Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

Is Defender good enough to protect my Windows 8 PC?

Jan 4, 2013 8:30AM PST
Question:

Is Microsoft Defender good enough to protect my Windows 8 computer?


I just got a new computer with Windows 8 installed which came bundled with Windows Defender -- Microsoft's version of antivirus and antispyware. Can you tell me if this program is sufficient enough to keep viruses and spyware out of my new PC? Or should I consider installing Norton Antivirus or some other trustworthy antivirus app as I did in my old computer? Please advise. Thank you.

--Submitted by: Norman D.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Just to clarify...
Jan 4, 2013 6:16PM PST

Hrm, I guess I did inadvertently make it sound like I used more than one AV program on each computer, but I guess I need to clarify: I own several computers, and some have software pre-installed, like kaspersky for example, whereas, I also maintain my parents computer which has AVG installed, if they have AV software and it seems to be doing its job, I leave it there until it expires, then install something I have a long term licence to use.
So, in reference to your observation and feduchin's question, I do NOT use more than one anti viral program on a computer, that bogs machines down and causes enough conflict to let things slip by.
Gaisa

- Collapse -
I think he must be talking about the old Defender...
Jan 12, 2013 12:20PM PST

It was just an anti-malware and could exist quite comfortably with one other AV and many other anti-malware tools.

- Collapse -
In support of absolutely not.
Jan 12, 2013 10:44AM PST

One virus detector is not sufficient to guarantee a virus free PC. This was supported by an IT forensic specialist at a Vancouver Technology User Group (VANTUG) meeting. I have also experienced that when one virus checker did not detect the virus, the other did. Furthermore, a quick scan detected and removed the virus followed by a full scan that detected 32 parts of the same virus. I imagine the 32 may have been scattered throughout the hard drive that a quick scan did not detect.

This is the first time I experienced this on my PC. My PC was performing strangely so I ran the first virus checker. When no virus was found and the performance did not improve, I ran Malwarebytes in both quick scan and full scan. This solved my problem.

The logic is simple. No two independent software are programmed the same.

As far as two virus detectors are concerned, I have not had a problem with Malwarebytes when run following MSE (Microsoft Security Essentials). I only have MSE monitoring continuously. I run Malwarebytes when I detect a problem with my PC as a confirming backup. I believe it is a good idea to run Malwarebytes from time to time in full scan mode. If the data is critical then it is better to do this regularly. A full scan can take hours depending on the size of the data and speed of the PC.

- Collapse -
Err...
Jan 12, 2013 12:35PM PST

MBAM is not an anti-virus. It is true you can run two AVs if one of the real time residents are shut down, and you use the disabled one to run just scanners. Their are only a few REAL TIME anti-viruses that can run in conjunction with a resident AV that the REAL TIME protection is also enabled. I've tested Prevx Safe Online, and read about Immunet, as light weight companion anti-viruses that can work together with another stand alone solution. Many IT SEC professionals are impressed with Immunet - I haven't tried it yet.

However, they are cloud based, and Prevx is not really recommended as a malware remover. It works best as an alert HIPs to allow you do become aware of an intrusion immediately, and take other mitigating action.

- Collapse -
Is Defender good enough?
Jan 4, 2013 11:46AM PST

Absolutely and uses much less resources than Norton or McAfee. I've used Defender and MSSE in all our 42 stores and we have yet to be infected. I do recommend Malwarebytes as a anti malware in addition. Between the two, you are in great shape.

- Collapse -
Correct - with a qualification:
Jan 5, 2013 6:41PM PST

MBAM to be used in its basic (free) variety, with no real-time facility so as not to interfere with the rest.

- Collapse -
MBAM is not an anti-virus...
Jan 13, 2013 2:53AM PST

It is industry wide known to work very well with the paid version real time enabled while running one AV solution. I run it all the time with one other active AV, and several active AM solutions, and I have NO performance impact at all. Not one peep from the Event Viewer either!

It continues to slay me that posters keep calling MBAM an anti-virus when even the name says MalwareBytes-Anti-Malware.

The name says it TWICE, but people still don't get it! DOH!

