Which antivirus is more complete?

[Siegfried]

Hi guys, which antivirus do you think is the best? On AV Comparatives they put K7 in first position but I don't know it. What do you think?

 

[theFOoL]

If anything... Windows Defender. Most IMO Are just a waste. So much unwanted add ons. Cleaners and such. Windows has all that

 

[Chomiq]

No AV will save you from the stupidity of the end user.

 

[Siegfried]

If anything... Windows Defender. Most IMO Are just a waste. So much unwanted add ons. Cleaners and such. Windows has all that

Really? Has Windows Defender become so efficient? Also check online browsing and tracking, adblock, popup blocker? Thank you.

 

[dirtyferret]

Really? Has Windows Defender become so efficient? Also check online browsing and tracking, adblock, popup blocker? Thank you.

you will find most people on here use Windows Defender (or possibly something like AVG free or Avast free) along with malwarebytes free and plenty of common sense

No AV will save you from the stupidity of the end user.

but the email from $%^1chase@45678chasesupport_.com says my bank account has been hacked and I should log in using their link to check on it

 

[A Computer Guy]

A lot are a complete pain in the butt. More specifically the ones that implement some kind of heuristics to "predict" the discovery of new viruses often results in a lot false positive matches. I can't tell you the number of hours wasted fighting corporate A/V that was deleting and or blocking programs I use daily because of bad algorithmic matches seemingly every few years.

Having said that I'm back to using Norton because it's giving me the least number for problems (but a lot of highly annoying popups) in the past year or so. Kaspersky was seemingly pretty good up until the point I discovered I couldn't turn off their silently installed HTTPS interception anymore and they had some kind of weblocking feature that was incompatible with Asus router admin interfaces. In prior years McAfee was always dog slow for me so I stopped using it all together.

The best antivirus I found is to simply unplug from the internet as much as possible. That doesn't require an installation or subscription yet.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Really? Has Windows Defender become so efficient?

Yes. But not just efficient, but effective too. More important than which anti-malware solution you use these days is just the fact you use one, keep it and your OS current, and you avoid being "click-happy" on every unsolicited link, popup, download, and attachment you see.

I like to say you don't need to drive around in an Abrams Battle Tank to be safe. You just need a fairly modern car that is properly maintain, and you need to drive defensively.

And for the record, it is no longer called Windows Defender, but instead is now "Microsoft Defender" and is part of "Windows Security".

Also check online browsing and tracking, adblock, popup blocker?

These are not functions of anti-malware programs. Any decent "real-time" anti-malware solution will monitor your drives for known and suspicious threats, and it will monitor your operating system "environment" (what is happening in real time in your system memory and processors) for incoming threats and "suspicious behavior".

Browsing, tracking, ad and popup blockers are typically browser functions. HOWEVER - should the browser (or you, the user, and ALWAYS weakest link in security) let something malicious slip through, the anti-malware solution should detect it. You start adding those extra functions into your primary security solution, forget about efficiencies. The program will start hogging system resources and bogging systems down.

What a lot of folks don't understand is how Microsoft was the key, instrumental driving force in gathering all the major players in the security industry (including government security agencies) together to team up against the bad guys. This consortium of anti-malware solution providers, both big and small, work together to share information and intelligence about existing and emerging security threats - in particular, zero day exploits. THIS IS CRTICAL! As soon as a new threat is discovered, which is often well before it is released in the wild, the ENTIRE anti-malware industry becomes aware of it so they can immediately and proactively adjust their code and/or update their signature/definition files to stop it in its tracks. This is precisely why it is less important which solution you use, but more that you use one - and keep it current.

And this is all because Microsoft announced way back with Windows 7 and Microsoft Security Essentials (because it became Windows Defender in W8/W10 and now Microsoft Defender) that they were going to share malware information with the rest of the world instead of hoarding it for themselves.

This is also one reason Windows is much more secure today and exactly why companies and corporate networks have become primary targets and individual, home PC attacks have dwindled compared to yesteryear.

So what is important here is to avoid letting past biases (and chronic Microsoft haters) cloud our perceptions and judgement. Microsoft is fully aware of the fact if they didn't protect our systems from malware, that the biased IT media and Microsoft haters would be relentless in their criticisms - just as they were for more than a decade after Windows XP - even though it was the badguys who created the horrible security situation, and the likes of Norton, McAfee, CA, TrendMicro, ZoneAlarm, BitDefender, Kaspersky, AVG, and the others who failed to stop them!

