I have found any number of articles on the reliability of Windows Defender, in fact one reported that it had only found 14% of 75 deliberately introduced spyware programmes in a test case.

I have also read this post http://www.computing.net/windowsvis... in these forums and the general consensus of opinion is that it is OK.

I had it turned off but have restarted it... have opinions here changed at all?

Once I thought I was wrong, now I'm not so sure!

I am a bit of a Microsoft apologist. Or is that not the right term? But yeah, I only tend to use the Microsoft stuff. Win defender, IE, Win XP, etc. I find Defender to be fine although I haven't actually used it in a while.

I'm on course for Vista, so all of these features are packed in already.

    
 

My blog

My views on Windows Defender is this: if you must use it as a primary defense tool, make sure you have a secondary line of defense to augment it. The program has not fared really well in many of the tests that it has featured in.

Good luck!

Ewen - Have you read our most recent discussion regarding WD (and WD vs. Spybot) in the thread below?

http://www.computing.net/security/w...

IMHO no software is 100% perfect. Which is best is best in the eyes of the beholder.

i_Xp/VistaUser

Thank you XPUser... I had not read that one but having now done so there is really a mix of opinions. "Worldlibrary" makes an interesting comment "Even the worst anti virus,malware,adware program that is running is better than the best that's off or disabled" and that is very true. I do have Spybot along with AVG running on XP and they do a pretty good job between them. I have AVG running on Vista but it does not pick up spyware so I am probably better off leaving Defender enabled.

I thank you all for your input.

Regards.

Once I thought I was wrong, now I'm not so sure!

Since you have Vista ..... you might want to check out SpywareTerminator.

www.spywareterminator.com/

Thank you Sabretooth... I have done that (although not installed). I think I picked up on your suggestion in the other thread I mentioned.

Regards

Once I thought I was wrong, now I'm not so sure!

I use these free programs on my Vista machine with Windows Defender:

AVG Free
Spyware Terminator

They can be found on my website at:

http://home.earthlink.net/~k.schmie...

Thank you Kevin... I use AVG Free and I will more than likely use Spyware Terminator in preference to Defender. Might be just me but I don't like the idea of MS having a handle on my PC through Defender.

Once I thought I was wrong, now I'm not so sure!

I don't know what kind of a statement that is.

MS does not have any "control" over your PC with defender. Really. Nor do they monitor your system judged on mouse activity or delay in inputting product key. It's all hogwash, I'm sorry to say! MS couldn't care less about what consumers do, even less with pirate copies of Windows running. They just deny services to people with invalid Windows, and this is seen through Windows updates. They do *not* watch your PC!

This is what annoys me with people. And please don't take offense (mods included) at what I am about to say.

People read an article slamming a Microsoft product (or any product) and take it to heart. Then they read that program X is the bees knees, and accept it, install it, run it, and swear by it without, realistically, knowing 2 pins about any of what they just did. People buy that rubbish because of what the press, the internet, and the "well known experts" feed us. Even I did up until about 6 months ago, until I got wise and learned how to properly secure my system with entirely first party methods.

The result? People with machines stuffed to the gunnels with third party software doing a job that is actually worse than proper implementation of first party software, right in the OS.

Zonealarm? Who needs that when there's a router, Windows Firewall, and if you're really fancy, IPSec.

Antivirus? Who needs that when there's NTFS permissions, user control permissions, Internet Explorer Zone Permissions and group policy.

AntiSpyware? Who needs that when there is the above too, and now, Windows Defender integrated into Vista.

See what I'm getting at? People don't look for the truth, but instead they buy what we, the people, wrongly tell them. It's because of these deluded statements that unsecured machines, running as Admin, with no NTFS permissions whatsoever set over the OS, are exploited every day. AntiVirus definitions simply *cannot* keep up with malware, and the proactive solution such as I have mentioned is hardly ever implemented. (Even my college computer workstations all logon as full privelaged profiles as default, which quite frankly disgusts me)

Partly due to the fault of OEMs and also because people aren't educated.

So in essence what I am saying, in as nice a way as possible, is use Defender, stop loading third party gunk into your machine, enjoy your Vista and learn a bit about secure computing, don't beleive what one servey tells you.

And I do sincerely hope that you didn't get offended. Peace all.

    
 

My blog

"Zonealarm? Who needs that when there's a router, Windows Firewall, and if you're really fancy, IPSec.

Antivirus? Who needs that when there's NTFS permissions, user control permissions, Internet Explorer Zone Permissions and group policy.

AntiSpyware? Who needs that when there is the above too, and now, Windows Defender integrated into Vista.

See what I'm getting at? "

What you are getting isn't as compelling (at least to me) as you'd want people to believe & it borders on naivety & it probably is potentially reckless.

May I remind you that before Microsoft's offering, people still had to deal with security compromises & M$ DID NOT introduce nor did they emphasize the use of firewalls, AV & scumware protection -- they went that route as a result of external inducement & perhaps an aggressive need (or pretense) of reinforcing a commitment to lock-tight security of their most popular product & keep hope alive & money coming in.

While I will agree that M$ very often gets blamed for things that are in & even out their control, they ought to see that as a compliment at worst. After all, who do they expect to be catching the most flak -- the < 1% adopted open-source Linux?

If you want to use "first party" tools; it is perfectly fine & I'm sure every logical person will not think any less of you. Heck, Steve & the others from Apple continue to parlay that strategy into mega fortune. My disagreement is with the presumption that "all" these third party tools are snake oil or inferior to whatever Bill & Ballmer decides to embed into Windows.

I, much like many others like to review empirical studies & I don't just buy into everything I read - hook, line & sinker .... not even Andreas Cleminti's regularly updated intrusion datasheet. However, his methodology & results from others using the same approach, in addition to sampling first hand users' opinion helps me arrive at a definitive conclusion much faster in my own independent research.

Vista is arguably a lot more secure than its predecessors but its adoption does not eclipse all third party tool that came before it ..... M$ (just like any other entity except Google j/k) can not spread itself too thin & at the same time expect to excel in everything they package right into Windows .... IE vs FF is a prime example & it is also not a myth that NOD32 eats WLOC for lunch anyday.

There are other relevant examples, but these two are third party tools touting better security as a selling point & I beg to differ when I say neither of them are junk. It is an open secret that Defender & WLOC are laggards in an area where being the best bar none will give them a huge advantage. Perhaps this verdict may change when Windows 7 debuts .... who knows?

Perhaps. OK, I admit I overrated the first party stuff and underrated the third party stuff, but you did see my point didn't you.

Perhaps, returning to the issue in hand, I would advise the OP to turn on Windows Defender and perhaps choose from a third party security tool of choice like AVG AntiVirus or something free and light like that.

Still though, I don't get what he said about Defender enabling Microsoft to "handling the PC"...

    
 

My blog

Thank you all for your input and this has turned into an interesting discussion indeed. However Celsius there is a difference between "handling" and "handle." My comment was that I didn't like MS having a "handle" on my PC. It's all in the translation I suppose.

Regards to all.

Once I thought I was wrong, now I'm not so sure!

"Still though, I don't get what he said about Defender enabling Microsoft to "handling the PC"..."

As stated earlier, while M$ does in fact tend to catch flaks for no reason on many occasions; they cannot be excused from nonfeasance in certain instances.

A recent example was the outcry surrounding stealth updates issued to Windows users worldwide around the time. While actual damage sustained by systems due to the update may have been over-amplified or unsubstantiated -- the concerns raised by many Windows users were perfectly valid nonetheless.

Granted you are a M$ apologist & you don't support them being demonized, you gotta remember the company is no saint either.

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...