Windows Defender rated top AV by AV-Test

[Froody129]

I actually quite like Defender. I've had Norton and McAfee in the past and I just don't see the point of an AV where using it presents the same symptoms as a virus-filled computer. I do still sometimes use things like Malwarebytes though. 

 

Of course, I'm a pretty 'safe' PC user. I have a VPN for when it's necessary and my browsing habits don't include super dodgy sites. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Dabombinable said:

Symantec: The AV that used all of my laptops 512MB of RAM. And wanted even more.

Symantec: The AV that prevented Mac OS from being able to go in to sleep state ruining hundreds of laptops batteries and run time.

Symantec: The AV that is always able to block legitimate software installations but rarely actually stops new variants of cryptolockers

Symantec: The AV that by default crushes virtualization farms with idiotic full disk scan schedules

 

But also

Symantec: At least it's not as bad as CA eTrust 

[Princess Luna]

While they claimed to have tested ESET it is nowhere to be found on the ranking... I was interested given I still use ESET because Windows Defender will mess up with some of my shadier .exe's

[leadeater]

7 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

While they claimed to have tested ESET it is nowhere to be found on the ranking... I was interested given I still use ESET because Windows Defender will mess up with some of my shadier .exe's

https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/manufacturer/eset/

[Princess Luna]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/manufacturer/eset/

They haven't tested it since Dec/2017... over all scores seems good though, thanks leadeater!

 

I personally really like the software seems pretty solid as in low system resources need and like mentioned it can differentiate actually malicious content from harmless ones that's often false positives.

 

I'd be okay without anything but since the lack of third party AV forces Defender to go on and it causes me issues that's the best way around... I believe.

[RejZoR]

2 minutes ago, Princess Luna said:

They haven't tested it since Dec/2017... over all scores seems good though, thanks leadeater!

 

I personally really like the software seems pretty solid as in low system resources need and like mentioned it can differentiate actually malicious content from harmless ones that's often false positives.

 

I'd be okay without anything but since the lack of third party AV forces Defender to go on and it causes me issues that's the best way around... I believe.

Some testing labs demand that antivirus companies participate in sets of tests, otherwise they cannot participate (so they don't pick and choose tests, unless it's for internal testing purposes where they can, bu then they are not allowed to publish the findings publicly). AV-Comparatives has such policy, another credible testing authority from Austria. AV-C and AV-Test are two most reliable and trustworthy labs. I even had the chance to talk with AV-C founder Andreas Clementi during visit of AVAST Software HQ. Nice chap

[GimmeGaming]

43 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Symantec: The AV that prevented Mac OS from being able to go in to sleep state ruining hundreds of laptops batteries and run time.

Symantec: The AV that is always able to block legitimate software installations but rarely actually stops new variants of cryptolockers

Symantec: The AV that by default crushes virtualization farms with idiotic full disk scan schedules

 

But also

Symantec: At least it's not as bad as CA eTrust 

Just for reference, I deploy enterprise scale Symantec and McAfee security Solutions (Symantec SEPM and McAfee EPO). For enterprise use, Microsoft as a solution would be beyond dumb but for most casual users, I don't see a reason for having any other security solution.

Also in relation to a previous post about Symantec, this is common with all AV products, Symantecs would just be more noticable as they are the largest AV provider. Defenders bugs like these are generally more hidden as they get mixed in with: (Windows is causing the issue).

 

For Reference, my favourite security solution at present is Kaspersky but I don't have access to enterprise licenses at the moment so I haven't used it in a few months. (A lot of companies wont use it because of the "Russia bullshit" they use to defame it.

Symantec has the best protection level (limited console), McAfee has the best management solution (awful security) and Kaspersky is the best all rounder in the enterprise world.

[TechyBen]

5 hours ago, L_user said:

macs do get viruses; it's just that windows is more popular so it's targeted more. if you don't believe me here's linus to tell you

 

Windows and Nuclear Power Plants... very high priority targets.

[porina]

6 hours ago, VegetableStu said:

i can't remember the point where i went from "just get a free one from some reputable company" to "just use windows 10 defender", and I can't remember why... o_o

I used to use AVG, Avast and the like, but after a point they started to nag you to get the premium version for more functions you don't want. Also, since they were selling themselves as doing something, they over-reported false positives e.g. PUPs, which caused me more lost time than any virus or malware ever has.

3 hours ago, rcmaehl said:

Windows Defender is definitely the best at not bugging you to buy a paid version

This!

5 hours ago, RejZoR said:

I still don't understand how Windows Defender is getting flying colors for performance segment and the damn thing visibly slows to almost halt when scanning larger EXE files (like installers). On 12 threaded overclocked system with 32GB RAM and fast SSD. Yet in tests it's among the fastest. I just don't get it.

