Recent Bitdefender deal made me think of this question. For those who DO use antivirus products such as Norton or Bitdefender, what is your favourite brand/product?
If your choice is not in the poll, feel free to put it in a comment.
What Is OzBargain's Favourite Internet Security / Antivirus?
shxhshzhz on 29/06/2023 - 16:01
Last edited 29/06/2023 - 16:02
Last edited 29/06/2023 - 16:02
Poll Options
- 17Norton
- 65Kaspersky
- 3Trend Micro
- 38Bitdefender
- 20ESET
- 0Total AV
- 10AVG
- 0McAfee
- 31Malwarebytes
- 5Sophos
- 563Built in Windows Defender - FREE
- 17Avast
- 0Crowdstrike Falcon
- 1ZoneAlarm
Comments
- 1
- 2
Added.
i use sophos
+1 for Sophos right there. Their Intercept X and XGS appliances are an excellent choice for business/enterprise too.
Ugh, I hate Sophos. I once had a support ticket going with them for 8 MONTHS for a false positive in medical software. The program used an off-the-shelf component to zip up files for backups. Every time it zipped the file, Sophos would immediately flag it and lock the file before the backup program could make a copy of it. Sophos kept pushing me to do workaround after workaround and refused to refer it to their dev team to fix the issue. Also, it was laughable when their wonderful new "Anti-Ransomware" add-on came out (paid, of course) which used a lesser known program they bought and hastily integrated with their AV and gave it a fancy name "Intercept-X". I've had occasion to delve into the inner workings of Sophos quite a bit. It is ineffective, poorly thrown together and the closest thing to a fake AV in the market today (remember when there was a big splash about the NHS "protected by Sophos" and then all their computers got infected?). Trust me, I'd rather use Bitdefender or Comodo. If it came down to Sophos vs McAfee as the only 2 choices, Sophos would lose :D
Introducing the wonderful new Sophos technology "Intercept-x": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HitmanPro
it does the job.
Windows defender?
ah yeah that one
Suggested Built in Windows Defender - FREEbuilt in Windows Defender
Doesn't work on macOS or Linux ;)
Those OS' don't need AV as much as Windows.
Yes they do lol
Bad people don't think oh they're on Apple or Linux. Exploits will get u on any OS
Yes they do lol
Please note that I specifically stated "as much as". I was not stating that they didn't need AV at all, or that malware/viruses for Mac or Linux don't exist. They do. But due to the security structure of both macOS and Linux, especially in regards to access elevation, malware & viruses are typically less likely to impact them. As a result of both this and the operating system's adoption rate (in comparison to Windows), you also see less malware/viruses being made for those systems.
So in summary, macOS and Linux don't need AV as much as Windows. Whether or not you should use one depends on your use case, same as it does on Windows (I myself just have Windows Defender, because I know what I'm doing and don't download/open viruses/malware).
@Chandler: What use case wouldn't u use antivirus/internet security suite?
Connected to internet = YES!
Using Wifi/Bluetooth/Etc = YES!
Playing games, web browsing, personal projects, office work, etc, etc all needs software/firmware updates so just about everything these days requires internet which in any case needs a firewall - ain't many examples where your not connected or using a device with a system.Saying they don't need av/security software as much is trival since today you can't quantify the difference, some virus/malware/bugs/etc on Mac and Linux are a lot worse than Windows. If your putting a number on it, no security expert is gonna say don't use av/security software at all. Saying they don't need it as much means your stuck in 1990s. The eco system and the way everything's connected, u simply can not go without today.
What use case wouldn't u use antivirus/internet security suite?
Not what I'm saying. I'm saying on macOS and Linux it is not as necessary, and in the case that they are (yo ho ho, etc) the in-built and/or free options are usually sufficient.
Connected to internet = YES!
Why? You shouldn't be accessing the internet like a virgin: always use protection - firewall is your friend. If you do something that gives you malware/virus, you're the problem, not the lack of AV.
Using Wifi/Bluetooth/Etc = YES!
