I guess we're agreeing to disagree. I had many more virus incidents when I ran AV software than when I've just exclusively been using Defender by MS.
I don't think we're disagreeing. I'm just looking at it from the perspective if the 99% who do not have the knowledge (or from what I've seen, patience) to think before they do things. Those are the people that make me waste my time. I mean my 80 year old mom, I owe her that, she birthed me after all and spent money raising me. But friends who do the same dumb crap over and over, would be nice if someone could stop them before it became my issue.
The only reason you'd get more viruses with virus protection (which Defender is now, and actually a pretty decent one) is because it gives a false sense of security having it. You don't seem the type to fall into that though. Virus protection is a backup to good habits, or at least it should be. I doubt we disagree on that point.
Password-protecting a file isn't the same thing as encrypting it. Getting versions deleted doesn't mean they're gone.
In modern Office, password protecting does encrypt the file, and actually is pretty hard to crack (unlike the old days of office passwords which were a joke). And obviously windows would know to ignore if you enabled bitlocker and encrypted your entire drive. Onedrive holds a certain version history and if you overwrite enough, they are gone for good. It isn't like deleting a file from recycle bin where it holds it for 30 days, it is just gone. That's why I run my own local backup (in addition to offsite backup, cold storage, and onedrive for non-sensitive files, since I don't trust them to hold financial info etc). I have about 2 years of version history that cannot be overwritten short of formatting the drive, in which case I can restore from offsite or cold. But for MS to suggest onedrive as a solution for ransomware, I can certainly see someone coming up with a way to purge or overload your version history there and leave you screwed.
And neither does MS sell MS 365 as protection against ransomware. There are many other benefits as you know.
Of course, if I have 1TB of free space (I have to pay for 365 anyway) I'm going to back up lots of stuff (stuff that is not personal or financial in nature). Have even tweaked it so that it backs up music, movies, etc, stuff they don't want to you do and don't allow you to by default, but pretty easy to re-map those folders to sit in the onedrive folder.
However what I take issue with is if you don't have onedrive set up - under ransomware protection in security settings, it says to set up onedrive as your ransomware protection. Seems like a convenient sales pitch to me.
I do see they've added the ability to define protected/monitored folders, but it requires you to be using defender as your primary AV, and define those folders. They should just be monitoring for suspicious encryption activity regardless, across all folders, most users aren't going to know to go in and enable this feature and define all of the folders that hold critical files.
Nobody and nothing comes on my network, without me allowing it. Passwords (GNs) get changed without letting others know. Nobody has ever connected to my main WiFi SSIDs except me. Just like the Ethernet ports are not (easily) accessible even if someone is inside the home.
Agreed and same here. And all my unused ethernet ports are in the Guest VLANs anyway. When I had professional gear I had 802.1X but I'm not quite as paranoid, not a lot of people walking through my house with a laptop unsupervised.
The point isn't whether or not AV is used or not, though. The point is that MS products and services are more secure than any other option available to the masses today.
I guess that's the part that may be debatable or disagreeable. I guess it is also a matter of perspective. MS could have less vulnerabilities but due to the market share, targeted a lot more. Their practices are not 100% kosher, but I have not seen them reach the point of Apple or Google with "you agree to let us do whatever we want" and they are pretty forthcoming when a vulnerability is found and fix it pretty quickly. Though MS has shifted a bit in the Apple/Google direction over the years. Forced windows and driver updates "for your own good" which end up bricking your PC is one that comes to mind (and gives me a bit of PTSD). They do plenty of their own tracking, they allow you to disable some of it without impacting any features, but there is still plenty going on. They jam Bing down your throat every chance they get.
You need to be vigilant with ANY OS. Nothing is immune as some like to think. Though I think this discussion has gotten blurred between which is more vulnerable vs the original discussion of which is more unethical with their terms and hiding stuff. Apple and Google are definitely more guilty in that area from my view.
