4 ms·
I've found Defender to be a definite performance hit but what's a better option? I'd rather not have the subscription costs.
by voltagex_ 8y ago
I've found Defender to be a definite performance hit but what's a better option? I'd rather not have the subscription costs.
- Semaphor 8y agoNot running a tool that makes your attack surface bigger in exchange for questionable benefits?
- crazysim 8y agoThey've put Defender into a sandbox nowadays. https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/10/26/windows-defender-antivirus-can-now-run-in-a-sandbox/ https://cloudblogs.microsoft.com/microsoftsecure/2018/10/26/...
- Semaphor 8y agoInsider only for now. But a very good move imo.
- voltagex_ 8y agoOkay, even if I take your comment about attack surface at face value, what are you suggesting? Surely not avoiding AV completely.
- Semaphor 8y ago> Surely not avoiding AV completely. Exactly that.
- voltagex_ 8y agoOk, what about for the 99% of the population that that won't work for?
- Semaphor 8y agoWell, I'm recommending it on HN, not on Facebook ;)
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoUse ChromeOS, Android, or iOS. Seriously, AV is pointless software. It will false-positive often, it will false-negative slightly less often, and it will introduce a performance degradation 100% of the time regardless. It is a bad solution to the problem of malware.
- the8472 8y agoYou could use an AV but only run offline scans on a schedule.