Do you still use Antivirus software on your latest hardware?

[AVATARAT]

How would it get hacked if I dont download sus things in the first place? Know very well how to spot malicious downloads and if a source is fake. Beyond this I will let Windows Defender do its thing.

Your computer is probably on a local network with others, and you are opening web pages and probably mails.
On computers like yours, I do one-time AV scan checks from time to time.

 

[Waldorf]

while Defender is ok for most, i rather have something like Avast (free), as it will be able to block harmful sites/downloads on connection, not AFTER i already dl a file.
since i switched back from Bitdefender (99% of stuff gets dl, and only then recognized as risk), i have yet to see a single infection of any kind, short of tracking cookies.

@AVATARAT
never seen a single pc using norton, that was clean when scanned with superantispyware/malwarebytes.
and that included "support/tech editions" i used at work.

@Frizz
was a while ago when i read some AV company decided to build 10 office desktops (so unused/offline hw) and connect them unprotected,
just with win installed, no one using it.
took ~90s for it to get infected.

its not always about clicking links in emails.
do you always wear your seatbelt, or only before you crash? right.

@PLAfiller
@Fokker
it was about the sw using resources (on idle pc) to "mine" in the background, as long as ppl didnt disable it in the options (RTFM)
but i thought it was funny, with ppl being too lazy to go thru settings even just once, but complaining about it.
iirc they either now have it disabled on install (EU), or at least notify user (US).

 

[Frizz]

while Defender is ok for most, i rather have something like Avast (free), as it will be able to block harmful sites/downloads on connection, not AFTER i already dl a file.
since i switched back from Bitdefender (99% of stuff gets dl, and only then recognized as risk), i have yet to see a single infection of any kind, short of tracking cookies.


@Frizz
was a while ago when i read some AV company decided to build 10 office desktops (so unused/offline hw) and connect them unprotected,
just with win installed, no one using it.
took ~90s for it to get infected.

its not always about clicking links in emails.
do you always wear your seatbelt, or only before you crash? right.

Don't want to jynx myself by saying it over and over again but Windows Defender is enough for me haven't had a single skimmed card or stolen details in my life lol. Maybe I'm just lucky.

 

[Steevo]

Corporate forces us to use Carbon black cloud and its a PITA as well there is Arctic Wolf "AI" that uses up a bunch of CPU cycles every so often for reasons......


The networks I manage use Defender, and I use it at home as well, U-block, quality firewalls with DPI and anti-spam/anti-virus/malware inspection, Open DNS to prevent connection to blacklisted sites.

 

[ShiBDiB]

Corporate forces us to use Carbon black cloud and its a PITA as well there is Arctic Wolf "AI" that uses up a bunch of CPU cycles every so often for reasons......


The networks I manage use Defender, and I use it at home as well, U-block, quality firewalls with DPI and anti-spam/anti-virus/malware inspection, Open DNS to prevent connection to blacklisted sites.

Corporate networks oftentimes NEED to use systems like this for insurance and or compliance reasons.

I'm shocked this thread is still going tbh. Use defender at home people, or don't... but then expect to be shamed if you ever need to ask for recovery help.

 

[Waldorf]

@Frizz
like i said its fine for any "normal" (risk) user, i had more than 10 ID breaches from cards/accounts when i lived in the US for +15y (thanks corporate america), and zero in +45y that were caused by me in any form.

but i do play some older/offline games where i use things like no-cd patches/trainers/installers etc, and not all sites where i get them, are clean enough that Defender would suffice, even if its just some click/Ad crap.

 

[unwind-protect]

How would it get hacked if I dont download sus things in the first place? Know very well how to spot malicious downloads and if a source is fake.

That's not how it works. Security holes in software allow arbitrary code execution from e.g. just visiting a website with a malicious image - such as this website.

Many are "no-interaction" at all. They attack software components that e.g. parse incoming messages. You don't even have to visit a website.

 

[Bill_Bright]

How would it get hacked if I dont download sus things in the first place?

In addition to what others have said, if you get an email from Chace Manhootten Bank, addressed to Sir or Madam, or "Dear Account Holder", odds are you are automatically going to know it is bogus, even if you have an account at Chase Manhattan Bank (now called just "Chase").

But the bad guys have not only gotten a LOT smarter, and have learned so much about human nature, their emails, popups etc. have become incredibly authentic looking.