Again, why? If you're leaving your Bluetooth open or accessing public WiFi without protection - VPN is your friend - then again, you're the problem, not the lack of AV.
Playing games, web browsing, personal projects, office work, etc, etc all needs software/firmware updates so just about everything these days requires internet which in any case needs a firewall.
Whilst most AV products do incorporate a Firewall, Firewall ≠ AV. I'm not arguing about using a firewall - I myself have a firewall on my router and have the in-built Windows Firewall (and Windows Defender) enabled on my machine.
Saying they don't need av/security software as as much is trival since today you can't quantify the difference
You can. Wikipedia has a good summary for Linux, which cites sources (as Wikipedia does) from as recently as 2021. Linux essentially runs the internet (servers) as well as mobiles (Android) so it's not like it's not widely adopted - it's just not widely adopted in desktop usage.
some virus/malware/bugs/etc on Mac and Linux are a lot worse than Windows
Citation needed. Also citation needed for where these serious viruses/malware/etc (bugs don't count - AV won't protect you from bugs) could have been prevented with AV software (i.e. not 0-day exploits etc), and were targeted against / found on desktop and not server hardware.
If your putting a number on it, no security expert is gonna say don't use av/security software at all.
Of course not, much like you'll never hear a WHS person say "she'll be right". No one will say don't use it - I'm not even saying don't use it. I'm saying it's not as necessary due to the inherent security of Linux / macOS, primarily due to the restricted permissions, the way the kernel works, and the method in which software is distributed:
- On Windows, if you want an application you go to the vendors website, download an installer and run it.
- On Linux, if you want an application you install the package from the software repository.
- On macOS, if you want an application you install the app from the store.
Which one sounds the dodgiest?
Saying they don't need it as much means your stuck in 1990s.
See citation on the linked Wikipedia page above - 2021.
@Chandler: Lol citation from wiki. Written by Muppets for humans. The information gaps in that encyclopedia are crazy. Not to mention errors. Limited paid staff. Volunteers are a poor resource unless they are dedicated and fanatical about the subject. People also need to double and triple check shit, and it doesn't happen as often as one might think.
I'm not gonna cite in this example cause I'd be wasting time lol. I simply advocate using third party av/security no matter what OS you run, simply based on my experience.
I know what Linux does.
Which one sounds the dodgiest?
From the top
- Apple store
(Limited paid staff - I'd have said android 1st but that's a given) - Linux
- Windows - Going to a legit site, and then verifying your DL with a hash.
You've gotta trust the software dev at the end of the day lol to some extent
Seeing that your for.. windows defender says a lot. Worked in IT for 20+ years. We don't or never did rely on crap software, that being defender, or windows firewall.
@cobknob: Spot the boomer in IT!
Hackers and script kiddies are more interested in targetting the general population that use windows, not Linux or macos.
@cobknob: Is there a reason why you said nothing to the entire first half of my comment:
Chandler on 30/06/2023 - 16:44:
If you do something that gives you malware/virus, you're the problem, not the lack of AV.
…
Firewall ≠ AVMoving on.
Lol citation from wiki. Written by Muppets for humans.
Wikipedia is a good resource if you account for those limitations, which is why I usually talk about Wikipedia being a good summary (like I did in this case). In my particular case, the information cited were quotations from various columnists. Your argument against Wikipedia has merit, but it does nothing against the actual argument - that the inherent security of Linux with respect to the kernel and software repositories lends to it being more secure than operating systems like Windows.
So do you have an argument against mine, or are you just going to try and discredit the argument purely because I used Wikipedia?
I'm not gonna cite in this example cause I'd be wasting time lol
Why would you be wasting time? The entire point of citing sources is to provide additional information, evidence or history to your argument. Your argument that I was asking for sources on was that "some virus/malware/bugs/etc on Mac and Linux are a lot worse than Windows" as I was curious what worse virus/malware Linux was facing.
I simply advocate using third party av/security no matter what OS you run, simply based on my experience.
Again, I'm not arguing against using an AV at all:
Chandler on 30/06/2023 - 12:12: [emphasis mine]
Those OS' don't need AV as much as Windows.
