what does Windows Defender really protects and scans for?

having antivirus software is not about how many viruses it can fine it is
about a first line of protection so to speak. because antivirus companies
have realtime scanning,you will be alerted to things that attempt to sneak
in.the same with anti spyware. not having these programs, means you are an
easy mark. anything can slip in. computer repair bills are not cheap,
especialy when it is something that could have been avoided by installing an
antivirus program.
--
Four Generations Of Trust And Betrayal...One Legacy

Skywolfe


"bomb#20" wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> momo wrote:
>
> < snip ><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > As antivirus I use AVIRA, a really cool piece of software that never
> > let me down for the past 2,5 years (I used it on XP, and now I have
> > it on Vista).<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Could you tell me how many viruses this cool piece of software has found in the last 2.5 years ?
> If it hasn't let you down, then it must have found lots of virusus.
> Please post details, you should find lots of information in the antivirus log file.
> Thanks very much.
> ..
>
>
>
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

"Rage Skywolfe" <RageSkywolfe@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:FD087472-FA40-492E-AE5B-1E22EC090684@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> having antivirus software is not about how many viruses it can fine it
> is
> about a first line of protection so to speak.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Used to be first line, when it was a way to help users to avoid
executing malicious code attached to trusted code. It was most important
to be able to detect more viruses than your competitor. Simple rules
like only getting programs from trusted sources - and submitting them to
scanning (trust, yet verify) was as good a first line as you could get -
not much need for the all too common foistware removal applications.
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> because antivirus companies
> have realtime scanning,you will be alerted to things that attempt to
> sneak
> in.the same with anti spyware. not having these programs, means you
> are an
> easy mark. anything can slip in. computer repair bills are not cheap,
> especialy when it is something that could have been avoided by
> installing an
> antivirus program.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Now, with "on-access" general malware scanning it is a last ditch effort
to intercede on the user's behalf while enabling the user to be
oblivious to safe practices. Many other kinds of antimalware are not
strictly preventative in nature, but require the malware be installed
(to identify it) and is geared toward removal. Users no longer feel any
need to refrain from executing random malware.

So, a last ditch effort on the one hand, and a post installation removal
on the other hand, I can't agree that it is a first line of defense
anymore.

Education is the *best* first line of defense - but the antimalware
industry may have given up on the pipedream that it is even possible.
The OS software developers have already started to *enforce* certain
good practices - much to the irritation of both the users and some of
the 'OS compatible software' developers.

 

true, but that is also why people have an antivirus scanner and a malware
scanner. whether the AV has malware scanning capabilities or not, I still use
both. no program is going to be 100% because there are new things that
develop all the time. I have run an antivirus program and ad aware for years.
ad aware catches what the AV doesn't.

Education is the *best* first line of defense - but the antimalware <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> industry may have given up on the pipedream that it is even possible.
> The OS software developers have already started to *enforce* certain
> good practices - much to the irritation of both the users and some of
> the 'OS compatible software' developers. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

True, but it all boils down to the user. anyone at any given time can land
on a malicious link somewhere, but without any line of protection at all.how
do you know when something has entered the system or not? it is just as
important to have that as it is to keep an operating system patched. I have
had viruses many times before. but my programs have tracked them before they
did any real damage.
--
Four Generations Of Trust And Betrayal...One Legacy

Skywolfe


"FromTheRafters" wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> "Rage Skywolfe" <RageSkywolfe@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:FD087472-FA40-492E-AE5B-1E22EC090684@microsoft.com...<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > having antivirus software is not about how many viruses it can fine it
> > is
> > about a first line of protection so to speak.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Used to be first line, when it was a way to help users to avoid
> executing malicious code attached to trusted code. It was most important
> to be able to detect more viruses than your competitor. Simple rules
> like only getting programs from trusted sources - and submitting them to
> scanning (trust, yet verify) was as good a first line as you could get -
> not much need for the all too common foistware removal applications.
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > because antivirus companies
> > have realtime scanning,you will be alerted to things that attempt to
> > sneak
> > in.the same with anti spyware. not having these programs, means you
> > are an
> > easy mark. anything can slip in. computer repair bills are not cheap,
> > especialy when it is something that could have been avoided by
> > installing an
> > antivirus program.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> Now, with "on-access" general malware scanning it is a last ditch effort
> to intercede on the user's behalf while enabling the user to be
> oblivious to safe practices. Many other kinds of antimalware are not
> strictly preventative in nature, but require the malware be installed
> (to identify it) and is geared toward removal. Users no longer feel any
> need to refrain from executing random malware.
>
> So, a last ditch effort on the one hand, and a post installation removal
> on the other hand, I can't agree that it is a first line of defense
> anymore.
>
> Education is the *best* first line of defense - but the antimalware
> industry may have given up on the pipedream that it is even possible.
> The OS software developers have already started to *enforce* certain
> good practices - much to the irritation of both the users and some of
> the 'OS compatible software' developers.
>
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

if you are using cracks to begin with, that in itself is risky. those sites
are crawling with themat times if you like the game go buy it. the same with
programs. the problem with cracks is it is a limited update feature usualy if
it is for a program. there are efinately many good free scanners out there,
and they are alot safer than getting a crack from somewhere.
--
Four Generations Of Trust And Betrayal...One Legacy

Skywolfe


"ArameFarpado" wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Em Sexta, 14 de Dezembro de 2007 21:15, Straight Talk escreveu:
> <!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
> > On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:13:29 -0000, "bomb#20" <darkstar@home> wrote:
> > <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >>Straight Talk wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:15:33 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
> >>> <kblake@this.is.am.invalid.domain> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Some of the best antivirus software (Avast and AVG, for
> >>>> example) is freeware.
> >>>
> >>> Agreed. Why pay for a security measure that by design cannot be
> >>> reliable anyway.
> >>
> >>Have you tried many of these sort of programs ?<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> >
> > Yes.
> > <!--coloro:darkred--><span style="color:darkred <!--/coloro-->
> >>I 've not been impressed with those that I've tried.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
> >
> > Me neither.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> That makes 3 of us...
>
> i have a little virus collection (less than 50 infected files), and it's
> enought to see that AVG and Kaspersky catches only 60% of them, letting 40%
> of them pass away.
> another thing i've found is AVG and Kaspersky do FUD on the users:
> AVG and Kaspersy (specialy AVG) triger a lot of false alarms with cracks and
> key generators... it's just FUD, i've seen AVG go "on" many times when
> handling files there're game cracks or key generators.
>
>
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->