It may not be great, but others are not better and may be worse. By observation, AV software seems at best to use one thread to scan one file at a time. A big file doesn't seem able to be done across more cores faster.

[rcmaehl]

1 hour ago, porina said:

This!

Did you read the second part of my post though?

[RejZoR]

1 hour ago, porina said:

I used to use AVG, Avast and the like, but after a point they started to nag you to get the premium version for more functions you don't want. Also, since they were selling themselves as doing something, they over-reported false positives e.g. PUPs, which caused me more lost time than any virus or malware ever has.

This!

It may not be great, but others are not better and may be worse. By observation, AV software seems at best to use one thread to scan one file at a time. A big file doesn't seem able to be done across more cores faster.

The thing is, no one scans whole files anymore. The scanner locks in a file, glances over its structure and then inspects things that matter, toss executable parts or scripts into its PE or script emulator etc. It seems like Windows Defender still does that for some reason. Coz I never get such massive lag on large installers with pretty much any other AV. But Windows Defender always chokes badly on those.

[Neftex]

it still requires windows updates to update its definitions, doesnt it? id rather have a standalone av then

[Flying Sausages]

AV Tests and AV Comparatives are biased and should take their results as a grain of salt. Today WD performs good, but tomorrow WD performs bad. No antivirus can achieve 100% detections. Hell, the government can't protect themselves either, and major businesses can't protect themselves either, so do you think cybersecurity company can protect themselves? Bitdefender got hacked, Avast got hacked, and Malwarebytes got hacked to name a few.

[flibberdipper]

Meanwhile here I am with Avast because Defender never respects my exclusions and makes my shit chug hard when I do anything with files.

 

10/10 nice paid for sponsor av-test.

[porina]

1 hour ago, rcmaehl said:

Did you read the second part of my post though?

Yes

25 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

The thing is, no one scans whole files anymore. The scanner locks in a file, glances over its structure and then inspects things that matter, toss executable parts or scripts into its PE or script emulator etc. It seems like Windows Defender still does that for some reason. Coz I never get such massive lag on large installers with pretty much any other AV. But Windows Defender always chokes badly on those.

McAfee on my work system does the same, but worse as it's a mobile low power dual core so it takes forever...

[PHYLO]

So... Does this make my Bitdefender Total Security subscription basically a waste of money?

[Flying Sausages]

1 minute ago, PHYLO said:

So... Does this make my Bitdefender Total Security subscription basically a waste of money?

Bitdefender is much better than WD.

[AnonymousGuy]

I used to run Kaspersky until they pissed me off when they refused to fix their impossible to truly disable firewall module that didn't support more than like 1GBit of traffic processing on a local network.  Then I also realized that virus are wildly uncommon nowadays unless you're being completely stupid,  and Windows Defender is just as likely to catch something as any other product.

[Dabombinable]

7 hours ago, RejZoR said:

You know almost 2 decades have passed since then and Norton changed dramatically?

Last year it let through several viruses that nearly brought an entire school network...teachers with their own devices that used other AV successfully stopped the virus.
 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

 

But also

Symantec: At least it's not as bad as CA eTrust 

My mum had its predecessor, CA Vet. Removing it took a lot of effort as it was dug in worse than malware, and it blocked its own uninstaller.

[spartaman64]

brb uninstalling avast and malwarebytes 

[leadeater]

6 hours ago, GimmeGaming said:

Just for reference, I deploy enterprise scale Symantec and McAfee security Solutions (Symantec SEPM and McAfee EPO)

So do I, we actually have SEPM but I still hate it .

 

But I hate CA eTrust way more because I had to find a way to remove it on mass from every computer and server and replace it, not only was that AV ineffective it's a bitch to remove.

[Dabombinable]

Just now, leadeater said:

So do I, we actually have SEPM but I still hate it .

 

But I hate CA eTrust way more because I had to find a way to remove it on mass from every computer and server and replace it, not only was that AV ineffective it's a bitch to remove.

Having to go into safe mode and manually shred each file with Spybot is fun...

[Teddy07]

Would be interesting to know if windows defender has special priviliges compared to third party AV solutions since Microsoft also owns the OS

[captain_to_fire]

7 minutes ago, leadeater said:

So do I, we actually have SEPM but I still hate it .

And yet my current university deployed SEP to all computers in the library as well as staff workstations. I think Symantec charges cheaper for their enterprise security solutions than their competitors with higher rating scores but I could be wrong.

 

I think on medium to large enterprise, in order to manage Windows Defender AV they need to buy Intune for cloud management or Windows 10 E5 for on-premise management which I think costs more. How I wish Windows Defender has a webcam protection where in it will notify me which application is using the webcam and an option to block access.

[DrMacintosh]

The only reason I use Defender is because it’s included and isn’t resource intensive. Really, common sense and an ad blocker is all you need to stay safe on the internet imo.