It was literally in the wording of my comment.
From the top
- Apple store
(Limited paid staff - I'd have said android 1st but that's a given) - Linux
- Windows - Going to a legit site, and then verifying your DL with a hash.
Because all users are verifying DL's with a hash, and all vendors provide the hash on their website, and all websites are not compromised…
I'm curious why you consider downloading off vendor sites more secure than a software repository?
Also remember use cases: it used to be that Mac was generally more techy-savvy customers, and that is still the case with Linux. With that came an inherent security on the user side - users were more tech-savvy and thus wouldn't be doing the things that your general Windows users were and thus getting themselves malware/viruses. Coupled with the significantly lower market share, you just didn't see widescale infections on Mac or Linux. As macOS became more mainstream, you start to see more less-savvy users on the platform and thus an increased rate of infection.
You've gotta trust the software dev at the end of the day lol to some extent
Of course.
Seeing that your for.. windows defender says a lot. Worked in IT for 20+ years. We don't or never did rely on crap software, that being defender, or windows firewall.
Why's that? A tool is a tool. I myself am reasonably savvy with my internet usage. I know not to just download random software off dodgy websites, not to download attachments from unverified sources, etc. For my use case, Windows Defender suits my needs, and going by the results of the poll it suits a lot of people.
Do you have an actual argument for why people should not use Windows Defender or Windows Firewall? Yeah, I get that there's better software out there, but do you have a recommendation for software that suits my needs more and provides a better value proposition than Defender does?
I've used a number of paid AV software over the years (Trend Micro, Norton, probably one or two others), and still actually have Malwarebytes (free) running on my machine (although considering uninstalling it since I don't really use it). Remember too a lot of the slightly-savvy users (and some of the more-savvy users, tbh) generally see AV as snake oil. Little to no perceived benefit for a not-insignificant cost. Doesn't help when they're in bed with the OEMs and getting pre-installed i.e. McAfee.
@Chandler: I generally reply via smartphone. Not easy to quote and reply to lengthy comments.
I do read comments completely. I don't always reply to every point though. I prefer to keep some security practices to myself which is why I haven't replied to some of your points.
Most people just want good security protection and that it works when you need it. Windows includes basic protection, and I'm just not interested in citing why I feel it's basic. I'm not selling anything - just giving my opinion based on personal/business exp and why I advocate third party software for this reason.
In my particular case, the information cited were quotations from various columnists
Yes I know. I read too many books and articles, and screen time to read more.
that the inherent security of Linux with respect to the kernel and software repositories lends to it being more secure than operating systems like Windows.
Yes Linux is more secure, but that's just it, more - if we had a rating system on security for OSes since they began you'd find windows is totally fuuked, macOS is on its way there and Linux has its fair share.
Anti-virus and security software has shifted too. They now protect systems from more different types of threats using different methods than ever - tbh some of the software and hardware issues of the last ~5+ years scare the crap out of me.
So do you have an argument against mine, or are you just going to try and discredit the argument purely because I used Wikipedia?
Hard to put into words exp. I just concede on some issues lol
Why would you be wasting time? The entire point of citing sources is to provide additional information, evidence or history to your argument. Your argument that I was asking for sources on was that "some virus/malware/bugs/etc on Mac and Linux are a lot worse than Windows" as I was curious what worse virus/malware Linux was facing.
I don't keep track of. Atm I simply don't have the time that's all
I still genuinely think u can't quantify easily whether to use security software or not on Linux. Just makes sense to.
I'm curious why you consider downloading off vendor sites more secure than a software repository?
They are not guaranteed of anything. Some are managed depending on what flavor u get. I also do my research on what software I download off the net to install on my system. I guess a repos is done for you.
With that came an inherent security on the user side - users were more tech-savvy and thus wouldn't be doing the things that your general Windows users were and thus getting themselves malware/viruses. Coupled with the significantly lower market share, you just didn't see widescale infections on Mac or Linux. As macOS became more mainstream, you start to see more less-savvy users on the platform and thus an increased rate of infection.
