Do you have Windows Defender enabled?

[Gabe3]

Do you have windows defender enabled? Please vote!

[Gabe3]

I've always had it disabled but I'm wondering if I should enable it, it would be nice to catch spyware before its installed. But I was wondering what others do, reason for the poll.

[ajm786]

Spybot FTMFW.

[mista ting]

i keep it enabled since i had to disable that annoying as fuck UAC thing that keeps prompting on every thing i click

[Sovereign]

Vista has it built-in... IMO Vista needs to just be left alone for the most part. It will generally take care of itself. This means UAC on, Windows Defender on, SuperFetch on and the like.

[CptFalcon]

I left it on, no muss no fuss.

[Dallows]

I used to have it installed on xp. But looks like I did a format and forgot. I left it because it didn't seem to suck up any resources and might've caught something, who knows. It never bothered me and was resource light, so I left it.

[Grentz]

Yes, does not bug me, does not hog any resources I need, and is just another layer of protection.

[GORANKAR]

I left it on in Vista, no reason to turn it off. Why turn it off unless you a running a superior product in it's place?

[Catweazle]

I left it on in Vista, no reason to turn it off. Why turn it off unless you a running a superior product in it's place?
And no reason to go chasing any 'superior product' if it's keeping your rig adequately protected, which it does unless you're an absolute goose who should never be let loose unchaperoned on the internet!

In many cases anyway, the supposed 'superior products' only appear to be 'better', because they report differently and often make singly intrusion attempts appear as multiple intrusion attempts. (And report harmless cookies as 'security threats', of course!)

'On' for my Vista rigs. Built-in beats add-on any day of the week. One of the best benefits of Vista is how much less my machine has to resemble a patchwork 'bucket-of-bolts' assemblage of accumulated junk in order to continue running smoothly and reliably!

[TechieSooner]

One of the best benefits of Vista is how much less my machine has to resemble a patchwork 'bucket-of-bolts' assemblage of accumulated junk in order to continue running smoothly and reliably!

QFT. Vista is amazing at this. How long are we going on since Vista came out? I still haven't reformatted, nor do I need to.

XP machine has been done once since then. Starting to need it again.

I leave Defender ON on my Vista machines. Again following rule of thumb: don't mess with Vista.
For XP, I'll install it on any "personal" machines (family/friends, etc). Just another layer of protection and it does not use that much resources.

[GotNoRice]

I used to run it, along with Symantec Corporate for AV. At some point Symantec started scanning for more than just viruses and the latest versions now recommends disabling windows defender so that they don't conflict, so I have it disabled.

[entropism]

Defender by itself sucks ass. Defender plus the Spynet ADVANCED subscription turns defender into a full blown HIPS/behavior blocker, and it's quite good. In fact, it's one of a small handful of behavior blockers/HIPS you can even install on Vista x64.

[Ranma_Sao]

Defender by itself sucks ass. Defender plus the Spynet ADVANCED subscription turns defender into a full blown HIPS/behavior blocker, and it's quite good. In fact, it's one of a small handful of behavior blockers/HIPS you can even install on Vista x64.

Pardon? From one who actually worked on Defender, I'm not sure you understand how Spynet advanced works.

I selected yes from the drop down, since I'm using OneCare which has the defender Signatures as part of OneCare.


This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

[Vermillion]

I have it on now. Used to have it disabled along with UAC but have recently changed my ways and have re-enabled both. ;)

Defender is just one more line of defense that doesn't do any harm by having it running. In conjunction with Defender I still use SpywareBlaster and Spybot because no program catches or prevents 100% of all spyware/malware.

[Violator]

Leave it on. Can't think of a reason why you would want to turn it off.

[Monkey God]

I leave it enabled, although its never caught anything, ever.

[Rofl-Mic-Lofl]

I decided with Vista I never want to reformat again :).

So, I leave UAC on, NOD32 and Windows Defender scheduled to run while I sleep. Vista is awesome, and "tweaking" it is pointless. Just leave it the hell alone.

