On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:54:01 -0700, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, Stan Brown
wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 02:50:00 +0200, Lars Anders wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2023, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote :
>>
>> > On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:50:51 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> >> From what I've heard. it's best not to use any AV other than the one M$
>> >> provides.
>> >
>> > It's not April 1st anymore.
>>
>> What's wrong with the one that Microsoft supplies native by default?
>
>Nothing that I know of. I use it myself, on one of my computers.
>
>But Mark Lloyd said that it's somehow bad to use any other, and that
>statement is just plain silly.

I actually had a third-party AV hose my Windows 8.1 x64 machine because
its devs weren't keeping up with filesystem changes and weren't
communicating with Microsoft, and MS patched the filesystem one Tuesday,
as they had documented well in advance. Blammo. Nearly unbootable machine
due to file access issues. I unpatched the machine in safe mode and
uninstalled the AV program before accepting the patch again.

Later, so people would stop blaming Microsoft for catastrophic system
failures, Microsoft implemented a registry blocking flag that third-party
AV makers had to specifically toggle off when they fixed their garbage.

Defender has never done that and probably never will because it's made by
the Windows team. Official kernel-mode AV drivers for Defender are part
of the OS, so Microsoft would know immediately if they blew up an install
in such a way.

So, I would recommend that it's "best" not to use third-party AV, but not
necessarily "bad." Just a bit daft in this day and age. Some of the added
value of major suites may be worth it, but you're rolling the dice. Why
go third-party for something so integral to a modern OS?

Make an informed decision if you need a security suite's extra features.
A lot of them have better software firewalls, for instance.

Me? I stopped using third-party AV when *several* of them, including
mine, hosed Windows 8.1 due to sheer incompetence. Windows firewall does
what I need it to.

When I do use third-party AV, I never use realtime protection.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:18:41 -0700, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, Ken Blake
wrote:

>gain, I know nothing about
>Trusteer, but in general, it's a bad idea to simultaneously run two
>anti-virus programs.

It's a bad idea to run two realtime scanners. You can load up as many AVs
as you want so long as only one of them is doing realtime file
intercepts.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On 4/13/2023 12:34 AM, Zaghadka wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:54:01 -0700, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, Stan Brown
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 02:50:00 +0200, Lars Anders wrote:
>>> On 13 Apr 2023, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote :
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:50:51 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>>>>> From what I've heard. it's best not to use any AV other than the one M$
>>>>> provides.
>>>>
>>>> It's not April 1st anymore.
>>>
>>> What's wrong with the one that Microsoft supplies native by default?
>>
>> Nothing that I know of. I use it myself, on one of my computers.
>>
>> But Mark Lloyd said that it's somehow bad to use any other, and that
>> statement is just plain silly.
>
> I actually had a third-party AV hose my Windows 8.1 x64 machine because
> its devs weren't keeping up with filesystem changes and weren't
> communicating with Microsoft, and MS patched the filesystem one Tuesday,
> as they had documented well in advance. Blammo. Nearly unbootable machine
> due to file access issues. I unpatched the machine in safe mode and
> uninstalled the AV program before accepting the patch again.
>
> Later, so people would stop blaming Microsoft for catastrophic system
> failures, Microsoft implemented a registry blocking flag that third-party
> AV makers had to specifically toggle off when they fixed their garbage.
>
> Defender has never done that and probably never will because it's made by
> the Windows team. Official kernel-mode AV drivers for Defender are part
> of the OS, so Microsoft would know immediately if they blew up an install
> in such a way.
>
> So, I would recommend that it's "best" not to use third-party AV, but not
> necessarily "bad." Just a bit daft in this day and age. Some of the added
> value of major suites may be worth it, but you're rolling the dice. Why
> go third-party for something so integral to a modern OS?
>
> Make an informed decision if you need a security suite's extra features.
> A lot of them have better software firewalls, for instance.
>
> Me? I stopped using third-party AV when *several* of them, including
> mine, hosed Windows 8.1 due to sheer incompetence. Windows firewall does
> what I need it to.
>
> When I do use third-party AV, I never use realtime protection.
>

Signature analysis may have some value, as some of the AV teams
are bigger than others, and they may be adding more entries to
their database than a competitor.

The other aspect, is heuristic protection. This test hasn't been
done for a long time, and I don't think it is necessarily all that
easy to do this test either.

https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/retrospective-proactive-test-2015/

Such a thing might have a benefit in a business, because in
a business, people are targeting you on purpose. (Custom malware)

Home users are not normally valuable targets.

