Dumb idea to run quietly in background, IMHO

[Guest]

For those of you who don't turn your computers off or never check Windows
Defender, you might want to open it & make sure it's ok. Mine somehow got
corrupted, & since I had already set it up, I was negligent in checking it. I
tried system restore, which didn't work. I had to uninstall it and reinstall
it. Personally, I liked the fact that the old version had a screen shot when
it had run that you had to close. I'll bet I'm not the only person this has
happened to. Just a humble opinion, and bewilderment at why MS opted to set
it up this way. Perhaps I was naive not to check it frequently.

 

[Guest]

Hello Sandy

Please check Notify me of missed tasks.
---

Scheduled scans are done via the Windows Scheduled tasks facility. Go to
Control Panel, Performance and Maintenance, Scheduled tasks.

In the menu at the top, choose Advanced, View hidden tasks and Notify me of
missed tasks.

You should see an entry for MP Scheduled Scan. If you right click this
entry, and choose to Run it--what happens?
--

For the benefit of the community reading this post, please rate the pºst.
I hope this post is helpful.
Let us know how it works ºut.
Еиçеl

 

[Guest]

Hi Engel,

Thanks for responding with a solution. However, I have WinXP home, and never
set up administrator functions. My Norton AV is listed under the scheduled
tasks (which I had nothing to with), but MS defender is not listed. I suppose
I could come up with one more password to set MSD to run as a scheduled task,
but the program itself allowed me to set it up to run every day, & appeared
to be doing so until I stopped checking for a while. If NAV could be listed
under Scheduled tasks with no input from me, you would think MSD could manage
to do so. And technodummies like me hate having to set up too many things.
Maybe it's time to "bite the bullet" & set up the administrator.

Thanks again,

sandy

 

[Bill Sanderson MVP]

Can you say more about what you saw that led you to say that it "somehow got
corrupted...?"

It really should just run in the background and not require attention unless
user action is needed. It's doing this on the corporate desktops I work
with. Once a month when I check security patches, I open Defender and look
at the definition dates, history, and exclusions--and normally all is well.

 

[Guest]

Can you say more about what you saw that led you to say that it "somehow got
corrupted...?"

It really should just run in the background and not require attention unless
user action is needed. It's doing this on the corporate desktops I work
with. Once a month when I check security patches, I open Defender and look
at the definition dates, history, and exclusions--and normally all is well.

 

[Guest]

Hi Bill,

There was an error message that said application failed to initialize. Each
time I tried to open it, the message appeared, & I was unable to open it.

sandy

 

[Guest]

I apologise for `butting in` on this thread but Sandy`s post raises an
interesting point which (for me at any rate) has raised an equally
interesting question. Does WD have the ability of self analysis? That is to
say. Should it have the code written capability of knowing when it has or an
attempt is made to compromise its performance by malicious code designed to
impair or disable its performance or by corruption? Sandy`s post seems to
suggest NOT.

Stu

 

[Guest]

Stu,

You're not butting in at all. In fact, now that you mention it, I think your
statement was the point of my thread. And I agree with you. I can tell you
that I can rule out malicious code. I remember working on a few things at
once, & my computer froze. The program "got sick" after that. Thanks for your
response.

sandy

 

[Guest]

Hi Sandy

You`re welcome and thank you - now we await an explanation or response but,
don`t hold your breath

Stu

 

[Bill Sanderson MVP]

I can't respond for Microsoft, but I can say that the issue that you are
raising, which is an important one, was discussed in the course of the beta,
and I'm quite certain that the developers considered it carefully and made
some choices about it--but what those are, I can't tell you.

In Vista, the app is monitored by the Security Center, which can raise an
alarm if something fails.

I will point out that what Sandy has said in response to my question is that
the app raised an error message--which allowed her to discover that
something was wrong.

This may not be as clear cut as an alert from the security center, but it
still seems better than a silent failure.



--

 

[Bill Sanderson MVP]

So-you tried to run the user interface portion of Windows Defender, and got
this error. But you didn't see any error in normal operation without trying
to open the app?

Real-time protection is provided by the underlying background service--so it
isn't clear whether that was still running or not.

Being disabled by malware is definitely a scenario that the developers of an
anti-malware product like Windows Defender think about. I can assure you
that this was considered carefully in the Windows Defender development
process.

I'm not sure how to connect the dots between that and the problem that you
saw, though.



--

 

[Guest]

Well, yes and no, Bill. The error message may have come up when my computer
froze--I don't remember-- & I wouldn't have known what it meant. (I wasn't
working wih Defender at the time). I didn't see the message again until I
tried to open the application, which was a week after last checking MSD. And
many of us technodummies occasionally find an error message that, rightly or
wrongly, we ignore. But your point is well taken. I guess I was just speaking
for the many who may have read about it, downloaded it, then just ignore it,
presuming it is fine (And again not understanding or ignoring an error
message.)

Thanks for your input.

Sandy

 

[Guest]

Many thanks for your response Bill. I think the point of Sandy`s post and my
concerns is; with a real time protection agent in place it would be very nice
to have the reassurance that the agent has the technology to inform the user
of a compromise in an instant (particularly under Windows XP), rather than
blissful ignorance until the application is run. While I realise we should be
grateful MS has made the effort to enter and combat the malicious code
writers free of charge. The philosophy should be. "A job worth doing should
be a job well done" irrespective of the OS. I`m hoping (and would expect), XP
to be around for a few more years yet and it would be a shame if there were
two levels of protection available to users depending on the OS they are
using. To do otherwise indicates a financial interest in promoting Vista,
which, I am sure, is the case. That`s a shame.

Stu

 

[ANONYMOUS]

Stu,

Aren't you missing the point here? MS's idea is that everyone should
buy new OS whether or not they need it. The excuse for this is that you
get better security!!

hth

 

[Guest]

Yes possibly, but I live in hope. Meanwhile, we are encouraged to be swept
along on a gigantic tsunami wave of progress. Surf`s up !!

Stu