But beyond that, odds are your email account, and probably more of your personal information is already out there in the hands of the bad guys due to some insurance company, credit bureau, bank, health provider, forum, or store network getting hacked. Then all your data, along with the personal data of 10s even 100s of millions of other innocent people, were stolen. See Yet another hack/breach.

If by some miracle, no site or organization you ever associated with was hacked, there's a good chance your brother, cousin, aunt or friend of a friend, that is, any "contact" who is not very "security aware" or careful, had their computers breached and your information stolen.

Or course, some organization you registered with might simply have sold your personal information without your permission!

This means you might get an authentic looking email from your bank, addressed to you by your name, saying your password has expired, or you need to verify your information, etc., Click Here to update.

Know very well how to spot malicious downloads

LOL Yeah right.

So you think you are more clever than all the bad guys out there? Guess again.

 

[Veseleil]

And yet what is one to trust one's security to?

Common sense? I know it's not so common to begin with, but dude c'mon... Basic IT knowledge, lessons learned from your own and mistakes made by others, many years of experience?
AVs are useless, even for the grannies clicking on an each FB ad.
Nothing is fully secure the very moment it reaches the web, and even the systems that are considered the most secure are often targeted and their security breached by some bored teenagers, let alone the pros. And the security suites of those government agencies are very expensive and even beyond the enterprise level.
Then why do people think that consumer grade, cheap or free AV solutions are better than nothing kind of a deal here? They just mine your data, run in realtime wasting resources, in your OS kernel which makes your system more vulnerable to a plethora of attacks.

 

[Waldorf]

@Veseleil
if you can't spend 1% of your cpu resources (thats how much avast uses maxed out), you have other issues.

while nothing is 100% besides death and taxes (latter seems to be less of an issue the more money you have), but that doesnt mean its good to ignore it completely.

would i like to drive something like a top model audi or merc with 100 airbags and safety features possible? sure, but just because i cant get the "best/100%" protection, doesn't mean i wont put on my seatbelt when i drive something less equipped.

 

[chrcoluk]

I remember getting viruses and trojans installing XP with an active internet connection lol.. that was 20 something years ago, I can only imagine what its like now..

Not as bad, as funny enough security has improved a lot.

In the XP days, people would typically use their PC as the gateway, so there was no firewall in front of it, and XP by default had an open firewall. So all that was needed was a vulnerability in something like netbios, and your PC could get owned simply by being online.

Now days its far far more difficult, and usually requires some form of stupidity.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Common sense?

Common sense isn't so common, and where tech is concerned, it's not always intuitive and straight forward like other areas of life.

Example? One would think that Windows Defender would be very trustworthy and yet because of microsoft's many shady, skeevy, immoral and unethical activities, how can ANYONE trust it?

 

[freeagent]

and your PC could get owned simply by being online.

I laughed at this.

Good times.. yarr be darr..

 

[Bill_Bright]

Common sense? I know it's not so common to begin with, but dude c'mon... Basic IT knowledge, lessons learned from your own and mistakes made by others, many years of experience?
AVs are useless

Wow! Not sure I have ever heard more naivety. Or is it total arrogance? Or both? It must be nice to truly be so much smarter than all the bad guys out there and therefore cannot be tricked. It must be nice to truly be so much more experienced, that one can easily spot every bit of maliciousness, and never, not once, even accidentally, let something slip by. It must be nice to truly be so sure every a piece of email sent from a trusted friend/contact or organization could never be infected - because, of course, they are so much smarter, more clever and more experienced than the bad guys too.

Wow.

"AVs are useless"? Right. So are vaccines, health insurance, air, food, and sleep.

and XP by default had an open firewall.

and your PC could get owned simply by being online.

What does XP have to do with anything today, or this thread?

I laughed at this.

Good times.. yarr be darr..

Actually, chrcoluk is right - kinda, sorta. When XP first came out, it had an integrated firewall, but it was disabled by default in part because many sites did not conform to industry standards and when the firewall was enabled, those sites were blocked by the firewall. And who got blamed by angry users? The sites for not conforming to industry standards? Nope. Microsoft got blamed.

So did users install the already established and respected ZoneAlarm Firewall? Some did (I did). But others just went on their merry way and got infested with viruses and worms by the bad guys. Did those users blame the bad guys? Nope. They blamed Microsoft.

So with XP "SP2", Microsoft enhanced the firewall and the UI and enabled it by default. But initially, it was for "incoming" data only - which "in theory" should be good enough. How could your computer send out malicious data if none got in. But the marketing weenies at ZA (later CheckPoint) and their fellow competitors and MS haters harped on the Windows Firewall incoming only capability, giving it a bad name - despite its effectiveness.