You know whether more or less tech savvy users are on OS mac/Linux doesn't actually matter cause it's the threat actors developing ways of infecting systems. Threats come beyond opening an email, visiting a dodgy site or downloading a file.
Do you have an actual argument for why people should not use Windows Defender or Windows Firewall? Yeah, I get that there's better software out there, but do you have a recommendation for software that suits my needs more and provides a better value proposition than Defender does?
Do you drink alcohol/coffee out regulary? 20$/2yr for 3 systems. Review sites, IT experts recommend security software like Kaspersky or Bit defender worked better in system protection than windows defender in virus protection, malware detection etc.
@cobknob: I'll preface this to say that I think we generally agree.
I generally reply via smartphone. Not easy to quote and reply to lengthy comments.
Noted :)
I do read comments completely.
Good to hear - I endeavour to do the same.
I prefer to keep some security practices to myself which is why I haven't replied to some of your points.
Fair enough.
Most people just want good security protection and that it works when you need it.
Agreed.
Windows includes basic protection, and I'm just not interested in citing why I feel it's basic.
We agree on this anyway :)
Yes Linux is more secure, but that's just it, more - if we had a rating system on security for OSes since they began you'd find windows is totally fuuked, macOS is on its way there and Linux has its fair share.
We agree here also - curious what you mean by "Linux has its fair share". Not trying to spruik Linux as perfect - hell, I don't even really use Linux apart from the Proxmox box I have at home (and Android, if that counts for you). Laptop at home and work are both Windows.
Anti-virus and security software has shifted too. They now protect systems from more different types of threats using different methods than ever - tbh some of the software and hardware issues of the last ~5+ years scare the crap out of me.
Any examples? Curious, not questioning - I don't read a lot in this sector.
I still genuinely think u can't quantify easily whether to use security software or not on Linux. Just makes sense to.
Agreed - which is why I never said don't or that it is unnecessary. Just not as necessary as Windows. To be fair probably a meaningless distinction.
They are not guaranteed of anything. Some are managed depending on what flavor u get. I also do my research on what software I download off the net to install on my system. I guess a repos is done for you.
I suppose this touches on part of my point - for users like yourself and me, yeah downloading software off vendor's sites isn't an issue as we know what we're doing. But for many (to be honest, Windows) users who will go and download software from the top Google result/s, a AV client is probably a must! It is one thing I found funny regarding software distribution - the OS's that need a secure method the least (due to having knowledgeable users) have a "secure" method. Windows until recently (if you call 2012 recent haha!) never had an "app store".
You know whether more or less tech savvy users are on OS mac/Linux doesn't actually matter cause it's the threat actors developing ways of infecting systems. Threats come beyond opening an email, visiting a dodgy site or downloading a file.
It does matter, as with more users coming on to macOS or Linux the value proposition for threat actors changes - you didn't see much malware for Linux because the system was resilient to the more common methods of attack (i.e. root access - many Windows users (still) are using an account with administrative access rights) and the users were resilient to the methods of infection (clicking dodgy links or downloading malicious files/attachments).
Regarding threats beyond those typical methods - many of those methods are more targeted attempts for which a firewall provides more protection than an AV (although noting that many AV clients include firewall protection). Also with the growth of IoT and networked in-home devices, a client-side firewall (as provided by some AV) is much less important than a gateway firewall.
Do you drink alcohol/coffee out regulary? 20$/2yr for 3 systems. Review sites, IT experts recommend security software like Kaspersky or Bit defender worked better in system protection than windows defender in virus protection, malware detection etc.
Last time I had a paid AV - which, admittedly back then I was using the PC much more often and being a bit looser with it (games, downloads, etc) - I got tired of the PUP, cookie "infection" and "crowd-sourced distrust" alerts (I believe it was Norton I was using) and tossed most AV clients into the "self-justifying nag-ware" pile. Since then I've been much more critical of AV clients, and given my level of tech knowledge I don't see the benefit. Yes, that $20 isn't much at all, but I have a gateway firewall and don't do anything dodgy online, so I don't see what an AV client is going to do for me. I'll probably change my mind when I do somehow manage to get an infection and lose data…
To be fair, I should properly re-evaluate AV clients, especially with kids starting to use computers where AV protection will likely be beneficial.
