Wish List for Defender

Sorry if this is in the wrong spot...I didn't see a wish list available for
future versions of Defender.

Anyway, my biggest problem with Defender is that in an Enterprise
environment there is no way to "OK" software that Defender detects as a
threat, but is legitimately used in the environment. In our environment we
use TightVNC for remote service calls (MS' solution requires too much extra
stuff which we do NOT want running on our network). It's a real pain to have
to approve TightVNC on a machine-by-machine basis.

Nevermind! I knew as soon as I wrote this that MS would already have an
answer... Microsoft Forefront. I hope when it actually comes out it won't
be too much $$$.

"Antipode" wrote:

> Sorry if this is in the wrong spot...I didn't see a wish list available for
> future versions of Defender.
>
> Anyway, my biggest problem with Defender is that in an Enterprise
> environment there is no way to "OK" software that Defender detects as a
> threat, but is legitimately used in the environment. In our environment we
> use TightVNC for remote service calls (MS' solution requires too much extra
> stuff which we do NOT want running on our network). It's a real pain to have
> to approve TightVNC on a machine-by-machine basis.

Yes--that's the answer you need. Everybody has that same question, of
course...

--

"Antipode" <Antipode@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F635BDD5-3933-403D-BF7F-92F6A5CEE46C@microsoft.com...
> Nevermind! I knew as soon as I wrote this that MS would already have an
> answer... Microsoft Forefront. I hope when it actually comes out it
> won't
> be too much $$$.
>
> "Antipode" wrote:
>
>> Sorry if this is in the wrong spot...I didn't see a wish list available
>> for
>> future versions of Defender.
>>
>> Anyway, my biggest problem with Defender is that in an Enterprise
>> environment there is no way to "OK" software that Defender detects as a
>> threat, but is legitimately used in the environment. In our environment
>> we
>> use TightVNC for remote service calls (MS' solution requires too much
>> extra
>> stuff which we do NOT want running on our network). It's a real pain to
>> have
>> to approve TightVNC on a machine-by-machine basis.