[Arainach]

I leave it on. It does what it needs to and I don't need to worry about hunting down piles of 3rd-party apps.

[drew630]

Yes, does not bug me, does not hog any resources I need, and is just another layer of protection.

Same. I only know when its running because I leave the I the icon activated on my toolbar. I mean, if you your computer can easily run it without interfering with anything else, why not? Its like you said, "just another layer of protection."

[Azhar]

I leave Defender on. It doesn't do anything but sit there.. so far

It doesn't bother me, it doesn't prompt me for anything except the once every so often advisory to run deep scans, it doesn't pop up in my face, and most importantly it uses virtually no cpu resources whatsoever. Why turn it off?

If I may be so bold, I'm going to say "people turn it off because it's Microsoft", because there's no other reason to turn it off, even if you install your malware scanner of choice.

[TechieSooner]

I leave Defender on. It doesn't do anything but sit there.. so far
Same here- I don't think it's actually caught anything (but then again- neither has NOD32).

If I may be so bold, I'm going to say "people turn it off because it's Microsoft", because there's no other reason to turn it off, even if you install your malware scanner of choice.

Most people don't know that Microsoft didn't actually create the darn thing, thus showing their ignorance ;)

[Gabe3]

Same here- I don't think it's actually caught anything (but then again- neither has NOD32).



Most people don't know that Microsoft didn't actually create the darn thing, thus showing their ignorance ;)

its called windows defender

[sdotbrucato]

its called windows defender

That's because Microsoft acquired the company (Giant Company Software) and pretty much rebranded it in '05. It used to be called Giant Antispyware. Now of course MS has had some work in the final product but the Betas were just rebranded previous software...

[Rampage1329]

I love it. Software Explorer is great for identifying problem files, and it actually catches common stuff. Its not better than super anti spyware, but its light weight and does its job better than Spybot or AdAware.

[OldPueblo]

I use it on all my Vista system's, most of which have OneCare anyway. The others are using AVG free with Defender.

[Ranma_Sao]

That's because Microsoft acquired the company (Giant Company Software) and pretty much rebranded it in '05. It used to be called Giant Antispyware. Now of course MS has had some work in the final product but the Betas were just rebranded previous software...

Really? Cause I have a different view... If you look at the Giant Product it was written in Visual Basic. Notice Defender isn't... ;)

Notice that it uses the combined Microsoft Malware Protection Engine which Giant didn't have. It was completely re-written from scratch.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

[Catweazle]

Really? Cause I have a different view... If you look at the Giant Product it was written in Visual Basic. Notice Defender isn't... ;)

The original Beta release of it as 'Microsoft AntiSpyware' was basically a rebadged Giant product. that Beta was the only version available from January 6, 2005 to February 13, 2006, when Beta2 was made available. Beta2 was a completely new product altogether, as you suggest, written in C++ rather than Visual Basic.

[xxEIEIOxx]

The original Beta release of it as 'Microsoft AntiSpyware' was basically a rebadged Giant product. that Beta was the only version available from January 6, 2005 to February 13, 2006, when Beta2 was made available. Beta2 was a completely new product altogether, as you suggest, written in C++ rather than Visual Basic.

Ew, Visual Basic, no wonder it sucked. I think that is a lot of the problem with how people perceive this product. I used it when it came out like everyone else did. That early beta sucked badly. A lot of people probably assume it hasn't changed much. I find the current version is much better than it was back in the early days.

[rbanzai]

Not only does Windows Defender do pretty much nothing the process used to go crazy about once a week and then I'd have to kill it. An easy delete.

[Spectrum17]

I use Onecare, which subsumes all of the functions of Defender and so disables it upon install.

[Ranma_Sao]

Not only does Windows Defender do pretty much nothing the process used to go crazy about once a week and then I'd have to kill it. An easy delete.

What do you mean go crazy?
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

[Azhar]

What do you mean go crazy?