As an example of heuristic detection, Firefox has its own stack checker,
which would be considered a heuristic feature.

AV companies, do not document what they're doing in this regard.

Of the fifty AV companies, probably more than 50% of them,
have no heuristic detection at all, and there would be almost
no reason to buy one of those. The test above, shows there is
some difference, between the major companies.

Paul

In message <k9o4jhFg5joU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
<usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>Ken Blake wrote:
>
>> Do you run both Defender and Trusteer? Again, I know nothing about
>> Trusteer, but in general, it's a bad idea to simultaneously run two
>> anti-virus programs.
>
>Trusteer isn't AV, I don't use it, but several UK banks recommend it as
>an "extra layer" of security ... it's owned by IBM.
>

My bank used to recommend it, so I installed it. Thankfully they do so
no longer, so I uninstalled it, as I wasn't very impressed. I don't
think it and my AV utility ever had any problems in working together,
though.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

In article <GnhI5wAf97NkFwRk@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
john_nospam@jhall.co.uk says...
>
> In message <k9o4jhFg5joU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
> <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
> >Ken Blake wrote:
> >
> >> Do you run both Defender and Trusteer? Again, I know nothing about
> >> Trusteer, but in general, it's a bad idea to simultaneously run two
> >> anti-virus programs.
> >
> >Trusteer isn't AV, I don't use it, but several UK banks recommend it as
> >an "extra layer" of security ... it's owned by IBM.
> >
>
> My bank used to recommend it, so I installed it. Thankfully they do so
> no longer, so I uninstalled it, as I wasn't very impressed. I don't
> think it and my AV utility ever had any problems in working together,
> though.

Can you clarify please.
How did you find out that your bank no longer recommend it? Did they
contact you or did you ask them?
Why/how were you 'not impressed'.
You state that you have an AV utility; on pc or android?
Why do you feel that MS Defender is inadequate?

--
Jim the Geordie

On 12/04/2023 10:47, Jim the Geordie wrote:
> After cancelling a subscription to one paid security package, because I
> was advised that M$ Defender would be perfectly adequate, I am beginning
> to have second thoughts.
> Apart from Defender I use Trusteer as recommended by my bank. I do not
> visit porn sites or open unidentifed links. I ocassionally do a scan
> with Malwarebytes free, but do not have it installed and have never had
> any flags.
> Touch wood I have not had any trouble so far, except my Facebook page
> crashed and I had to start from scratch with that, which is what started
> me thinking.
>

You will be fine with MS Defender Jim.
The Facebook problems were likely to be at their end, not yours.
Good on you for asking if you are not sure. The hard part is choosing
which answers you get are the sensible ones.

--
Regards
wasbit

On 4/12/2023 11:34 PM, Zaghadka wrote:

> When I do use third-party AV, I never use realtime protection.

I agree. My preference for an On-Demand Scanner is Kaspersky Virus
Removal Tool.

https://support.kaspersky.com/kvrt2020/howto

"soyon" <soyon@soyon.biz> wrote

| I've seen your posts in the past so I know not to waste my time with your
| idiotic comments which are always what stupid people would say.
|

Ken is a former MS MVP and is generally courteous
with others. If you don't like his comments then block
them. There's no excuse for being nasty with someone
who just gave you a serious, reasonable response to
your question.

I'd be inclined to think you're a dumbass for using 2-3
AV tools while doing something as risky as banking online.
To my mind that's like talking about life insurance while
skydiving. Life insurance can make sense, but that doesn't
justify the reckless risk of skydiving. Why would anyone do
something so stupid? For a thrill? Because they don't care
to live? Why would anyone bank online? Because you can't
be bothered to walk?... But I'm too polite to say all that. :)

I have 3 bank accounts. I've disabled all from online
functionality. (Which can't be done at my bank. I had
to call customer service.) Last week I was talking to
a friend who's had about $25K stolen from his account.
He though someone had somehow got his passwords,
but then they also used his new password. The bank told
him the problem must be on his Mac computer. He still
hasn't figured it out.

Since you clearly don't want to deal with script, browser
security, understanding online security, and so on, I'll just
suggest that you add a couple of Symantec products to
you imagined arsenal. It might not help, but you'll sleep
better and with any luck it will slow down your system so
much that you won't be able to do your online banking. :)

"Zaghadka" <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote

| Defender has never done that and probably never will because it's made by
| the Windows team.

