Cumulative Update KB4493509 Windows 10 v1809 Build 17763.437 - April 9 Win Update

jimbo45 said:

Hi there
@slicendice
the more complex security gets it's then human nature to "simplify" it -- for instance some of those sites that make people have unrecognizeable or unrememberable passwords actually do themselves (and their users) a disservice since people either write them down or store them in a plain text file on their computer compromising security.

Same with any sort of AV software too --that's why WD is simple and effective - just leave it running - gets automatically updated as required, uses minimal resources, does its job just as good as any other ones out there these days (some might even say better) -- especially for Home / mom and pop comnputers and small networks.

When you look how hideous things like mcAffee (we call it Mc Aweful) are -- slows machine down, needs almost a ph.d in Computer science to uninstall it completely etc one should be glad that at least on the security issue Ms has got it right for zillions of Win 10 users.

Cheers
jimbo

As I said elsewhere, I still feel more comfortable with Norton Security than WD. My important machines have NS while my less important ones just get to keep WD. Norton causes none of the "hideous things" you mention on either Pro or Home.
In the course of general use, I think NS traps far more invasive "nasties" than WD.

Maybe it's psychological - maybe WD is doing the same but not announcing it(?) I do know that historically WD and its predecessors were NOT highly regarded, so for now I'll continue paying Norton.

Perhaps it's my "comfort blanket"??

jimbo45 said:

Hi there
@VBF

these things are of course preferential and obviously how people use their machines will lead to quite different outcomes which is why in general comparative evaluations of AV software are as far as home computers are concerned relatively useless and futile. In a business scenario where hardware tends to be identical and the environment much more controlled then its a different issue - and the attacks will be different as well -- no self respecting hacker for example expects to make any money out of attacking a simple mom and pop home computer -- but having "a go" at say a global company like Shell for instance could in theory be much more rewarding !!!. These days it's usually about things like scamming, identity theft and in the case of large corporations attempt to create Denial of Service attacks rather than plain simple malware and viruses.

Both the OS and the built in security (WD) have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last few years while the hacking community have themselves also moved on away from simple malware exploits to real money making activities.

Unfortunately a load of people are still looking at security systems in general as they were in C20 - it's a geological age difference now compared with the sheer "leakiness" of even Windows 7 and its rediculous WD system. Ms really should have called WD by a totally new name for W10 --too many people still think of it as it was back in W7 days -- it's a totally new product - there's probably not a single line of code in it that's the same as the old one apart from say an end proc statement !!!

Cheers
jimbo

It wasn't called WD in W7. It was and still is Microsoft Security Essentials.

jimbo45 said:

Hi there
@kado897
Actually there was a Windows Defender - but it was not an AV program itself -- was just some type of spyware scanner originally and it of course later evolved into what we have as WD on W10 today. Yes the full blown thing on W7 was actually MSE but WD was there as well -- and it was essentially useless which is why it got its bad name !!!

Windows Defender - Wikipedia

Cheers
jimbo

Ah ok I see.

@jimbo45 @kado897 @stealth2920

I get what you've all said in the last few posts and thanks for the responses.

You're all probably correct and tbh my "unimportant" machines haven't suffered through using WD + Malwarebytes so maybe I should wake up and smell the coffee!

I have been in this discussion before quite recently, and I was told by someone on here that basically if it works for me and I feel better for doing it the way I do, then why not? It's only £30/year to cover my 2 important PCs and my Android devices + 1 spare licence....but I shall mull it over - I don't have to renew my Norton until June.

Thanks again

VBF said:

I have been in this discussion before quite recently, and I was told by someone on here that basically if it works for me and I feel better for doing it the way I do, then why not?

I'll second that statement. You do exactly what makes you feel comfortable!
You just hear recommendations of other people, coming from their experience, but at the end of the day, you evaluate and do whatever gives you peace of mind.
Let me give you a small example. It has been stated numerous times in this forum, that creating a Macrium Reflect image is more than reliable (and it is) and there is no need to verify the image upon creation. Although I don't doubt it a bit, when I create an image, I always verify it. Takes almost double the time to complete, but it gives me peace of mind. There might be a point of time, when I'll stop doing it, but until that time comes, if it comes, I'll keep doing what gives me the confidence that I did it "properly".