Example? One would think that Windows Defender would be very trustworthy and yet because of microsoft's many shady, skeevy, immoral and unethical activities, how can ANYONE trust it?

Come on Lex! Your clear and obvious bias and hatred for Microsoft has bubbled up to the surface again - and it is that bias and hatred that makes you not want to trust it, but worse, tell everyone else they can't trust it. That's sad. Holding grudges like that takes up too much energy.

Is Microsoft guilty of shady and unethical activities? Absolutely!!! No one, including me, could deny that. In fact YOU, Lex, KNOW I rag on their marketing weenies and misguided C-level execs for their questionable campaigns and policy decisions frequently.

But their developer teams are different. They are professionals and care about putting out quality products. And they do AS LONG AS those marketing weenies and misguided C-level execs keep their grubby spiny fingers out of the code (and release dates).

So to your biased comments, (1) this thread is not about Defender so just another opportunistic, OT bash. And (2), even the Microsoft marketing weenies and misguided C-level execs hate bad publicity! Especially when not due.

So FOR SURE - because of all the hate and bias against Microsoft out there like yours, "IF" Defender was the lousy, untrustworthy security solution you believe and try to convince everyone else to believe it is, there would be 100s of millions of infected users out there, and 1000s and 1000s of bloggers and other's in the IT media constantly bashing MS for all those infected systems.

Where are they? They aren't there! Why? Because that is not happening. Why? Because Defender (or actually Windows Security) is a very capable security solution. Because TODAY, Microsoft can be trusted when it comes to Defender - despite your clearly unfounded and biased claims to the contrary.

And why? Because (1) the developers at Microsoft are professionals and care about the products they produce. And (2), because the marketing weenies and C-level execs don't want the constant, unfounded and biased bad publicity from biased MS haters like you.

Can we get back on topic again?

 

[lexluthermiester]

despite your clearly unfounded and biased claims to the contrary.

Just an FYI, microsoft's shenanigans are well known, well documented and some even admitted by them. Hardly unfounded. Quit defending corporate jackass behaviour.

Come on Lex! Your clear and obvious bias and hatred for Microsoft has bubbled up to the surface again - and it is that bias and hatred that makes you not want to trust it, but worse, tell everyone else they can't trust it. That's sad. Holding grudges like that takes up too much energy.

We are not getting into this debate yet again. You have your point of view, I have mine. Let's let it go.

 

[chrcoluk]

What does XP have to do with anything today, or this thread?


Actually, chrcoluk is right - kinda, sorta. When XP first came out, it had an integrated firewall, but it was disabled by default in part because many sites did not conform to industry standards and when the firewall was enabled, those sites were blocked by the firewall. And who got blamed by angry users? The sites for not conforming to industry standards? Nope. Microsoft got blamed.

So did users install the already established and respected ZoneAlarm Firewall? Some did (I did). But others just went on their merry way and got infested with viruses and worms by the bad guys. Did those users blame the bad guys? Nope. They blamed Microsoft.

So with XP "SP2", Microsoft enhanced the firewall and the UI and enabled it by default. But initially, it was for "incoming" data only - which "in theory" should be good enough. How could your computer send out malicious data if none got in. But the marketing weenies at ZA (later CheckPoint) and their fellow competitors and MS haters harped on the Windows Firewall incoming only capability, giving it a bad name - despite its effectiveness.

XP was already in the thread, I was responding to another post.

 

[Bill_Bright]

We are not getting into this debate yet again. You have your point of view, I have mine. Let's let it go.

And you are entitled to it. But spewing your biased opinion and hatred every time someone mentions Defender - even when Defender is not the topic, just makes no sense.

It is YOU who needs to let your hatred go - or at least keep it under control and bring it out only when applicable to the topic.

Trusting Microsoft has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread - which is, as a reminder,

Do you still use Antivirus software on your latest hardware?

Note nothing in that subject, nor the OP's opening post mentions any product by name or maker.

XP was already in the thread, I was responding to another post.

Yes, sorry. I meant to add a quote to what you were replying to but forgot. My bad. Again, sorry.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Trusting Microsoft has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of this thread - which is, as a reminder,
Note nothing in that subject, nor the OP's opening post mentions any product by name or maker.

As Windows Defender is actively tied into the mechanisms associated with user monitoring, it most certainly DOES have something to do with microsoft being untrustworthy, which is very specifically on topic as Defender is an AntiVirus/AntiMalware/Firewall service.

