Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well because Defender by default does quick scan. The files found by it are read when Malwarebytes touches them are probably in a spot only detectable during a Defender full scan.Has anyone else noticed how Windows Defender sits there not reporting anything like everything's fine, you perform a scan using Malwarebytes and all of a sudden Defender pipes up on how it's found suspicious items?
I'm quite possibly more sensitive to the issue as I run Malwarebytes multiple times a day, I just found it very interesting....
Well because Defender by default does quick scan. The files found by it are read when Malwarebytes touches them are probably in a spot only detectable during a Defender full scan.
A good example of this is I have a File History drive that has some Nirsoft tools on it which Defender detects as PUP. It doesn't see them on the drive until File History runs the first time.
Sure, if the malware is on the computer after Defender is installed. It's also possible the definition to pick it up was installed after it hit the drive.Shouldn't Windows Defender be running full real time protection? As soon as that Malware hits the hard drive shouldn't Defender pick it up?
I mean, it obviously recognizes the signature.
Sure, if the malware is on the computer after Defender is installed. It's also possible the definition to pick it up was installed after it hit the drive.
Regrettably, bigdogchris's suggestion did not resolve the issue (thanks for the suggestion though), so still looking for ways to prevent this annoying behavior.
What Microsoft are doing here is effectively the same as if a car manufacturer decided spam the "check engine" light whenever the driver sets the air-con to a temperature that the manufacturer happens to deem uncomfortable or uneconomical.
Please be aware that defender on 10 is legit, and drastically different from what is on windows 7.
It's still not trustworthy. Even less than any general antivirus is.
That's not accurate. But I am sure you are a security expert or you wouldn't be giving your opinions on that.
Ok, I guess you can prove me wrong. You must have some comparison tests which show it's not as abysmal as it used to be. Missing 80% of attacks
Here's the tests results from February 2018 done by av-comparatives.org: https://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/avc_factsheet2018_02.pdf .
Show us the current comparison test(s) to prove your assertion?
EDIT: Here's the link to the av-test.org's December 2017 results for Windows defender.
Just look at your own links results for defender for October 2016. Abysmal detection rate. And none of those AV suites catch 0-day attacks with any measure of reliability - so all you do is fool yourself into false security.
View attachment 60151
It seems that Defender has upped its play, still on 2017 it was considered poor as most.
Just look at your own links results for defender for October 2016. Abysmal detection rate. And none of those AV suites catch 0-day attacks with any measure of reliability - so all you do is fool yourself into false security.
View attachment 60151
It seems that Defender has upped its play, still on 2017 it was considered poor as most.
I've got 16GB of ram. If I expected it to sit there unused I would be a moron.I am a big fan of disabling defender and then running a bigger resource hog that is less effective that costs money.
MUCH BETTER. VERY WOW.
I've got 16GB of ram. If I expected it to sit there unused I would be a moron.
This isn't Windows XP and 512MB days anymore. If a program can run faster by using more memory, please do, that's what it's there for.
You ask for comparison proving his statement which he provides by giving results from less than a month ago. Your counter is to provide data from over a year ago?
On my computer at this moment, Windows Defender service is using under 75MB of memory, and the tray icon is using around 1.5MB.Of course the problem with this comment is that coders are just becoming less efficient due to 16GB of ram and upwards. They're not exactly making effective use of increased memory, they're just being lazy, meaning that users of slower machines with 4GB of ram have an experience that's slow as molasses.
I can't believe how well Windows 2000 on a Pentium 3 runs with 256MB of ram compared to Windows 10 on a budget AMD APU with 4GB of ram and the same speed mechanical HDD's. One experience is pleasurable, one is as pleasurable as getting teeth pulled.
No, the data I provided was what my comment was based on. It used to be piss poor and I don't hold any confidence that it will remain as effective as this in the long run.
Not to mention that no antivirus gets a 100% detection rate, most of which are downright poor against 0-day exploits. Some antiviruses are targets of attack themselves.
Soap doesn't kill 100% of germs. Maybe I should stop washing my hands after I piss.
On my computer at this moment, Windows Defender service is using under 75MB of memory, and the tray icon is using around 1.5MB.
So I don't know exactly what program you are referring to, since we are talking about Defender here, but I wouldn't call the utilization that I see as "lazy programing".
Good luck with that. Ever hear of "drive by downloads?" "Malvertising?" Legit websites get forcibly corrupted all the time.I uninstalled Defender and turned it off through group policy. Waste of resources. I don't use any antivirus and haven't had any malware in 8 years. It's not that hard, just don't click on anything, think about it first.
Good luck with that. Ever hear of "drive by downloads?" "Malvertising?" Legit websites get forcibly corrupted all the time.
x509
Well, until they one day visit a public place and start kissing random strangers at least. Keep your AV up to date and scan occasionally and you'll probably be fine. Oh, and don't go kissing random strangers on the street.Technically speaking there's no need to wash your hands after urinating unless you urinate on your fingers. Even then, urine is free of harmful bacteria on healthy persons.
There's way more bacteria in the kitchen sponge than in your groin.
Oh and by the way, regardless of hand washing millions of people still get sick. And millions of Windows users still get infected even with working AVs.
Then again people who isolate themselves from public places and avoid physical contact with strangers, do not get sick as easily.
Well, until they one day visit a public place and start kissing random strangers at least. Keep your AV up to date and scan occasionally and you'll probably be fine. Oh, and don't go kissing random strangers on the street.
They also show a warning when you don't share your executables with them. Never mind you might have to pay for excess bandwidth usage...