Before you get comfortable:

https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/11/microsoft_defender_firefox_fix/

Turns out Defender was causing Firefox to overuse the CPU...
for FIVE YEARS! I wouldn't be surprised if they did it to make Edge look
good and only fixed it because someone found out. This is the company
that used to design pages to only work in IE.

"Ken Blake" <Ken@invalid.news.com> wrote

>Trusteer Endpoint Protection AKA Rapport I believe
>https://www.ibm.com/products/phishing-and-malware-protection#:
>~:text=Protect%20client%20endpoints%20against%20malware%20and%
>20phishing&text=Using%20industry%2Dleading%20technology%2C%
>20Trusteer,them%20from%20entering%20phishing%20sites.

| Really just an ad, telling me next to nothing about ii.

https://community.ibm.com/community/user/security/blogs/noureldin-ehab/2021/09/01/what-is-ibm-security-trusteer

I'd never heard of this category of software. It looks like
it's probably a kind of "whitehat spyware" that analyzes
your IP, other connections being made to or from your
computer, and probably all the info they can get from
various spyware data brokers, so that they know who
you are, where you live, your habits, what your computer
is doing, what computers/cellphones you own, along with
their Mac addresses, and so on -- in order to provide
on-the-spot scanning of both your end and the connections
in between.

But there also seem to be complaints about Trusteer
messing with Win10/11. And what are IBM or your bank
doing with all that data? Are they reselling it? Are they
storing it in an online database for hackers to find?

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 08:05:12 -0400, in alt.comp.os.windows-10, Newyana2
wrote:

>"Zaghadka" <zaghadka@hotmail.com> wrote
>
>| Defender has never done that and probably never will because it's made by
>| the Windows team.
>
> Before you get comfortable:
>
>https://www.theregister.com/2023/04/11/microsoft_defender_firefox_fix/
>
> Turns out Defender was causing Firefox to overuse the CPU...
>for FIVE YEARS! I wouldn't be surprised if they did it to make Edge look
>good and only fixed it because someone found out. This is the company
>that used to design pages to only work in IE.
>
I have used Firefox exclusively since around v2 or 3 (Chrome when
something breaks). I never noticed this. Didn't even make my fan run
harder, and that's pretty easy to do with my processor. Laptop neither.
Maybe that's why it lasted 5 years?

I have a i9 9900K desktop. The fan makes noise at even moderate usage, as
it boosts the processor to 4.1-5Ghz for any real processor usage and
generates all sorts of heat. That it didn't says something.

But the laptop? That runs dynamically at 2Ghz if I'm lucky. Who the heck
was running at 30%? What processor? How old was that machine?

So, while I'll accept that we always have a non-zero chance of going back
to the "DOS ain't done till Lotus won't run" days, it's unlikely that
this was the case here. If MS was doing something deliberate, they'd
target Chrome. It's more likely an edge case bug (pun intended) for
something novel Mozilla implemented in their special sauce. Few people
use Firefox. Nobody noticed on a decently powered machine. That's why 5
years.

The article seems more a conspiratorial wink than cogent analysis.

That said, this happened:

https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-defender-for-endpoint/antivirus-deletes-all-shortcuts-from-the-desktop/m-p/3715351

That's a bit more serious than your example. Defender is not iron-clad.
All I'm saying is it has a near-zero chance of stopping your machine from
booting, and that that has happened in the past. With all the TPM and
virtualization stuff MS is doing in 11, it could happen again.

YMMV. If you have an underpowered or older machine, there are better
choices. I'm surprised the affected users didn't do that. It was probably
running like a pig under many use cases, not just Firefox.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:08:18 -0700, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 09:18:41 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:
>> in general, it's a bad idea to simultaneously run two
>> anti-virus programs.
>
>
>More specifically, it's a bad idea to run two simultaneously if both
>are running as "active protection" or "real-time protection" or
>similar.

Yes, that's what I meant, but perhaps wasn't clear enough. Thanks for
the clarification.

>I've never seen a case where running one with active protection and
>the other only for on-demand scans caused a problem, and I've been
>doing just that for decades. The on-demand-scans one is Malwarebytes
>Free; the active protection one has varied over the years.

