Forum Widgets
Latest Discussions
Defender exclusion model seems to Violate CIS Benchmarks
Basically i wanted to exclude Shadow copies from the Virus scans as this already takes forever and i could see high system usage while this was done on our server. The logic being that this data was already scanned multiple times again and again, and even if a virus managed to infect the shadow volume it would be caught as soon as the file was restored. Unfortunately it seems to be impossible to only exclude the HarddiskVolumeShadowCopy, so to achieve this i would have to exclude the whole "System Volume Information" folder.... and this obviously violates the CIS benchmark for security, and is generally just weak design that this is not possible (unless I am misunderstanding something and that it is possible in some way). So here is the long and short after my debate with Copilot: Microsoft Defender Antivirus currently lacks support for exclusions using NT device paths such as: \\?\GLOBALROOT\Device\HarddiskVolumeShadowCopy* This limitation forces administrators to exclude the entire System Volume Information folder to prevent scanning of VSS shadow copies. However, this folder contains multiple critical system components beyond shadow copies, including: NTFS Change Journal (USN) DFS Replication Database Indexing Service Data Other system metadata Excluding this entire folder violates CIS Benchmarks and Microsoft’s own hardening guidance, which recommend minimizing antivirus exclusions to the smallest scope possible (Principle of Least Privilege). Current design introduces unnecessary risk and creates compliance gaps for organizations following CIS or similar frameworks. Impact: Security risk: Broader exclusions than necessary reduce visibility into system metadata. Compliance risk: Organizations cannot meet CIS Benchmark requirements for AV configuration. Operational inefficiency: Defender scans shadow copies using kernel paths but does not allow precise exclusions for those same paths. Recommendation: Microsoft should: Support exclusions for NT device paths (e.g., \\?\GLOBALROOT\Device\HarddiskVolumeShadowCopy*). Alternatively, provide a specific policy setting to exclude VSS snapshots without excluding other system components. This change would align Defender with CIS Benchmark principles, reduce unnecessary exclusions, and improve performance without compromising security. References: CIS Microsoft Windows Server Benchmark v3.0 Microsoft Defender Antivirus Configuration Guidelines Principle of Least Privilege in AV Exclusions
Does Windows Defender create a batch file?
Hi there, I am on Windows 11 an Defender did detect some malware during an installation. The files have been blocked and quarantined, a deep scan did not find any more issues. But I had a weired explorer behaviour after restarting - explorer exe did stop and restart. I realized the is a bactch file called securitycenter.bat in the autostart folder. The batch stops and restarts explorer. It was created right at the time defender did notice about the malware. I checked explorer exe. There is only one on the system and it seems to be the correct one (signed by Microsoft). Any ideas?Web Protection not blocking click throughs, but blocks direct access
I'm currently working to block all AI LLM's that aren't CoPilot. I'm using the Defender for Cloud integration which so far in testing is working well. However, I have one example with Grok where I have needed to add a custom URL so that I can block it being accessed from the sidebar on the main X website. I've added the URL as a custom URL indicator but if I follow the link on the X website it's not blocked. If I refresh the page once I'm on it, it will then return the expected block page. Similarly, if I manually browse to that URL it's also blocked on the first attempt. What's preventing Endpoint from blocking the click through to the page? I'm using Edge.
Defender for Endpoint - macOS scan takes 1 second
Hello, We use Defender for Endpoint on macOS deployed by Mosyle MDM. However, we noticed when user run quick or full scan that action takes 1 second and that is it - 0 files scanned. This used to work before; I happen to have a screenshot: Now, if I run scan from command line, again the same: We use config profiles from here: https://github.com/microsoft/mdatp-xplat/tree/master/macos/mobileconfig/profiles mdatp health output: Did anyone have this issue? Thanks!
Kql query that search reg key
Hay I created the next kql query but unfraternally i get O devices on the results : // Search for creation, modification, or deletion events for the specified ESU registry key DeviceRegistryEvents | where RegistryKey has_any (@"HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\SoftwareProtectionPlatform\ESU", @"HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\SoftwareProtectionPlatform\ESU") | project Timestamp, DeviceName, ActionType, RegistryKey, RegistryValueName, RegistryValueData, InitiatingProcessFileName, InitiatingProcessCommandLine | sort by Timestamp desc Am I doing something wrong? Thanks Elad.
Hundreds of DSM-Synology NAS work files are intercepted by Defender as threats!
Hi everyone. . . Sorry, long... For a couple of days now, I've been experiencing an annoying, persistent, and unresolvable problem affecting the Synology Drive Client 3.5.2 working folder D:\.SynologyWorkingDirectory. I'm running Windows 11 Pro 64-bit v25H2, and a couple of days ago, I accidentally discovered that Windows Defender has become incredibly slow when launched from its taskbar icon. Once I opened Defender, it presented a report with HUNDREDS (!) of threats, all caused by (temporary?) files in the hidden working folder "D:\.SynologyWorkingDirectory." The vast majority of the threats were eliminated. However, a few were classified as "severe" and warned that Defender may not have been able to completely eliminate the threat. I'm almost certain these aren't real threats, partly because of my extreme care with my browsing habits and behavior, but primarily because there are hundreds of them and they're constantly being created, exclusively in the D:\.SynologyWorkingDirectory folder. Defender, for its part, constantly deletes them, making it incredibly slow, and opening its history is equally slow. I ran a thorough system scan with Defender, both online and offline, but nothing was found. I also ran a scan with MalwareBytes, and nothing was found, perhaps also because the files are quickly deleted by Defender. I therefore suspect that Windows Defender has arbitrarily classified Synology's temporary files as threats. Even deleting Windows Defender's history was a painstaking task due to numerous (!) failed attempts due to the low-level and operational protections in Windows 11 Pro 64-bit v25H2. The only solution was to boot WinRE from a Windows installation USB drive, then delete the scans folder (D:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows Defender\Scans) from DOS. I also had to obtain the Bitlocker key, but clearing the history is pointless because it continually recreates itself with new detections! I'm forced to pause Synology Drive Client v3.5.2. How can I get support for this issue? Regards . .Question malwares behavior
1) Does the behavior of the same malware on different PCs vary a lot? example: Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.C!ml PC 1 Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.C!ml, behavior: idle remains PC2 Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.C!ml, behavior: delete modify files in PC 2) Can a malware like Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.C!ml download other malware, let that perform actions, then delete itself—and would it evade future AV scans? Does it not leave traces to detect in the scan?Question malwares
Are the following malware programs that modify, damage, corrupt, or delete various files from your PC? all malware types operates malicious operations in files? Trojan:Win32/Wacatac.C!ml, Trojan.DownLoader47.36298, TrojanPSW.Rhadamanthys, Trojan.Win32.Agent.xcajyl? When a free antivirus program like Kaspersky Free and Microsoft Defender Free doesn't have a malware signature database and it doesn't appear in a complete scan, is it still active and all protection barriers have been breached? without signature is dead antivirus?