You have your point of view, I have mine. Let's let it go.

This.

 

[AVATARAT]

The web browsers use Java (installed or integrated in nvm) - the door is open.
Defender is the bare minimum, but it eats more resources than paid AV and they disable it.

If you can't figure that out, go ahead

 

[Veseleil]

The web browsers use Java (installed or integrated in nvm) - the door is open.
Defender is the bare minimum, but it eats more resources than paid AV and they disable it.

If you can't figure that out, go ahead

Browser shortcomings in the security sense are easy to deal with IMO. Ublock origin, Noscript and browser set to clear history and cookies at each exit, are flawlessly doing the work for me many, many years. And I visit a lot of sketchy sites, and even download bunch of stuff from there.

 

[Bill_Bright]

The web browsers use Java (installed or integrated in nvm) - the door is open.

Oh? Please show us any current version browser that "uses", let alone supports the use of Java - by default, without the user installing plug-ins or extensions, or making custom changes to the default settings.

I can't find any. Chromium based browsers don't so that includes Chrome, Opera, Brave, Vivaldi, Edge and more. Firefox no longer does. Safari does not either. Nor does Pale Moon.

which is very specifically on topic

Nonsense. Once again, the topic asks if people if they still use AV software on their latest hardware.

 

[lexluthermiester]

the topic asks if people if they still use AV software on their latest hardware.

...

as Defender is an AntiVirus/AntiMalware/Firewall service.

Hmmm.

 

[QuietBob]

Defender is the bare minimum, but it eats more resources than paid AV

I agree that Defender is enough for the typical user. For us techies there may be other, better suited options.

Defender certainly isn't the lightest solution in terms of performance, but some paid products have a bigger imapct.

The following data comes from AV Comparatives April 2025 Performance Test. Tested in Win11 on an undisclosed Core i3 CPU with 8 GB of RAM and an SSD:

From the same source, the impact on performance as measured by Procyon MS Office Productivity Benchmark:

 

[Bill_Bright]

I agree that Defender is enough for the typical user. For us techies there may be other, better suited options.

Why? How? What do techies do that makes them so much more vulnerable such that they need something that is "better suited" (whatever "better suited" means)?

Having been a formally trained and educated electronics technician supporting IS/IT hardware and secure networks professionally, as my sole career for 50+ years, why would I and people like me, or you, also as a self proclaimed techie, need something better suited?

Are you, as a techie, more careless than the "typical user"? Do you not know better than to keep your systems current? Do you not know you shouldn't be "click-happy" on unsolicited links, popups, downloads and attachments? Do you not know you should not be visiting illegal gambling or pornography sites? Do you not know you should be using a password manager instead of sticky notes attached to your monitor? Do you not know your wifi passphrase should not be your house number or dog's name?

The neighbors on both sides of me, and my non-techie friends and relatives who feel their computers should "just work", just like their toaster or microwave, know all that! Don't you, as a techie? My 94 year old aunt knew that.

And why not include in your screen shots the most important "Real-World Protection" Test? Since some here want to convince everyone else MS can't be trusted for anything, let alone to keep us and our computers safe and secure, don't you think that merits mention? From your own source, @QuietBob, even techies can see Microsoft scored in the top tier! This above Avast, AVG, F-Secure, Malwarebytes, Panda, Trend Micro and others - products that scored below Defender for either scoring below 99.1% protection rate, and/or had too many false positives. Why is that not worth mentioning?

It amazes me, and troubles me that people's obvious biases and hatred against anything MS (though maybe, for some, it is not obvious to themselves ) lead then to constantly single out and criticized MS and Defender (or Windows or Edge, or anything with the MS brand) as being untrustworthy or less suited when their own evidence shows otherwise.

Where are the millions and millions of Defender user complaining about being infected if Defender is so incapable of protecting them, as some here want everyone to believe? Please! Show us!

Or, just answer the topic's question - "Do you still use AV software?"

Don't others, besides me, find it ironic that some in this thread claim to be so clever, so advanced and experienced that they don't need AV while others, calling themselves techies, claim we all need something more advanced, better suited than Defender?

 

[Maxihell]

I tested few brand antivirus for many years myself but would say Malwarebytes far better. I also have NPE on my laptop just to scan once in a while since it's portable & quiet good too. For android i aint care much. Whatever the test shown on sites it not even real-world test. It is vary based on people PC which get infected. Some time need more than one tool to get the work done