On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 07:56:14 -0400, "Newyana2"
<Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"soyon" <soyon@soyon.biz> wrote
>
>| I've seen your posts in the past so I know not to waste my time with your
>| idiotic comments which are always what stupid people would say.
>|
>
> Ken is a former MS MVP and is generally courteous
>with others. If you don't like his comments then block
>them. There's no excuse for being nasty with someone
>who just gave you a serious, reasonable response to
>your question.

Thanks for the kind words.

> I'd be inclined to think you're a dumbass for using 2-3
>AV tools while doing something as risky as banking online.
>To my mind that's like talking about life insurance while
>skydiving. Life insurance can make sense, but that doesn't
>justify the reckless risk of skydiving. Why would anyone do
>something so stupid? For a thrill? Because they don't care
>to live? Why would anyone bank online? Because you can't
>be bothered to walk?... But I'm too polite to say all that. :)
>
> I have 3 bank accounts. I've disabled all from online
>functionality. (Which can't be done at my bank. I had
>to call customer service.) Last week I was talking to
>a friend who's had about $25K stolen from his account.
>He though someone had somehow got his passwords,
>but then they also used his new password. The bank told
>him the problem must be on his Mac computer. He still
>hasn't figured it out.
>
> Since you clearly don't want to deal with script, browser
>security, understanding online security, and so on, I'll just
>suggest that you add a couple of Symantec products to
>you imagined arsenal. It might not help, but you'll sleep
>better and with any luck it will slow down your system so
>much that you won't be able to do your online banking. :)
>

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 18:54:01 -0700, Stan Brown
<the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Apr 2023 02:50:00 +0200, Lars Anders wrote:
>> On 13 Apr 2023, Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote :
>>
>> > On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 12:50:51 -0500, Mark Lloyd wrote:
>> >> From what I've heard. it's best not to use any AV other than the one M$
>> >> provides.
>> >
>> > It's not April 1st anymore.
>>
>> What's wrong with the one that Microsoft supplies native by default?
>
>Nothing that I know of. I use it myself, on one of my computers.
>
>But Mark Lloyd said that it's somehow bad to use any other, and that
>statement is just plain silly.

I agree with you. I think" bad" is too strong a word, but if Mark
meant that there's generally no good reason for most people to use a
different one, I agree with him.

In message <MPG.3ea1d42823ae00d998973a@news.eternal-september.org>, Jim
the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> writes
>In article <GnhI5wAf97NkFwRk@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
>john_nospam@jhall.co.uk says...
>>
>> In message <k9o4jhFg5joU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
>> <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
>> >Ken Blake wrote:
>> >
>> >> Do you run both Defender and Trusteer? Again, I know nothing about
>> >> Trusteer, but in general, it's a bad idea to simultaneously run two
>> >> anti-virus programs.
>> >
>> >Trusteer isn't AV, I don't use it, but several UK banks recommend it as
>> >an "extra layer" of security ... it's owned by IBM.
>> >
>>
>> My bank used to recommend it, so I installed it. Thankfully they do so
>> no longer, so I uninstalled it, as I wasn't very impressed. I don't
>> think it and my AV utility ever had any problems in working together,
>> though.
>
>Can you clarify please.
>How did you find out that your bank no longer recommend it? Did they
>contact you or did you ask them?

It was several years ago, and my memory is so bad these days that I
can't recall how I found out. I certainly wasn't proactive enough to ask
them, though.

>Why/how were you 'not impressed'.

I had it installed as an extension to my Chrome browser; IIRC it's
specifically for preventing malware key-loggers from recording traffic
between one's own machine and websites. But ISTR that the extension
would occasionally go AWOL or would cause a problem with the browser.

>
>You state that you have an AV utility; on pc or android?

PC.

>Why do you feel that MS Defender is inadequate?
>

I've had an AV utility for many years, since back when MS Defender
wasn't as good as it is now or possibly before it even existed, back in
Windows 98 days I think. Most recently I've been using Malwarebytes,
which seems to work well. It and MS Defender seem to co-exist happily.
It may well be that MS Defender would be adequate on its own, but I've
been happy to leave things be.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