- Collapse -
probably not.
Jan 4, 2013 12:30PM PST

As graupma has mentioned, Microsoft Essentials (their stand-alone AV) actively disables Windows Defender.

Both WD and ME are "preset and forget". It is not possible to configure either of them to your tastes and needs. Given that both products are aimed at Microsoft's preferred clients, then you should seriously consider some real protection.

Some on this thread, and many elsewhere, have actively recommended you avoid corporate all-in-one bloatware: Norton/Symantec and MacAfee feature largely in these posts.

To be honest, any stand-alone which offers user configuration will do the job. The reality is that (forgive me if I'm wrong) your system is only at risk from "casual" infection: something that arrives in the email, or a malicious website. Many software companies offer freeware AV, or you can spend some dollars and get their "Pro" versions. Personally, I wouldn't bother. I use Avast! Free, and it works like a charm. I did have to configure it, but then that's why I ditched ME and made sure WD would never rise from the grave.

Now if I had an "at risk" setup, holding sensitive data belonging to other people, then some more depth would indeed be necessary. So much for the risk analysis Cool

I do have to say that one reason for choosing Avast! is their easy-to-use boot scan, which loads a preset scanner before Windows loads. This eliminates the need to make a bootable stick or CD, which can be a hassle.

And to everyone here, there and elsewhere: A Merry New Year, followed by lots more of them!

Gordon.

- Collapse -
Having Microsoft Defender is not good enough
Jan 4, 2013 1:13PM PST

I used to have md installed on one of my pc (just only md) and it did get infected. it could not boot up or always in restarting mode. Having md installed is not good enough to protect your pc. you need to have some paid version of security software like norton, avast or bitdefender. You can check the virus bulletin websites VB100 result summary for the test on various security softwares. (www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/summary).

- Collapse -
Semantic confusion
Jan 5, 2013 6:47PM PST

"Microsoft Essentials (their stand-alone AV) actively disables Windows Defender" - In my obsolescent Vista, it does indeed, because that is the way it used to be. MS, in their belated wisdom, have now consolidated their product under the Defender label.
One needs to keep up with developments.

- Collapse -
No AV program is 100%
Jan 11, 2013 1:09PM PST

I don't know about WD but I have been using MSE for a while and never had a virus. I also run Malwarebites scan regularly as a back up to double check that my system is running virus free. You can run both as long as you turn off real time scanning on MB.

- Collapse -
MBAM is not an anti-virus...
Jan 12, 2013 12:44PM PST

A good way to tell if you are actually blocking the viruses, is to run a cloud scanner like ESET's or Trend Micro's online scanner. I don't recommend them necessarily as an installed solution, but it is common practice to use the two as a fact checker.

Just look at the name MBAM uses and it clearly states that it is MalwareBytes Anti-Malware.

- Collapse -
a touch misleading
Jan 11, 2013 9:09PM PST

yes, mse is a p & f, but can be configured to scan on a preset date and time....something i like...it also will check for updates automatically. I run mse along with spybot and malawarebytes as 'backups'...the malaware pgm is run once a week on full scan. i am on the computer alot and have not had any issues!

i too went the mcafee route for a number of years, got tired of being dunned for a renewal after only 2-3 months, the system degrading scans that seem to go at the WORST possible times....in short, with mr mcafee's other alledged problems, i will avoid it at all costs. i hadn the same issue and worse with norton...why should i turn my computer maintenance and control to a company that seems to preempt my operating system of choice's own utilities?

- Collapse -
Avast RULES!!!
Jan 12, 2013 12:39PM PST
Love
- Collapse -
Norton AV and Trustworthy are two phrases I wouldn't use...
Jan 4, 2013 12:45PM PST

...in the same sentence unless the word NOT was included before Trustworthy.

In the many moons since I got involved in the PC arena (just about 30 years), NAV has (at least in MY experience) been less than 100% trustworthy. I can't count the number of virus infections I've had to clean up - mainly due to the epic, utter failure of NAV and it's enterprise cousin Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition (SAV). It would take up far too much time and effort I'd rather spend doing other things. Mind you, the issues at hand were all on client computers - Not my own.