We agree here also - curious what you mean by "Linux has its fair share". Not trying to spruik Linux as perfect - hell, I don't even really use Linux apart from the Proxmox box I have at home (and Android, if that counts for you). Laptop at home and work are both Windows.
Mostly truths in these articles (*desktop linux is diff to server linux - see google for differences)
https://www.makeuseof.com/tag/linux-virus-malware-truth/
https://linuxconfig.org/can-linux-get-viruses-exploring-the-…One of the main factors that contribute to the security of Linux systems is the way in which software is distributed and installed. Linux systems use package managers, which are centralized repositories of software that are carefully curated and monitored for security. This helps to ensure that the software that is installed on a Linux system is reliable and free of malware. In contrast, Windows systems often rely on users downloading and installing software from a variety of sources, which increases the risk of malware being introduced to the system.
Best practices for keeping your Linux system secure
Keep your system up-to-date
Use a firewall
Avoid running as the root user
Only install software from trusted sources
Consider using anti-virus softwareSource: https://linuxconfig.org/can-linux-get-viruses-exploring-the-…
This is not a guarantee that the software will be free of threats or malicious use to your system. An expert (and I mean expert!) user on either system can lock down the OS sufficiently well - obviously Linux OSes +variants have their use case.
Generally one might imply the end user is responsible for a great percentage of threats to their computer/device - lets speculate and say 60% - but any threat due to software or firmware being out of date, and hardware design (and software on the hardware eg. instruction sets, etc) is not the users' fault - that is the fault of the developer/engineer, and often but not always there is an update or fix or patch to mitigate the issue.
The general user shouldn't be using desktop Linux - windows/macOS is a much safer environment with well-review paid third party security software installed.
Anti-virus and security software has shifted too. They now protect systems from more different types of threats using different methods than ever - tbh some of the software and hardware issues of the last ~5+ years scare the crap out of me.
Any examples? Curious, not questioning - I don't read a lot in this sector.
Hardware design flaws are bad cause there either not easy to fix or patch without compromises - the speculative execution CPU bugs are a nightmare to deal with. There has been updates but they need updates too :/
Botnets are annoying
Firmware updates just piss me off lol - and when your hardware is out of date which can be the warranty period you no longer receive firmware updates.
Software related to Hardware - https://www.techspot.com/news/99261-buffer-overflow-type-mem…
top 10 from a random site :) - https://www.csoonline.com/article/573203/10-industry-definin…
- Apple store
- Apple store
Exploits will get u
lol nonsense.
The majority of security breaches and blunders involving your average home user are human error exploits. Like the victim believes the person on the phone is from their bank, etc.
There are not a lot of victims of "not buying / subscribing / updating third party nag-ware antivirus software" lol.
Norton and the like, absolutely suck. It's a vector for attack via email alerts saying "your Norton subscription is about to expire, click here to renew and stay protected". More than one of my elderly family members has fallen for that, clicking the links in those kinds of emails about their virus protection.
It does have a version for MacOS, iOS and Android.
They are not the same product.
Windows Defender Antivirus ships with Windows. It's free. It's not available on macOS, iOS, or Android.
For macOS, iOS, and Android you need to purchase Windows Defender for EndPoint via M365.
Windows Defender Antivirus is a component of Windows Defender for Endpoint. They perform different functions. The former provides basic antivirus and antimalware protection. The latter is a complete EPP/EDR solution.
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/def…
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/security/def…
Common sense
stay off pawn hub
Don't tell me to abandon my chess sites.
I thought they were referring to Gumtree…
Cashies?
bitdefender. can keep getting 3 and 6 month trials rather than paying for it.