In article <R0WUj$BmcCOkFw7N@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
john_nospam@jhall.co.uk says...
>
> In message <MPG.3ea1d42823ae00d998973a@news.eternal-september.org>, Jim
> the Geordie <jim@jimXscott.co.uk> writes
> >In article <GnhI5wAf97NkFwRk@jhall_nospamxx.co.uk>,
> >john_nospam@jhall.co.uk says...
> >>
> >> In message <k9o4jhFg5joU1@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns
> >> <usenet@andyburns.uk> writes
> >> >Ken Blake wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Do you run both Defender and Trusteer? Again, I know nothing about
> >> >> Trusteer, but in general, it's a bad idea to simultaneously run two
> >> >> anti-virus programs.
> >> >
> >> >Trusteer isn't AV, I don't use it, but several UK banks recommend it as
> >> >an "extra layer" of security ... it's owned by IBM.
> >> >
> >>
> >> My bank used to recommend it, so I installed it. Thankfully they do so
> >> no longer, so I uninstalled it, as I wasn't very impressed. I don't
> >> think it and my AV utility ever had any problems in working together,
> >> though.
> >
> >Can you clarify please.
> >How did you find out that your bank no longer recommend it? Did they
> >contact you or did you ask them?
>
> It was several years ago, and my memory is so bad these days that I
> can't recall how I found out. I certainly wasn't proactive enough to ask
> them, though.
>
> >Why/how were you 'not impressed'.
>
> I had it installed as an extension to my Chrome browser; IIRC it's
> specifically for preventing malware key-loggers from recording traffic
> between one's own machine and websites. But ISTR that the extension
> would occasionally go AWOL or would cause a problem with the browser.
>
> >
> >You state that you have an AV utility; on pc or android?
>
> PC.
>
> >Why do you feel that MS Defender is inadequate?
> >
>
> I've had an AV utility for many years, since back when MS Defender
> wasn't as good as it is now or possibly before it even existed, back in
> Windows 98 days I think. Most recently I've been using Malwarebytes,
> which seems to work well. It and MS Defender seem to co-exist happily.

Thanks for clarifying. If it works - don't fix it!
I suppose that applies to me too with Defender and Trusteer.
Nobody has said anything here that would drive me to spend money on an
AV I don't appear to need.

--
Jim the Geordie

Zaghadka wrote on 4/13/2023 7:39 AM:
>
> That said, this happened:
>
> https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-defender-for-endpoint/antivirus-deletes-all-shortcuts-from-the-desktop/m-p/3715351
>
> That's a bit more serious than your example. Defender is not iron-clad.

For clarity.
The reports in that report/thread are unique to Microsoft Defender
Endpoint which is a stand-alone or cloud based protection service
provided in MSFT Enterprise products(Intune versions/editions,
Configuration Manager, etc) that run on/require and supported on a
variety of MSFT server products
-i.e. an enterprise end-point security platform for enterprise networks

Having said the above, the issue(desktop shortcuts removed) was real for
those impacted Enterprise customers and caused by a faulty def attack
surface reduction rule.
Update defs released same day but unfortunately that did not restore or
correct the missing 'shortcuts' which had to be manually repopulated.

--
....w¡ñ§±¤ñ

Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
> "soyon" <soyon@soyon.biz> wrote
>
> | I've seen your posts in the past so I know not to waste my time with your
> | idiotic comments which are always what stupid people would say.
> |
>
> Ken is a former MS MVP and is generally courteous
> with others. If you don't like his comments then block
> them. There's no excuse for being nasty with someone
> who just gave you a serious, reasonable response to
> your question.
>
> I'd be inclined to think you're a dumbass

You could be on to something there! :-)

Pops up out of the blue. My notes of well over a year ago say "sounds
like <insert_resident_nymshifter>". At the time, it used Aioe.org. Now
that Aioe.org is dead, it uses another shady provider. I could be wrong,
but in this matter I'm mostly not. YMMV.

To Ken: Keep on posting. We're all different. Your style is your
style. My style is my style. And Mayayana ..., well I should probably
stop right there! :-)

[...]

On 13 Apr 2023 20:00:47 GMT, Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid>
wrote:

>Newyana2 <Newyana2@invalid.nospam> wrote:
>> "soyon" <soyon@soyon.biz> wrote
>>
>> | I've seen your posts in the past so I know not to waste my time with your
>> | idiotic comments which are always what stupid people would say.
>> |
>>
>> Ken is a former MS MVP and is generally courteous
>> with others. If you don't like his comments then block
>> them. There's no excuse for being nasty with someone
>> who just gave you a serious, reasonable response to
>> your question.
>>
>> I'd be inclined to think you're a dumbass
>
> You could be on to something there! :-)
>
> Pops up out of the blue. My notes of well over a year ago say "sounds
>like <insert_resident_nymshifter>". At the time, it used Aioe.org. Now
>that Aioe.org is dead, it uses another shady provider. I could be wrong,
>but in this matter I'm mostly not. YMMV.
>
> To Ken: Keep on posting.