One last thing to ask yourself. What incentive do the likes of Norton, McAfee and the others have to rid the world of malware? If malware were to go away, all those companies would go out of business. But if malware went away, Microsoft would, on the other hand, stop getting blamed for the evil deeds of the bad guys, and the inadequacies of Norton, McAfee and the others who cried and whined and yelled "monopoly" to Congress and the EU when MS wanted to put A/V code in XP that it was their job to stop malware - a job they failed at catastrophically. Yes, back then, Microsoft was trying to rule the world - but that was then, not now.

 

[Double-Click]

I use Panda Dome (free) on my desktop and Windows Defender on laptop.
I'd use the former on both but they clamped down on # of devices you can use with the free version.

It's small footprint, un-intrusive and works well.

 

[bug]

If anything... Windows Defender. Most IMO Are just a waste. So much unwanted add ons. Cleaners and such. Windows has all that

It depends on what you use the computer for. If you do software development, Defender is a major PITA.
I use Avast, but not all its addons. My added security comes from running NoScript in browsers. Takes a bit of setting up, but not having random sites run scripts in your browser is much, much safer. Not to mention faster. That said, Avast without all its modules will still nag you quite a bit.

Popup blockers are built into all browsers these days. Some also include ad-blockers and for those that don't there's like a million plugins out there. Tracking I deal with by rejecting 3rd party cookies and telling the browser to keep cookies for no longer than 10 days. And enabling "do not track", even that's more of a hint to servers and can't be enforced.

 

[AusWolf]

If anything... Windows Defender. Most IMO Are just a waste. So much unwanted add ons. Cleaners and such. Windows has all that

I agree.

No AV will save you from the stupidity of the end user.

And this.

Also, AdBlock is a must-have.

 

[Bill_Bright]

If you do software development, Defender is a major PITA.

Nah! There are 10s of 1000s of software development companies, big and small, that use Microsoft Defender with no problems.

If you have problems, it most likely is one of your programs, or changes from the defaults, that is not complying with industry standards.

There are anecdotal reports out there citing exceptions for every solution. Exceptions don't make the rule.

If Avast works for you, then great! But that does not mean Defender (or any other solution) won't (or will) work great for others.

But, you claim Defender is a "major PITA", then in the same paragraph say,

My added security comes from running NoScript in browsers. Takes a bit of setting up, but not having random sites run scripts in your browser is much, much safer.

...which has absolutely nothing to do with Avast or Defender. This pretty much illustrates my point about allowing biases cloud perceptions and judgement.

Defender is already in there. It works. Give it a try. If you don't like it, try something else. I DON"T CARE! Just use something, keep it and the OS current, and don't be click-happy on unsolicited links.

That said, regardless your security solution of choice, it is always a good idea to have a second opinion and I typically recommend Malwarebytes Free for that. That said, ever since W7 with MSE, and now through W10/W11 with Defender, Malwarebytes has never found anything on the 5 computers here that Defender (or I) let through EXCEPT a couple "wanted" PUPs (Potentially Unwanted Programs).

 

[theFOoL]

If anyone here uses CCleaner I'd *B-slap them and say use freaking Windows storage settings idiot

 

[Solid State Soul ( SSS )]

I use Kaspersky internet security its been the highest rated av software forever, i also heard great things about Bitdefender, and bad things about Norton, specifically slowing down windows

 

[95Viper]

Let's stick to the topic.
Thank You.

 

[R-T-B]

If you do software development, Defender is a major PITA.

This. I cannot tell you the amount of times I've had Defender delete my fresh compiles before I kicked it entirely.

I now use nothing, and am fine. Don't advise this for most end users though.

Nah! There are 10s of 1000s of software development companies, big and small, that use Microsoft Defender with no problems.

They must know something I don't.

If you have problems, it most likely is one of your programs, or changes from the defaults, that is not complying with industry standards.

Nope. It's literally an astronomical sim, in dll form, for Kerbal Space Program.

Defender is sort of a menace to it, because it never lets anyone download it easily until about the first 100 users have "seen" the file. Friggin annoying.

 

[natr0n]

get ublock and click smartly

 

[ShiBDiB]

Also check online browsing and tracking

This is where the user needs to be aware/educated and use common sense. Windows Defender with some plugins on your browser (ublock or whatever) and you're fine.