ESET without a doubt, was previously using it for many many years when Harris Technology and SaveOnIt had the 1 Year Licences for under $10 but that hasn't happened in a while so I have abandoned it for the moment. Currently using the Free F-Secure SAFE 3-Year 5 Device Licence from Feb 2022
I remember using NOD32, like 25 years ago. It was highly regarded at the time.
Initially when ESET entered Australia directly after ditching that knobhead Bill from Antivirus Australia they had really awesome deals for resellers with plenty of incentives. Unfortunately in the last couple of years (especially after the country manager was sacked) they've dropped the ball, stopped caring about resellers and raised prices.
- Suggested Avast
Avast
but also, common sense is also a pretty damn good anti virus if your computer savvy
dont download the first search result in Kazaa or Limewire (remember those days….)
I used avast years ago until an update screwed my windows boot up completely. I couldn't even get windows to load outside of safe mode. Narrowed it down to avast and removed it. Never used again.
This was before windows defender was as good as it is now.
I had to fix someone's PC again after they let Avast upgrade the video card and chipset drivers.
First result in Frostwire was usually okay for me ;)
I am using Avast! Bitdefender seemed smoother and less heavy on the system; just didn't like having constantly to renew.
I use a Mac and keep it updated. I also don't install random bullshit, you get a sense of what is legit and can be granted permissions or not. For my PC I use Windows Defender with cloud protection and keep it updated.
Someone recommended Eset in one of the comments in a random gym equipment thread and actually I’ve been impressed. Paid full price for a license of it.
The already-preinstalled Windows Defender does the trick 99% of the time.
Definitely don't bother with Mcafee though. I've heard awful things. I remember one time the water they used was so hot that it scalded some poor woman and literally fused her nether regions together. Awful. Just stick with Jack's Cafe instead, I reckon.
MacOS. Add this option.
- Suggested Crowdstrike Falcon
I personally feel the built-in Windows antivirus is more than enough but Crowdstrike Falcon is used by my company and might work for others who deal with critical data.
Man the name of that software sounds dodgy as hell.
It may to you but not to me.
Crowdstrike is the only one on this list I’d trust putting on my personal devices. It’s one of the leading products in the endpoint protection market. I’ve deployed them to clients and it’s one of the best.
The whole list is otherwise full of consumer/home products. I’d argue that some would even lessen the security of your device.
As someone who administers this at work, I don't think it's accessible or affordable to the end user.
It’s accessible, but not really affordable. You’re looking at $500 minimum per year for 5 devices.
I haven't run antivirus for years. Windows defender incorrectly flags software I need. Despite having it turned off, and all notifications related to it turned off, windows still nags me daily to turn it back on (and yes, I've tried all the registry and group policy hacks to stop this from happening).
Once every couple of years I run a free/demo scan of whatever is the current favorite free scanner. I haven't had a virus or spyware for 15 years.
Bit Defender used to be rated number 1, not sure these days. I used to use Trend in the old days but been using Malware bytes for a while now.
Bitdefender and Kaspersky are two of the best antiviruses. Malwarebytes is great as a second opinion scanner, to find things your antivirus may miss. But it's not very good as an antivirus.
Bit defender is the one we have most issues with.
Replace windoze with linux ?
(flame suit on !)Windows defender is good enough if you are security aware and ALSO use other passive scan tools.
If you use 'certain' software (ahoy me hearties) then windef will be an absolute pain in the ass and keep sin-binning false positives.
SO I TURNED IT OFF on my non secure computer (I still do regular passive scans though with other av).Anything important I need to do I do on a different 'safe' computer (which only uses trusted software).
which other av ?
Kaspersky but it keeps blocking LMCT+ 🤔
ClamAV - Linux
Symantec all the way. Only AV wtih IPS built in. kill the shite befroe it hits your device.
Heaps of products have some form of it. Normally called HIPS/HIDS.
Only AV wtih
IPScrypto miner built in. kill the shite befroe it hits your device
I use Kaspersky Internet Security, which is arguably the best antivirus. You can buy cheap licenses from Save On IT, but even the free version of Kaspersky provides excellent protection. Having said that, the built in Microsoft Defender provides very good protection, even if it's not quite as good as Kaspersky. However some people find that Defender makes their computer run slower. In which case, it makes sense to replace it with a lighter third party antivirus.
