Talk:Windows Defender

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of Computing WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to computers and computing. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Take care: This is no magic bullet

I have this program. It rarely works: for instance, every day it advises me that my computer is infected with Virtumondo (sic), and I instruct it to delete the malware from my system, but it never gets rid of it. Every day, the same process, the same result: it's still there. It also failed to get rid of my Winfixer infection, again failing to delete it from my hard drive as it promised (I got round that by blocking the Winfixer websites by use of a host file redirect).

Come to think of it, it's NEVER managed to successfully delete something it's found....

So, as usual with these things, download it now, but don't rely on it. 80.6.31.22 03:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Many spyware and adware infections require more than simple scans; visiting spyware forums and using more advanced tools (HiJack This comes to mind) are often necessary. WikiTruth 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you do a full scan immediately after the spyware is deleted? Spyware can regnerate itself which I discovered.

  • I work for a University Resnet and unfortunately I spend a very large portion of my time removing spyware/malware from machines. MSAS was by far the most effective tool out there, rarely missing any programs that adaware or spybot would catch. It is also the best at actually removing the items it detects. However the only one I could not get it to ever remove was Virtumundo, which somehow makes itself a dependency for winlogon. The way I've been removing Virtumundo is by scanning for it in %systemroot%\system32 to discover the random characters that make up its filename (suffixed by .dll) and then entering recovery console and deleting it.
I agree with 80.6.31.22, this program is completely ineffective. I've used it for months and it was unable to find anything. but when i use another Spyware catcher, like AVG, the competition actually find and eliminates mulware.
look at these links review 1 review 2 Roxanne Edits 21:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IE6 required?

I have tried to install Microsoft AntiSpyware (and MSN Messenger 7.0 also) and then uninstall IE6 in my Windows 2000, and the AntiSpyware (and MSN Messenger) still works. So, why they have been specified to require IE6 as a prerequisite? --Hello World! 02:09, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

IE is required in order to recieve updates (I think) --T-rex 06:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft's update pages are ported to work only on Internet Explorer, try going to windows update with firefox *giggle*

[edit] Ratings?

Maybe it would be a good idea if we found some kind of ratings of different anti spyware programs and put it in the article? That way we would know how this program compares to other programs Flyerhell 00:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. That's why nothing is rated. Rating might help companies advertise their product. Wikipedia is not for advertising either. — Alex (T|C|E) 22:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
We can still link to outside reviews as long as we don't give undo weight to one view. Added expert reviews does add a lot of value to an article. Koweja 22:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Few new features?

I read that Windows Defender was rearchitected. Does this count as a feature, and shouldn't this be included in the article? I tink that this counts as a major feature, and this means that Windows Defender wasn't just rebranded. — Alex (T|C|E) 22:31, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Beta 2 no longer appears to depend on the Visual Basic 6 runtime DLLs as Beta 1 did, so some effort was definitely done on that area (maybe rewriting it to not be in VB6?). -- Bovineone 04:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Correct. The entire engine was rewritten in C++ during the time that GIANT AntiSpyware was rebranded Microsoft AntiSpyware (Beta) and Windows Defender beta 2 was released. — Jeremy | Talk 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Out of beta?

I just downloaded an update from windows about "microsoft defender" WP:IAR and the fact that I really don't know what I am talking about are keeping me from editing the article, but I was expecting it so say that this was released. Suddenly wondering what I just did download... --T-rex 06:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I take that all back --T-rex 06:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Features Removed?

I noticed that some of the features present in Microsoft AntiSpyware are not included in Windows Defender, including the System Explorer and track eraser tools. Has there been an explation for this? Those features helped me out a lot and it seems that there is not substitute in Windows Defender. Kyle 14:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unreferenced

I just removed an {{unreferenced}} tag from the article, since there were links at the bottom of the article, and no list of problems in or near the tag or on the talk page. Please assume that Wikipedians are not mind readers; say what you mean. --Scott McNay 20:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Vista specific functionality

I think some more details are needed here; how does this affect installation programs which need to finish up an install after a reboot? --Scott McNay 13:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Windows 2000