I'm curious too. Got Vista on many machines at home and work and I have yet to see Defender "go crazy". Only the one on my Ultimate version at home prompts me once in a long time that I have not done a deep scan in xx amount of time and that I should consider doing so. You can tell it no and it won't bother you anymore for another long period of time.

I wonder if he's actually got WinAntiSpyware 2008 "installed" on his computer. Now THAT "goes crazy"

;)

[DrDoU]

disabled when i installed Kaspersky's Interent Security

[TechieSooner]

What do you mean go crazy?

Anyone notice the trolls/FUD-spreaders just disappear after calling them on something??

[wildfire99]

As one of the few parts of Vista that hasn't sprung up from the ground like a mold-encrusted, half-decayed digital zombie to screech in my face "you need permissions! You need to ok this! You need to update me! You need to validate again!", Defender has remained turned on for all my boxes. I'm glad to see it wasn't an MS invention, that probably explains why it doesn't suck hard and doesn't get in the way.

Meanwhile, I still have to figure out what part of Vista isn't letting me play MP3 files on my HTPC without me having to click on a warning each time because the OS is convinced they are "downloadable files" that will destroy my PC and end the world if I play one. All my (actually) downloaded .WMA content? Not a problem (to Vista), of course.

[Azhar]

Maybe your computer's trying to tell you something, wildfire99. Ever stop to think that mp3s are compressed files, like zips, and can act as a malware carrier? If you're getting prompted playing mp3s, I suggest you stop downloading them from Kazaa. Also, try and keep up. Defender is a Microsoft product from ground up. The original Defender was made from an entirely different code base, Visual Basic. The current one after Microsoft bought it is redesigned entirely in C++

[Serpico]

Hell yeah. Just because Defender and NOD32 haven't caught anything in lord knows how long doesn't mean that it isn't going to happen.

[RussianInfantry]

I keep windows defender enabled, mostly because I have processor cycles to burn, and once I upgrade to my velociraptor as my OS disk, it will cease to have any performance impact in the slightest degree.

[funniecow]

I leave it on, I mean why not.

[Riftsaw]

Nope.

I'm running Kaspersky.

[Catweazle]

I use Onecare, which subsumes all of the functions of Defender and so disables it upon install.

heh heh...

The spyware component of OneCare IS Defender!

OneCare uses the Defender engine, with OneCare's own interface accessing it. There's not much that OneCare actually even adds to a Vista install. Virus Scanner, another (outgoing) layer of firewall, but that's about it. All the rest is just a user interface to access and configure functionality which is already in the OS. For the most part, OneCare is 'extra convenience' rather than 'extra functionality'.

[QHalo]

newp, disabled on both my machines.

[wildfire99]

Ever stop to think that mp3s are compressed files, like zips, and can act as a malware carrier? If you're getting prompted playing mp3s, I suggest you stop downloading them from Kazaa.
Well that's the weird thing. I spent quality time earlier this week deciphering Windows Defender's config page to see if it was at fault for the odd warnings.

I have some MP3s that are downloaded (not from Kazaa thank you, but I guess I deserve a little venom since I give it out) that get a clean bill of health, and others that are not downloads that do get flagged as downloaded and dangerous despite having never seen the interweb.

Through it all, my WMAs don't get flagged at all. WMA is still a compressed audio carrier, but why does it get a free pass? Do I need to suggest because it's an MS product?

Anyway, buffer overruns from files come from player apps, not the OS unless the OS is doing something it shouldn't. WinAmp is just as likely as WindowsMediaPlayer to fall over due to some malicious audio file. I think it's just a bizarre thing, and I still can't figure out which process in Vista (Defender?) is responsible for this.

Also worrisome is that you can disable warnings for a single "downloaded" file via the checkbox on the popup. Where are those being saved? Do they get deleted, or in a year or two will I have disk space being eaten up by pointless safe lists in some registry file somewhere?

