlined portion of my comment you just quoted? And did you see in post #47 above where I said



I just want to make sure the site's readers do not get confused as not too many are going to continue reading that post.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 12, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Interesting because WD on my mining rigs would only quarantine files, granted repeatedly, and would never silently delete them. I was also notified.
> 
> Bone stock, bare minimum machines.


This is weird. I'd like to be clear, by disagreeing with any of you I do not mean to imply or directly call anyone a liar. I'm only reporting and describing what I have witnessed.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 12, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> This is weird.



This was about January on an unactivated copy of Win 10 Pro.  I do believe I had to add it to the exclusion list twice as there was another step to make it persistent or something.  I can't really recall because once I got it in the exclusion list, it behaved quite well.

Is it possible not being activated had anything to do with it?  Possible.  Is it possible you don't know where to look for quarantined files?  Also possible.  Is it possible we are both right? Sure.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 12, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> Is it possible not being activated had anything to do with it? Possible. Is it possible you don't know where to look for quarantined files? Also possible.


Finding them is easy, when they're quarantined. You have to use "Take Ownership" to get access to them. It's easier to un-quarantine them from within WD, but therein lies the problem for the types of files I'm testing, there are no files to un-quarantine. WD doesn't list them, directly indicating they were deleted as they disappear from the subject drive.


moproblems99 said:


> Is it possible we are both right? Sure.


This is also possible. Again, I'm testing LTSC 2019. There might be specific configs for it that differ from the standard configs.


----------



## moproblems99 (Aug 12, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> You have to use "Take Ownership" to get access to them.



I did not have to take ownership.  I just clicked the unquarantine button.


----------



## lexluthermiester (Aug 12, 2019)

moproblems99 said:


> I did not have to take ownership.  I just clicked the unquarantine button.


No I meant if you wanted to access them directly in the quarantine folder. For that you will need "Take Ownership".


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 12, 2019)

lexluthermiester said:


> I really dislike defending WD like this


 It's not about defending WD. It's about setting biases and perhaps even personal pride aside to ensure those who come to these forums seeking advice get the truth and all the technical facts needed to make informed decisions. Sometimes, especially when we have strong personal feelings and opinions about something, setting them aside for the truth is not easy. And often you feel like the loneliest person in the world and everyone is throwing rocks at you.  But its the right thing to do. And props to you for it!


----------



## EarthDog (Aug 12, 2019)

er557 said:


> All while maintaining zero useability and configuration options, constantly nagging about stuff you excluded already, being generally annoying, etc.
> I will take a paid AV or at least the free clamWin software any day.


Weird. I don't get any of those notices either. Just runs as it should and lets me know I don't have any viruses... that's it.

Anyway, I have ONLY run Defender ("WD" = Western Digital to most, lol) for years now. With good browsing practices and being, well, conscious, it has done the job for me. I would only run the paid AV's if you are mission critical, or are a total potato when it comes to good browsing habits.


----------



## GreiverBlade (Aug 12, 2019)

well since i upgraded to win 10 i never installed a third party AV and only use win defender ... i rarely get warning (good browsing behavior i guess ) and false positive i exclude aren't brought up again later ... 

short: it work really good and should obviously be a top performer.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 12, 2019)

No surprises here. I've been using it for a long time and hardly advise against additional paid antivirus services, as it is not needed.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 12, 2019)

EarthDog said:


> ("WD" = Western Digital to most, lol)


True. I guess when the change from Windows Defender to Microsoft Defender is complete, we can start using MD. Just hope then we don't end up in a doctor's office, or somewhere in Maryland! 


Ferrum Master said:


> ...as it is not needed.


I think this is an important point. Having good security (and security habits) is, without question, very important. But do we need the absolute best, full featured (perhaps costly) solution available to be safe? No. 

This is the same with many of the tools included in Windows. Do we need an alternative calculator? Nope. HD defragger? Nope. Disk cleanup utility? Nope. Screen shot snipping tool? Nope. Why? Because the basic tools included do a fine enough job for the vast majority of users out there. 

But what I also think is significant is Microsoft allows users to easily use an alternative, if we want to. In fact, when it comes to Windows Defender, it will automatically disable itself when an alternative solution is installed (assuming that alternative properly registers itself with Windows Action Center - as it should). If we don't like Windows own Disk Cleanup, we can use CCleaner. 

True, removing those native tools is often a challenge, if possible at all. But IMO, if they can be disabled, or just not used, there is no need to remove them. They are not taking up RAM or CPU resources, and the amount of disk space they use is marginal, at best. If you need that extra disk space, you have greater issues to deal with.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Aug 12, 2019)

Bill_Bright said:


> But what I also think is significant is Microsoft allows users to easily use an alternative



They must allow it as EU would fine them for unfair business practices again, just as they did because of IE. So it is not actually all a welcoming sign.

But other than that. I agree, it is a solid product. It is renamed because it is also being tested on macOS, as the name wouldn't make sense there. There are paranoid people, but I just like to make contest. I offer to put a antivirus trial from their choice and make a scan after a while. And and it found nothing, then I asked, you see - why bother with an additional paid product?


----------



## trparky (Aug 12, 2019)

We have seen in the past that some third-party antivirus software has caused issues with recent Windows update and patches, some (including myself) have indicated that it could very well be because the third-party antivirus vendors are using undocumented Windows APIs to plug into the system in ways that perhaps Microsoft never intended. Using Windows Defender would, of course, make it so that that kind of situation never happens because Windows Defender is written by Microsoft and they know that APIs forwards and backward.

As for myself, I use Avast but I think I might dump them simply because they're getting a lot naggier as of late. I get notifications saying that my privacy might be at risk because web sites know my IP address, which of course is nothing more than scare tactics to get you to buy their VPN service. Then there are the "temporary files are using valuable disk space" messages and when you do click on it Avast asks me to buy more stuff. And then are the "your drivers are out of date" messages and like the "temporary files" message you need to buy more stuff. And, of course, they're random and lately they're getting more frequent in nature.


----------



## Bill_Bright (Aug 12, 2019)

Ferrum Master said:


> They must allow it as EU would fine them for unfair business practices again, just as they did because of IE. So it is not actually all a welcoming sign.


While similar, that is different. That EU order (and Congressional threat) was back in the day when Microsoft was trying to rule the world. 

Microsoft knew security was a growing threat, so they wanted to put anti-virus code in XP. But Norton, McAfee, Trend Micro, CA and others whined and cried "monopoly" to the EU and Congress, claiming it was their job to fight malware (we see how well that went!  ). So Congress and the EU, hearing only that word, "monopoly", ordered MS to remove the A/V code from XP and threatened to break up Microsoft (Ma Bell style) if they didn't, and to allow users to use alternative browsers.

So what happened? Norton, McAfee, AVG, Trend Micro and the others failed to protect us  and thwart the explosive assault of malware by the bad guys. But who got blamed? Microsoft.

Fast forward nearly 20 years and contrary to what many seem to believe, Microsoft is not the same company it used to be. They are moving more and more towards open source. They openly and readily share their malware databases with other security software developers. They provide a top-notch security program for free (with no ads or nags to upgrade) to all non-commercial users, and even to small commercial businesses with up to 10 computers.

Consider this: why hasn't Congress, the EU, Norton, McAfee, and the others complained about Microsoft putting anti-malware code in W8 and W10? Because they all know it was a mistake to block it 20 years ago. I am NOT saying A/V code in XP would have stopped malware in its tracks (the bad guys are very clever and smart, after all). But it sure is likely it would not become as pervasive and proliferated so quickly as it did if it was not allowed to invade our systems virtually unhindered.


----------