And then there's the shenanigans the Norton people pulled while they still owned a contact management app called Act. They would frequently mark their competitor in the contact management arena's link to MS Word as being viral. Never mind the links were quite benign and offered office automation features that allowed you to merge documents with the information stored in the contact manager.

So the REAL question you should be asking yourself - what sort of internet surfer are YOU?

Are you the type who can't resist that email promising a view of the latest bimbo of the week's explicit romp in the bedroom? Or do you automatically file those in the trash heap and move on?

If you DO tend to like living dangerously and frequent sites that should be scaring the pants off of you, then yes, you might want to consider something maybe a bit more industrial strength.

But if you're a reasonably sane internet surfer and avoid sites that are typical haunts for infections, Windows 8 Defender should be adequate for the task.

As others have pointed out, there's the usual freebie AV apps - Avast and AVG. However, I've found they've gone from being a simple, passive defense to being more "in your face" and go out of their way to deliver pop ups at almost every turn making them more hassle than they're worth. You gotta wonder just WHAT were they thinking when they decided to go that route.

You may also want to look at how much, if any Gaming or other system intensive things you do. Most of these AV "features" (and I use that term loosely) tend to suck up system resources - memory, CPU time, etc... Windows 8 Defender doesn't have much of an impact on system performance in my experience. Even with it enabled, Windows 8 seems to be snappier than Windows 7 - and Windows 7 was fairly snappy compared to even XP and most definitely faster than Vista.

- Collapse -
antivirus
Jan 7, 2013 4:49AM PST

Exactly; even though Microsoft says that it's enough, I would still install a free 3rd party AV.

- Collapse -
Don't forget to disable...
Jan 13, 2013 2:56AM PST

the MS real time protection though. A person could always use the MS utility to scan, and be just fine.

- Collapse -
From my position is as follows.......
Jan 11, 2013 10:11AM PST

My daughter and her family use MS Security Essentials and have had no problems 2 x Computers 2 x Notebooks and a Samsung Tablet and 3 smart phones.

Any clients who cannot or do not want to purchase an AV, I use MS Security Essentials and it would seem I/they have not reported infection.

As I run my business and must access clients computers I sell and use AVG Internet Security 2013 its latest version. And we have had NO problems, I have removed a clients infected HDD and connected it to my Workbench computer and scanned and cleaned it, then placed it back into the clients PC and 80% of the time the clients computer is back up and running . The other 20% its time to remove their data then re install, scan the data as it it recopied back to the HDD.

As for WIN8 I/we have no reason or need for this unproductive O/S, it is given a wide bearth.

- Collapse -
Welp...
Jan 12, 2013 12:48PM PST

You said you sell AVG - so that kinda discounts your credibility here. At least you're honest! Happy

Friends just don't let friends do AVG. ALL my clients that have tried it have all gone through pure hell with it.

- Collapse -
MSE/WD is similar to others (NAV, AVG, etc)
Jan 11, 2013 10:34AM PST

I have been using MSE for 5 years with no problems on Win XP and Win 7. It is slooow and a resource hog.

I have also been using Norton Internet Security for about 5 years on 3 PC's. It kills the PC by eating an incredible amount of CPU resources; on startup, the machine is "frozen" for about a minute or two by NIS running boot time scans and updating (the PC's are very powerful iCore 7 with 9 GB RAM!, but are being emasculated by NIS...totally ridiculous).
About 2 years ago I got infected by a Trojan which NIS 2011 did not detect., and Norton had the nerve to charge for removing it; I contacted Microsoft which did it for free.

The bottom line: MSE/WD is practical and reasonable; the incremental cost for others full of CPU-killing "bells and whistles and infinite flexibility" is not worth it; just gives you the illusion of being "more protected".

Good surfing practices are to run an antivirus/firewall of your choice, use free CCleaner after surfing, use free Malwarebytes and Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool to occasionally manually run scans.

If you surf risky sites, you better have a dedicated el-cheapo $150 machine just for that and if you get hit (you will), just reformat the hard drive...

- Collapse -
Old news
Jan 11, 2013 11:44AM PST

The well known past problems with Norton AntiVirus mentioned by Wolfie2k5 no longer exist in my experience.