This is what bugs me. Mystery processes doing things of debatable value, that can't be overridden or require unusual amounts of effort to bypass, all in the name of security through obscurity (save for, at least now, the 64 bit codebase I presume).

Also, try and keep up. Defender is a Microsoft product from ground up. The original Defender was made from an entirely different code base, Visual Basic. The current one after Microsoft bought it is redesigned entirely in C++
I don't care what it was written in, and I never mentioned it. It's irrelevant to the process. What I did mean to say that if another company that had yet to be fully embraced by Microsoft's command structure was responsible for Defender's current iteration, I can see why it doesn't seem as bad as some other OS components. In fact, I have continually been impressed by how little Defender gets in the way. Regardless of what the app was written in, usability and high level thought about how the user will interact with the application (and conversely, how the app will intervene in user behavior) is of paramount importance, and is something that Vista as a whole really seems to fail at, at least for me. That Defender navigates away from this (user nagging and nannyism) in some part is to be commended.

Now if they went and rewrote it in .NET 3, we might have to have heated words. :)

[Ranma_Sao]

Well that's the weird thing. I spent quality time earlier this week deciphering Windows Defender's config page to see if it was at fault for the odd warnings.

I have some MP3s that are downloaded (not from Kazaa thank you, but I guess I deserve a little venom since I give it out) that get a clean bill of health, and others that are not downloads that do get flagged as downloaded and dangerous despite having never seen the interweb.

Through it all, my WMAs don't get flagged at all. WMA is still a compressed audio carrier, but why does it get a free pass? Do I need to suggest because it's an MS product?

Anyway, buffer overruns from files come from player apps, not the OS unless the OS is doing something it shouldn't. WinAmp is just as likely as WindowsMediaPlayer to fall over due to some malicious audio file. I think it's just a bizarre thing, and I still can't figure out which process in Vista (Defender?) is responsible for this.

Also worrisome is that you can disable warnings for a single "downloaded" file via the checkbox on the popup. Where are those being saved? Do they get deleted, or in a year or two will I have disk space being eaten up by pointless safe lists in some registry file somewhere?

This is what bugs me. Mystery processes doing things of debatable value, that can't be overridden or require unusual amounts of effort to bypass, all in the name of security through obscurity (save for, at least now, the 64 bit codebase I presume).


I don't care what it was written in, and I never mentioned it. It's irrelevant to the process. What I did mean to say that if another company that had yet to be fully embraced by Microsoft's command structure was responsible for Defender's current iteration, I can see why it doesn't seem as bad as some other OS components. In fact, I have continually been impressed by how little Defender gets in the way. Regardless of what the app was written in, usability and high level thought about how the user will interact with the application (and conversely, how the app will intervene in user behavior) is of paramount importance, and is something that Vista as a whole really seems to fail at, at least for me. That Defender navigates away from this (user nagging and nannyism) in some part is to be commended.

Now if they went and rewrote it in .NET 3, we might have to have heated words. :)

WinInet downloaded files have an alternate stream written to them to say they were downloaded from the internet. (Sysinternals Streams should demonstrate that)

It should prompt you for all downloaded files, wma or mp3, but it depends on your machines configuration. (You can disable prompting per file type)

I assure you that it was mostly Microsoft people working on Defender. ;) And I think at this point in my career you'd call me one of the most "Microsoft" type people. ;)

I'm not sure why you'd mind it being written in .NET? Does the language really matter? I only brought up the VB part, to demonstrate it was re-written.

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

[Catweazle]

I only brought up the VB part, to demonstrate it was re-written.
And that's the pertinent point. It was 're-written'. It wasn't merely 'translated'. The product which exists now is NOT the product which MS initially acquired the rights to.

[Mithent]

I have it enabled. It's not caused any noticeable inconvenience or slowdown, although it's never caught any spyware (though, to my knowledge, I've never had any, so that's hardly a problem). I don't use any other resident spyware protection either, so I have no reason to disable it.