News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by alibert on Sunday March 06, 2022 @04:22PM (#30581397)
Hello,

Anything being worked on the IO performance side of Defender? I’m still using a paid third party AV for this sole reason. The impact is so huge with NPM packages as an example…

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by bob1029 on Sunday March 06, 2022 @04:39PM (#30581521)
IO impact is why I disable it on all my dev machines.

Microsoft really needs to make this easier to turn off too. Right now, I have to use an undisclosed privilege escalation hack-around to force things my way.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by tomnipotent on Sunday March 06, 2022 @06:47PM (#30582447)
You can add folder and extension exclusions to Defender. I do this to the root of my source code folders and it helps immensely.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by jraph on Monday March 07, 2022 @01:37AM (#30584819)
On the other hand, isn't node_modules the folder that shouldn't be excluded from antivirus scan?
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by sundvor on Monday March 07, 2022 @02:21AM (#30585060)
Perhaps it's one better suited for periodic scanning? At least from a performance point of view.

Perhaps one ought to have live scanning enabled when updating packages, then disabled when not.

I look forward to seeing other replies.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by tomnipotent on Monday March 07, 2022 @06:53PM (#30594883)
The challenge is that excluded folders/extensions apply to both real-time scanning and manual/periodic scanning.

What we really need is the ability to disable real-time scanning on one set of folders/extensions, while still including them with scheduled system-wide scans.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by sundvor on Wednesday March 09, 2022 @07:18PM (#30621734)
Thanks, that's a great point. It made me think we could probably do this programmatically - perhaps as part of a script to carry out the full scan? Add the folders of interest, scan, then remove when completed.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/defender/...

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/powershell/module/defender/...

Or, even just run said folders as a custom scan!

`Start-MpScan -ScanType CustomScan -ScanPath PATH\TO\FOLDER-FILES`

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by ChuckNorris89 on Sunday March 06, 2022 @04:52PM (#30581643)
>I’m still using a paid third party AV for this sole reason.

Would you mind naming it? AFAIK most third party anti-malware solutions act like rootkits, possibly introducing new attack vectors, or have become basically ad-ware and malware themselves trying yo bait you in various subscriptions.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by alibert on Sunday March 06, 2022 @05:27PM (#30581905)
I’m using Nod32 from Eset for almost a decade now.

All AV somehow have to hook into low level system calls so can’t really avoid the kernel driver. Nonetheless, nod32 has been an install and forget AV with no interruption nor bait/nag screen at all. It’s a no bullshit AV and it does well.

I supposedly get the same protection as Defender (according to various AV tests review) and most importantly I get the IO performance back.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by varenc on Sunday March 06, 2022 @10:22PM (#30583890)
> All AV somehow have to hook into low level system calls so can’t really avoid the kernel driver.

While I don’t doubt this true for Windows, on macOS Apple is phasing out kernel modules with APIs that allow software to hook into those low level calls without actually running in the kernel. For AV vendors there’s the Endpoint Security System Extension: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/endpointsecurity

All the AV/endpoint security solutions I’ve seen have switched to this.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by tsimionescu on Monday March 07, 2022 @05:33AM (#30586155)
I don't really see a difference, as a consumer. If the AV sits at the kernel level or between userspace and kernel, it's still sitting below userspace and can do whatever it wants to the system. Sure, if I trust the kernel is better written than the AV software, I may have a few extra guarantees, but that is not a given and anyway it doesn't mean I can confidently run an AV I think may be poorly written.

It overall seems like a more complex solution that has more chances of being wrong. I would bet the core reason Apple did it was control to lock down their own control of your OS, not any security reason. Perhaps it also simplifies their development somewhat, if they can rid of some stability guarantees for some in-kernel APIs that AV would have needed.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by varenc on Monday March 07, 2022 @04:27PM (#30593537)
> it's still sitting below user space and can do whatever it wants to the system.

I don't know much about the Endpoint Security extension, but for Apple's network filtering extension they actually DO address this!

The code that runs on every network call is heavily sandboxed and can't communicate at all with the outside. Its only action is emitting some basic signal like "block" or "accept". This means that while the system extension can evaluate all your network communication, and block what it chooses, it can't exfiltrate the specific content. I might have the details wrong, but that's the general intention.

But the security benefits aside, I think the real reason for preventing code from running in the kernel is about stability and not security. Buggy code won't crash the system anymore. They can also enforce stricter performance requirements.

(And at the moment, you can still run kernel extensions on your own system if you really want by disabling SIP and other things, it's just infeasible for any AV vendor to have their customers step through that very onerous process.)