Okay, I just now reverted Jdlowery's recent changes to the article. This included saying Windows Defender still supports Windows 2000, but with a hack. This means it is not supported per se, other than the hacking. While I'd be fine with an external link about info (others may agree or disagree, so I'll leave them to that), but how to hack apps on older OS's does not belong in a Wikipedia article IMO. If someone disagrees, reply, and perhaps we can sort it out.. Also, I meant no offense to Jdlowery --Illyria05-- 04:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I disagree. It's interesting to note in a Wikipedia article that Windows Defender in fact supports Windows 2000, but service is denied to mainstream users due to Microsoft's lack of official support for the operating system. Not only does this speak volumes about the company, but provides a useful service to Wikipedians running Windows 2000 that may be unaware of this support. I will add back the information, but not the method, as it is a hack, after all (anyone interested in learning how to do it can always Google it). Forteblast 14:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I agree with you. Mentioning it is a good idea, but yeh, method should not be in the article... Thanks :) .. --Illyria05-- 22:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure Windows Defender still lacks of official support for Windows 2000? As stated at Microsoft Help and Support, Microsoft has confirmed that this is a problem in the Microsoft products, and an official resolution is also provided. It's not good to put unofficial workaround in the article when an official resolution is already there.--Wengier (talk) 06:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unworking Betas

I might point out that, apparently, the betas for this software are no longer supported and now cause errors upon startup. I came to this page about five times hoping to find mention of the mysterious error that had affected both the family PC and my laptop from New Year's on, and only now found that all there was needed to be done was to re-install the latest version. It might be obvious, but there you have it. -- Sarrandúin [ Talk + Contribs ] 03:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FSF criticism

The Free Software Foundation writes:

You give Microsoft the right, through programs like Windows Defender, to delete programs from your system that it decides are spyware.

Is this true? Does WD delete programs without the user's consent? – gpvos (talk) 20:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


WD "Windows Defender" doesn't erase programs without your permission, however though the new operating system "Windows Vista" from what i've heard erases programs and softwares by Microsoft themselves without the user realising it. Fire Monkey (talk) 19:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Section 6 of the EULA says:

6. POTENTIALLY UNWANTED SOFTWARE. If turned on, Windows Defender
   will search your computer for “spyware,” “adware” and other
   potentially unwanted software. If it finds potentially unwanted
   software, the software will ask you if you want to ignore,
   disable (quarantine) or remove it.  Any potentially unwanted
   software rated “high” or “severe,” will automatically be removed
   after scanning unless you change the default setting. Removing
   or disabling potentially unwanted software may result in
   · other software on your computer ceasing to work, or
   · your breaching a license to use other software on your computer.
   By using this software, it is possible that you will also remove
   or disable software that is not potentially unwanted software.

Looking at this, it's easy to conclude the the user has a choice, so people can move on to complain about the color scheme or the .NET MSIL bytecodes. However, the manner in which the choice is presented is frankly dishonest. First, few people read EULA's: the likelihood is high that the setting the behavior for "high" or "severe" are not going to change, simply because the user will not know. Some may say "that's their problem for not reading contracts and manuals, nyah nyah", but then again, if Toyota put a time-bomb in all the cars they sell, and added a note at the back of the user-manual, in fine print, they can de-activate it by opening all the doors, popping the hood, putting their head beside the intake manifold and singing Schubert's "Ave Maria" (in the original German) ... well, is it really their problem they failed to RTFM when the bomb goes off? Also, if someone does read the detail and agrees, the underspecified nature of the contract means that today "Fred's Spyware 2.3" is a severely unwanted piece of software and will be deleted without further ado, but tomorrow it could be cygwin. The potential for abuse is not trivial, either by Microsoft or entities who can subvert the communications channel between Microsoft and Windows Defender. (I suspect that it will be recognized the main problem with Vista's security is that too much trust is placed in Microsoft. Cynically, I note that the legal people at MS have covered that eventuality in the EULA: they aren't responsible if you, the sucker, trusted them.) mdf (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proof it doesn't work

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a9/Windowsdefender.JPG

Roxanne Edits 03:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All that image shows is that there are cookies on that pc. Windows Defender is not for removing cookies, it even says on the screenshot 'Protection against unwanted & malicious software' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.253.202 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

This screenshot is proving nothing at all. But tracking cookies could indeed fall in the category "Spyware", which Windows Defender is supposed to handle. Those cookies indeed spy on you, although I consider them to be a very low level of threat. For any pair of security software, you will find some malicious objects that are detected by one but not the other. That's normal. Spybot S&D finds things that Ad-Aware won't find and the other way around. Avira Antivirus finds things that Windows Defender won't find, and the other way around, it's fully normal. These programs often complete each other and it's a good idea to not use only one. 83.78.57.48 (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)