I have been using Norton Internet Security for several years and have had no problems. Indeed, NIS routinely caught problems with malware that AVG, AdAware, and Spybot missed (or ignored). Also, the overhead imposed by the older Norton products that noticeably slowed computer operation has been corrected. I can't see any difference in performance with the NIS packages disabled or enabled. In fact, AdAware and Spybot slowed operation more than the Norton product. What was true and well known in the past no longer applies.

For information, on my desktop I'm running Win7 Ultimate 32 bit with a triple core AMD CPU and 4 gigs RAM, and on my old laptop I'm running WinXP Pro with an Intel Celeron CPU and 2 gigs RAM.

Hornet, y'all

- Collapse -
AdAware is not an AV if you are using it with another AV...
Jan 12, 2013 12:55PM PST

as you should have turned off the AV resident while using another solution. You have no choice now on AdAwrare 10 - but I can't recommend it anymore anyway. It used to be king, because it was the only effective anti-malware solution whose real time resident protected you on the limited account. There are several now that have this capability.

Many of my clients went back to it, because they noticed how today's malware do not need administrative privileges to create H&D on the user account as well.

- Collapse -
RE:Is Defender good enough to protect my Windows 8 PC?
Jan 11, 2013 12:44PM PST

From my experience Defender is doing it's job well on Windows as it did (as Microsoft Security Essentials did for widows 7).
Now that I have said that I ultimately do not trust or rely on any anti-virus or security suite at all. I have seen to many machines get infested with something or another due to the habits (good or bad) of the operator of the PC in question.

What I do when running Windows of any flavor is I run Ubuntu Linux as a virtual machine from within my Windows OS. I know this may sound greek to many but it is essentially running another Operating System within my desktop Operating System. I have been doing this for over 4 years and never I mean never have had the slightest hiccup.

All the tools to do this are open source (meaning free). What this get's you is an extremely high degree of immunity for your Microsoft OS. You can browse to pretty much anyplace without getting a bug. You can open any email without re-percussion's. I know there will be some who say no OS is secure be it Windows or Linux.

The beauty of doing it all in a virtual machine is the software allows you to make a snapshot of your operating system and if something does bite it, you can simply revert back to the original non infected version. I do this when I am testing something new, go to a questionable website, or open an email that may be suspicious.

In fact, I do all my browsing and email this way and am never concerned about getting something that would harm my Windows environment. I have even set my family up this way and we never I mean never have a problem.

That is my 2 cents

- Collapse -
In a word..
Jan 12, 2013 12:58PM PST

Sandboxie...

That one works pretty well for many on a budget.

- Collapse -
Not My Experience
Jan 12, 2013 1:53AM PST

I agree that older versions of Norton had problems, although they mostly involved the HUGE footprint it had on the system, slowing performance to a crawl, rather than any ineffectiveness in detecting and preventing malware. But since the release of NIS 2010 it has been at or near the top of the heap in all categories by everyone who has run actual tests, and the 2013 version scored the best -- #1 -- in PC Mag's testing of anti-malware suites. This agrees with my personal observations.

No AV can stop a stupid user from ignoring its warnings if he or she is bound and determined to. But NIS is pretty good, perhaps the best, at staying updated and detecting both known malware and suspected malware that it detects via heuristics.

I see you have an ax to grind against Norton. So did I until the release of NIS 2010, but perhaps you should not let it color your judgment. I do NOT practice particularly "safe computing" at home myself (after 12 years as the Internet Services/IT Security Administrator at a major U.S. government agency renowned for its technological prowess, I am fairly confident in my own ability to deal with whatever might befall) but nothing has gotten past it yet on any of my machines, and I routinely use it in my business to successfully clean the infected drives brought in to me by others (love that eSATA jack!).

Avast is a good free product. So is Avira and Panda, but Avast may be the best and doesn't nag much. AVG used to be the best freeware AV until it got so bloated -- now you need a Core i7 with large amounts of RAM just to keep your computer running under it.

- Collapse -
I actually noticed...
Jan 12, 2013 1:05PM PST

that Norton started improving in 2008. I was on a tight budget and my new PC came with a three year license, so I tried it, and was surprised it worked so well now. I recommend it for clients who are PC challenged. From everything I see now, it seems Kaspersky is on the top of the heap if you don't mind paying a large fee for it.