Didn't Kaspersky change their product lines to standard, plus and premium? Although they are also cheap on these sites regardless.
Yes, I forgot. I've got a Total Security license, but I replaced TS with Plus when it was release and it accepted my license.
Don't need antivirus
Common sense
That's the problem with common sense… it is not all that common.
Dont have antivirus these days, mainly common sense. The inbuilt windows security in windows 11 does everything I need to.
Windows defender so laughable…
With the way Microsoft handles windows updates and how they manage staff resources to commit to projects within their organisation why would you trust your devices security to them!?
on PC i use windows defender first
then malwarebytesOld lifetime Malwarebytes subscription or Windows Defender
yal saying common sense when its probably more technological literacy
technological literacy
Most people's is low for anti-virus and security software and how it works.
I'm not citing any source for benchmark testing etc, I know some people may ask on here for that.
Some will say oh but windows defender comes close in tests against other paid software suites, for eg Defender might say 97% for detection vs Kasperskys' 99% but it's not the effectiveness your looking for its the 1%s that paid suites catch and protect your system that defender don't! The 1 time your thankful you paid for software 😊
Avira - always been dependable
I've read that none of them perform significantly better than the built in windows defender in testing, so you may as well stick with windows and have the least hit on performance.
But you won't have the least performance impact. There are several antiviruses which are lighter than Microsoft Defender and often will have less system impact. While Defender runs fine for many people, there are a lot of people who find it noticably slows down their computer.
Well, it is a massive improvement on what we were previously using (webroot).
Added bonus of not blocking widely used commercial software every few months.Webroot is close to being the worst big name antivirus in terms of protection. But it does have very good web blocking. There are better options than both of them.
Offence is the best defence
Haha … antivirus
The original snake oil before VPNs.
I remember Avira and AVG being the most suggested ones.
People still use these?
Windows defender is pretty bulletproof.Yeah that's what i thought. What a waste of money.
Yes, for some people Microsoft Defender causes noticeable slowdowns. For those people, it makes sense to replace Defender with something lighter that won't slow down their PC. In addition, while Defender provides very good protection, some third party antiviruses provide slightly better protection.
I had no idea Microsoft Defender could noticeably slow down a PC. My PCs are stupidly fast, even the basic ones so I likely never ran into this issue.
There are even some people with high end PCs who find it causes slow downs. On the other hand there are also plenty of people with lower end systems who don't have any issues with it.
@rogerm22: My high end Alienware works perfectly fast with Microsoft defender. Don’t know what you are talking about.
@goraygo: You should reread what I posted. I said that it causes slowdowns for some people with high end computers, not everyone. Just because it runs fine for you, do you really think that is going to be the case for everyone who uses it? I've seen plenty of posts over the years from people with high end systems, complaining that it makes their computer slower. I also said that it doesn't cause slowdowns for some people with low end systems.
With every antivirus there will be some people who find it causes slowdowns and others who don't see any noticeable slowdowns. That's just how it is. I've even seen two computers with similar specs, running the exact same antivirus and on one computer it runs fine and on other it's making the computer run slower.
@rogerm22: I am sure it’s the same case for any AV software. It all depends on your configurations. There is no perfect one out there.
I use whichever is built into macos / windows. They are really good and hasn’t caused any issues for me for the last 15+ years.
There is nothing built in MacOS.
Yes there is. It's called XProtect.
Hmm there is, its on by default. Its the one which prevents you from executing unsigned binaries and other stuff for which you require admin password or so (xprotect). its a binary signature based one.
Default windows. I don't download "Linux distros" anymore so no need to worry. Don't open did shit out visit clearly dodgy websites.
- Suggested ZoneAlarm
I use zonealarm. Has joint firewall and antivirus. Free as well and works in tandem with windows defender.
- 1
- 2
No Malwarebytes?