This article is not intended to convince you to abandon your current antivirus solutions. In this post I would like to share my observations and ways to improve the effectiveness of Defender.
[…]But today, let’s focus on Defender for the home user. It does not have additional functions that are offered by other commercial solutions, but what it does is enough. However, it is worth enabling some additional functions that are not available from the graphical interface.
Excellent article, and worth a read if you’re still using Windows.
I have to give MSFT credit since adding Windows Defender as the default the amount of infected computers I’ve seen cross my desk has gone WAY down. People here probably don’t remember but back in the days of XP you’d see computers infested to high heaven thanks to the only “Anti-Virus” being the long expired copy of Norton the OEM stuffed on at the factory and at least now all PCs have an up to date A/V that works for most of your standard bugs.
The biggest advance was made during a Windows 10 update: disabling expired antivirus software and enabling defender.
Though I personally stopped caring about third-party antivirus software the moment Microsoft Security Essentials came out. I always hated having a third-party “Internet Security system” messing with Windows.
The real issue with Windows XP was that it practically invited malware: It run autorun executables without warning, it allowed all executables admin access by default (including ability to install unsigned drivers that run at kernel level access), allowed websites to install software with a plain yes/no prompt, and came with its crappy firewall disabled by default.
This was the golden era of third-party antivirus software, a true growth market.
In fairness, for defence variety is the spice of life, if everybody uses the same solution then everybody has the same vulnerability, so mixing it up makes sense!
Also, I wonder if anyone here makes use of a canary, the rose at the end of the vine?
If it would be that simple then it would be the default and the whole issue with viruses wouldn’t exist. An idea you can avoid all that by clicking some check boxes in Windows Defender. That is just not realistic. Until the underlying (hard) issues get resolved, until then regardless of what you do you will be exposed to such threats.
This seems like bad advice from the 2000’s (decade). It’s not much different than people who were around back then saying you don’t need antivirus if you’re careful. The problem is it’s been over a decade and the threatscape is different. The hackers are now looking for any computer that will give them free internet and electricity to mine cryptocurrency (including smartphones), so the Defender is not enough.
@dark2
Agreed.
There is so much subjectivity and assertion in these articles, they subjectively assess what a threat actually is, then they assert that one solution fits all, an assertion that’s fundamentally impossible.
Although it is not Windows today’s media coverage about the Linux Dirty Pipe vulnerability is a good example, something as ubiquitous as a pipe becomes a Death Pipe to some in the right circumstance, a vulnerability that was present from the first keystroke! Too many distros based on the same same, lacking diversity so they are universally vulnerable, the very things that make the distros reliable and predictable also predict and enable their demise!
And how is this different from the blanket statement, without any evidence, from the post you agree with that defender is not enough?
For me, the security software market seems like a mix of malware and scams, exploiting a bunch of security holes to do what they are doing, with no way for you to ever know if they work or not, but you do know the software is highly invasive.
As you can probably guess, i am using defender, not because i love it or trust them more, but because i am forced to trust Microsoft already since i am running Windows. It might not be the strongest solution, but i am always behind a firewall and i don’t download and execute random software, and especially not any pirated software, which in the old days was always what got me.
@Troels
That is the thing isn’t it. If you don’t do anything “risky” then the chance of infecting your operating system is not that high anyway. With Windows Defender enabled or not. If you will result to “risky” behavior. Then enabling Windows Defender for sure can prevent some threats. Beyond that the chances increase dramatically.
***Too many distros based on the same same, lacking diversity so they are universally vulnerable, the very things that make the distros reliable and predictable also predict and enable their demise!***
True, but if every distro does things differently, we get the dreaded “fragmentation” and people don’t want to use Linux as there are just too much differences.
Monoculture fosters a stable software market, but opens you up to threats. Extensive diversity hardens you, but prevents you from reaching critical mass. Sophie’s choice.
@r_a_trip
Like there should only be one car on the market or people won’t know how to choose one and will use bicycles instead? Don’t be ignorant.
@cpcf
I am sure that viruses don’t keep Linux at 1% market share on the desktop. Just look at the Windows market share. You will notice that the realistically high threat of viruses and alike doesn’t affect it’s market share.
The current situation is that invasion of Western countries is expected. In this situation,
To avoid war with the West, the only way was to have a wealthy country, a strong disease, and an independently.
C. A brother who has to open a port in Joseon within 5 years at the longest.
https://betgoca.com/sands/