Thanks. I wasn't planning on stopping.

>We're all different. Your style is your
>style. My style is my style.

Yes, yes, and yes.

>And Mayayana ..., well I should probably
>stop right there! :-)
>
>[...]

On 13/04/2023 17:00, John Hall wrote:
>
> snip <
>>
>> You state that you have an AV utility; on pc or android?
>
> PC.

Presumably running Windows 10 (as this is a Windows 10 group)

>>
>
> I've had an AV utility for many years, since back when MS Defender
> wasn't as good as it is now or possibly before it even existed, back in
> Windows 98 days I think. Most recently I've been using Malwarebytes,
> which seems to work well. It and MS Defender seem to co-exist happily.
> It may well be that MS Defender would be adequate on its own, but I've
> been happy to leave things be.

The free version of Malwarebytes turns off any installed anti virus
programme & acts as a 'resident', always on, anti virus.
After a month it reverts to being an 'on demand' scanner only, unless
you opt to pay & go pro.
Just be aware that in reverting to being an 'on demand' scanner it fails
to turn back on the anti virus programme it previously turned off.

--
Regards
wasbit

In message <u1b4mv$1fqg8$1@dont-email.me>, wasbit <wasbit@nowhere.com>
writes
>On 13/04/2023 17:00, John Hall wrote:
>> snip <
>>>
>>> You state that you have an AV utility; on pc or android?
>> PC.
>
>Presumably running Windows 10 (as this is a Windows 10 group)

Yes.

>
>>>
>> I've had an AV utility for many years, since back when MS Defender
>>wasn't as good as it is now or possibly before it even existed, back
>>in Windows 98 days I think. Most recently I've been using
>>Malwarebytes, which seems to work well. It and MS Defender seem to
>>co-exist happily. It may well be that MS Defender would be adequate
>>on its own, but I've been happy to leave things be.
>
>The free version of Malwarebytes turns off any installed anti virus
>programme & acts as a 'resident', always on, anti virus.
>After a month it reverts to being an 'on demand' scanner only, unless
>you opt to pay & go pro.

I DID opt to pay and go pro.

>Just be aware that in reverting to being an 'on demand' scanner it
>fails to turn back on the anti virus programme it previously turned off.
>

Thanks, but I'm sure Windows Notifications would swiftly warn me if I
was unprotected, since it warns me if Malwarebytes protection is very
briefly off when it's updating.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

On Wed, 12 Apr 2023 16:09:29 -0700, Stan Brown wrote:

> > From what I've heard. it's best not to use any AV other than the one M$
> > provides.
> It's not April 1st anymore.

I have used Avast (free) for a long time, but they turned out to be data
collectors. Then I read that Defender (M$) had shed its bad reputation
and was just as good as any other AV, maybe even better. I'm using it
now on W11. I'm not going to install Avast, that's for sure!

--
s|b

On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:00:17 +0100, wasbit wrote:
> The free version of Malwarebytes turns off any installed anti virus
> programme & acts as a 'resident', always on, anti virus.
> After a month it reverts to being an 'on demand' scanner only, unless
> you opt to pay & go pro.
A better way to say that:
When you install the free version of Malwarebytes, you have the
_option_ of a one-month trial of the paid version, which includes
real-time protection.

But you don't have to accept that, and if you don't, Malwarebytes
doesn't do anything to any real-time protection you have from another
antivirus program.

--
Stan Brown, Tehachapi, California, USA https://BrownMath.com/
Shikata ga nai...

On 4/14/2023 9:33 PM, Stan Brown wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Apr 2023 10:00:17 +0100, wasbit wrote:
>> The free version of Malwarebytes turns off any installed anti virus
>> programme & acts as a 'resident', always on, anti virus.
>> After a month it reverts to being an 'on demand' scanner only, unless
>> you opt to pay & go pro.
>
> A better way to say that:
> When you install the free version of Malwarebytes, you have the
> _option_ of a one-month trial of the paid version, which includes
> real-time protection.
>
> But you don't have to accept that, and if you don't, Malwarebytes
> doesn't do anything to any real-time protection you have from another
> antivirus program.

That's why I prefer a standalone on-demand scanner like the Kaspersky
Virus Removal Tool to Malwarebytes.
No need to install anything.
If you're not interested in real-time protection, installation shouldn't
be necessary.