Comment by loeg
1 year ago
I think it's a relatively consensus viewpoint in the security industry that AV products are worse than no AV product. I don't think that makes them worse than viruses, though.
1 year ago
I think it's a relatively consensus viewpoint in the security industry that AV products are worse than no AV product. I don't think that makes them worse than viruses, though.
The AV our company uses regularly pops up obnoxious warnings about things that are benign. This trains people to click through warnings without reading them (on any product).
Is the consensus that third-party AV is worse than no AV, or that any AV (including Windows Defender) is worse than no AV?
In the corperate security "industry", anti-virus use is always recommended and required. The more invasive, buggy and annoying for users the better the AV probably is /s
Third party. I don't think anyone is actively opposed to Defender.
Microsoft itself recommends developers use a "dev drive" where defender is partially disabled because of how bad it is.
4 replies →
AV Comparatives does testing every few months of performance impact of various AV software and Defender has never scored great there. Third party AV options have always done better while having the same or better scores in protection tests.
3 replies →
I've seen defender be the cause of all those things that the grandparent listed
Even defender is dumb. When you control the OS, which (in the default setup) has exclusive control of all disk reads and writes, you can be sure that if you wrote a virus-free file to disk, then it will be virus-free when you go to read the disk again.
So, why are we doing scan-on-read (with substantial performance overhead) when we should instead be doing scan-on-write (when scanning can, in most cases, be done in idle CPU cycles)?
2 replies →