Norton Internet Security was definitely junk from 2004 to 2007; no if, and, buts about it.

- Collapse -
yes it is as a antivirus program
Jan 4, 2013 8:28PM PST

If you use MS SE as a antivirus program then its quite good compared to other antivirus programs. Do you want more security like Norton or McAfee are offering, then MS SE is lacking all kinds of features.

So its up to you.

I have tested several programs for some years now and I must say most programs are a very heavy load on most pc's and certainly on most laptops. MS SE is a much lighter program and it does its job well. But it cannot offer extended protection like ie McAfee or AVG does. SE finds most infections just like the other programs do. But in case of a very intelligent operated intrusion into your pc SE does not find it, other programs at some moment do find it. I think its a problem if you rely completely on a program, its your own behaviour that counts here: if you are prudent in your pc use, MS SE is a help.

- Collapse -
Works for me
Jan 4, 2013 9:02PM PST

Before I first got beyond Windows XP, I used various free protection programs, like AVG and Spybot S&D. New computers sometimes came with Symantec or McAfee installed, but they generally slowed down the machine too much for my liking, so I would revert to the free ones. Then I discovered Avast and changed to that on all my machines. I was happy with that until I somehow picked up a virus on my work computer, and no matter what AV software I tried, none of them could find it.

So finally I ran across Microsoft Security Essentials, and since it was free, I installed it. It found the virus and killed it right away, and I was hooked. Replaced all other AV programs with MSE on all my machines.

Then I built a Windows 7 machine and immediately tried to install MSE, but quickly found out that it had been replaced by Defender, which came standard on all W7/W8 machines, so I was happy with that.

I figure since Defender is an outgrowth of MSE, and MSE worked so well for me, then I might as well stick with Defender and not worry about the rest.

So far, so good.

- Collapse -
You should have sayed with Avast...
Jan 12, 2013 1:13PM PST

but you must understand it is not an anti-malware. That is why you had problems. You could have left Spybot S&D on there and run SpywareBlaster concurrently with it - and ran MBAM and/ or Super-Anti-Spyware as a free scanner and pretty much caught/blocked a lot. I like running the OLD defender concurrently as well. I get no slow downs, at all - because much of this is passive real time protection. My Vista version of Defender has many settings I can choose as well, so I'm not sure why so may say it has no granular control at all.

WinPatrol makes a good free HIPs as well - so you may know when Zeus variants are trying to invade the startup folder.

- Collapse -
Very Short Answer:
Jan 4, 2013 10:12PM PST

Yes.

Is it the most secure? No, but it will protect you from anything you are even remotely likely to encounter in the real world.

If you want to buy something more secure, I recommend Norton Internet Security. It is pretty close to the best and runs on a very light "footprint," slowing down your computer very little. Go down to your local price club warehouse and get it when they have an "instant coupon" or some such sale. It will be MUCH cheaper than buying it from Norton. I got my 3-license copy for $19.95 at BJ's over Thanksgiving weekend.

For freeware I recommend Avast or Avira, unless you have a really old, slow machine, in which case I recommend Panda Cloud -- the lightest footprint I have ever seen.

But you will protect yourself much more effectively than any application can by NEVER, EVER opening an attachment to email (other than .jpg image, which so far are 100% safe) that you do not know in advance is coming, and never ignoring a warning from your antivirus, whether Defender or anything. I have seen people get infected far more often via BDU ("Brain-Dead User") errors, where the user fall for "social engineering" tricks (you'd be surprised how many teenage guys get suckered by Facebook invitations where the pretty girl says "See me naked at (URL), but to see it you'll have to ignore the warning from your antivirus! Don't worry! It's PERFECTLY safe!" than from those really clever Bulgarian hackers that nobody, no matter what antivirus you use, can effectively stop.

It's also a good idea to get a router and keep your home computers behind it. Even when configured to their defaults they're pretty good at hiding your vulnerabilities from the world. But IMMEDIATELY change the admin password and set it up with AT LEAST WPA security -- they all permit this. Any competent hacker kid can break WEP now.

But for nearly all use in private homes, Defender is fine. Just don't be stupid.