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by ChuckNorris89 on Monday March 07, 2022 @02:43AM (#30585178)
That's nice but what does MacOS have to do with Windows Defender?
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by carlhjerpe on Monday March 07, 2022 @02:14PM (#30592045)
My Mac has Microsoft Defender installed, not by choice but it doesn't bother me either. Those goshdarn VPNs on the other hand...
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by ziml77 on Sunday March 06, 2022 @09:50PM (#30583701)
That's also what I'm using and for the same reasons. Defender's protection is fine according to testing, but the IO performance is insanely bad. I wouldn't bother with running ESET's AV if Defender didn't slow heavy disk IO operations to a crawl. And I'm not excluding any development directories because malicious code can come in either as part of the project I just pulled down from github or from pulling in one of its dependencies from a package index.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by cptskippy on Sunday March 06, 2022 @04:57PM (#30581685)
I've been forced to use a number of products over the years at work from Trend Micro to McAfee. They all need curated exclusion lists and we have to ask developers to put all source controlled files under an excluded path common for all devs.

McAfee is by far the worst offender IMO when it comes to file IO. We eventually dropped it in part to it's insistence on locking files in App Data which is a common scratch space for almost every Windows App.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by londons_explore on Sunday March 06, 2022 @06:21PM (#30582282)
to be fair, most malware hides in App Data too... it's a convenient place thats hard to find using windows explorer and guaranteed to be user-writable.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by cptskippy on Sunday March 06, 2022 @10:14PM (#30583845)
Yes and McAfee was locking files for tens of seconds while it scanned. Things like Visual Studio and Notepad++ would become unresponsive after a single keystroke.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by hermitdev on Sunday March 06, 2022 @11:32PM (#30584245)
Back when I had to use McAfee on a work PC; I was using WSL 1 for building the projects I was running. Symptom was basically: do a compile, lose most of your RAM until next reboot. Stopping WSL wouldn't reclaim it; nothing showed up in Task Manager, Process Explorer, etc. The RAM was just gone; unusable. Post a bug to WSL, was immediately asked if I had McAfee and if so to disable/uninstall. Problem solved. But, due to insurance reasons, I had to have an AV running, and powers that be decided Defender was sufficient. Never McAfee again. It's been a pile of crap for decades; no signs of it getting better, either.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by londons_explore on Sunday March 06, 2022 @06:19PM (#30582274)
I really don't understand why the IO hit... If you're designing the OS, you can either scan a file when it's written to disk, or when it's read from disk, or sometime inbetween. when you have scanned a given file, you need not rescan it if the file hasn't changed.

These facts together mean that it should be really rare that any application needs to be waiting for any scanning - since scanning can happen anytime between a data write and a read of the same data.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by XorNot on Sunday March 06, 2022 @06:59PM (#30582527)
No way to tell if it's changed if you don't store a hash as metadata.

Something like ZFS where hashing is baked into the cost of the FS operation could optimise this.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by londons_explore on Sunday March 06, 2022 @07:14PM (#30582635)
But if you control the kernel and all the code that runs in the kernel, you know exactly who has written to disk and when. So if nobody wrote that data, then it hasn't changed.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by wombatpm on Sunday March 06, 2022 @08:10PM (#30583001)
Removable media, network drives, low level disk operations? I don't think you can know with 100% certainty on a window machine
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by wingmanjd on Sunday March 06, 2022 @08:06PM (#30582960)
Would the currently running OS know if another OS changed the file?
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by Siira on Monday March 07, 2022 @03:51AM (#30585578)
Can assume a single OS.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by daemin on Monday March 07, 2022 @06:56AM (#30586699)
In Windows there's a hook on file handle close which AV products use to implement their file scanning.

I know this because I did a bunch of reading on the topic after encountering catastrophic halts inside of CloseHandle, deep inside the kernel. And even with administrator privileges I could not kill the process, or the attached debugger, and the machine was unable to shutdown because even it could not kill the stuck process. I had to hard power cycle to get back to a usable system. Near as I can tell this was because of the AV product the company was using that crashed or deadlocked or something.

Note this product was not Windows Defender.

Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by netcoyote on Sunday March 06, 2022 @10:27PM (#30583914)
The virus might be discovered after the file it’s contained in is written to disk, which is why you’d need to scan when reading.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by ComputerGuru on Monday March 07, 2022 @12:18AM (#30584464)
Then don’t scan when writing?
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by codeflo on Monday March 07, 2022 @04:46AM (#30585880)
The virus signatures haven’t been updated since my last recompile though.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by pelorat on Sunday March 06, 2022 @06:52PM (#30582480)
Exclude your dev folders and your compiler from being scanned. The only way you'll get malware nowadays is from your web browser.
Re:Windows Defender is enough, if you harden it by alibert on Sunday March 06, 2022 @07:23PM (#30582682)
Unfortunately you can get viruses from rogue npm package.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/malicious-np...