As far as programming with defender, just create an exclusion folder. To turn the entire thing off is asinine and I question why you're doing any programming if that's your logic.

 

[freeagent]

I just use Defender and a plugin..

 

[theFOoL]

I mean the last time I used spybot was...
IDK ah ha. AVAST Lost there ways with all the crap they have added. True yes you can not do with their adds and just use the scan which still works by far better? Then Defender in some courses

 

[bug]

This. I cannot tell you the amount of times I've had Defender delete my fresh compiles before I kicked it entirely.

Can't say I've had that pleasure, but I avoid developing on Windows like the plague. WSL is the closest I will get. What annoys me (and it may not de Defender on its own, it could be IT policies) is that it insists on scanning every file you compile. I've seen colleagues run a build for 90 seconds or more, builds that would ran in under 30 seconds in my VM - same company-issued hardware. It helps if you exclude your project folders from Defender, but one of Defender's "features" is that it seems to have a mind on its own about whether it will respect excluded folders or not.

@Bill_Bright I think I've just described how Defender is a PITA. The bit about browser security I added because the OP asked for a comprehensive solution.

 

[Bill_Bright]

@Bill_Bright I think I've just described how Defender is a PITA.

For you, perhaps.

But 10s of millions, even 100s of millions of users use Microsoft Defender without even having to interact with it at all - except, maybe, to click on the notifications popup noting it successfully scanned their computers and found "0" issues.

For sure, there will ALWAYS be exceptions. But exceptions, especially anecdotal ones, don't make the rule for the masses.

I am not going to say you are wrong or pretend that Defender is the best thing since sliced bread. No solution is perfect and ALL have their own set of PITA idiosyncrasies that are a real PITA - for some.

But the thing about idiosyncrasies, regardless if talking about security programs, browsers of choice, OS of choice, word processors of choice, cell phones of choice, in-car infotainment centers of choice, [fill in the blank] of choice, is in the vast majority of times, it all boils down to what the user is used to. And that often depends on the patience of the user - their willingness to give something new (to them) a chance.

How many hated XP - until they got used to it?
How many hated W7 - until they got used to it?
How many hated W10 - until they got used to it?

How many hated their new TV's remote - until they got used to it?

How many hated their Apple cell phone - until they got used to it?
How many hated their Android phone - until they got used to it?

How many hated their email program - until they got used to it?

Even if you are correct, and for "some" developers, Defender is too much of a PITA for them to use, in the grand scheme of things, the number of developers worldwide are but a drop in the bucket among the total number of users.

All I am saying is, don't you pretend your security solution is the best thing since sliced bread either. At least not for everyone else. What is important is what I said above,

More important than which anti-malware solution you use these days is just the fact you use one, keep it and your OS current, and you avoid being "click-happy" on every unsolicited link, popup, download, and attachment you see.

Last, I think a shot of reality is needed here too. Micrsoft is a software development company with 100,000 software engineers. Does it make a modicum of sense, considering their available resources, they would develop a security program that was a PITA for their own developers?

Again, are their exceptions? Of course.

 

[A Computer Guy]

Last, I think a shot of reality is needed here too. Micrsoft is a software development company with 100,000 software engineers. Does it make a modicum of sense, considering their available resources, they would develop a security program that was a PITA for their own developers?

Again, are their exceptions? Of course.

In my years developing A/V interference with software development is a pretty common experience and when problems occur devs are inclined to turn A/V off and in some environments A/V never installed. Perhaps not an issue all the time (exceptions and what not) but in particular with aging development stacks and as security enhancements improve in Windows they tend to break older development stacks in some way. Whether it be the IDE's, debuggers, compilers, integrated features, or some wizbang kid creates a virus in an older dev stack that pushes A/V heuristics to false flag builds of software built with those older stacks - even those that had been digitally signed - now that's a real PITA.

When it comes to corporate policy never underestimate the ability for corporate to not resolve PITA's for their development. Often argements need to be made up the chain of command that money is being lost from PITA's before they are willing to have things "fixed". Having said that I wonder if those Microsoft Engineers actually do run Microsoft Defender in their development environments, where problems do occur, and if/how they escalate them up the chain to fix MS defender. There is nothing like "eating your own dogfood" to get things fixed quickly and correctly.

 

[bug]

Last, I think a shot of reality is needed here too. Micrsoft is a software development company with 100,000 software engineers. Does it make a modicum of sense, considering their available resources, they would develop a security program that was a PITA for their own developers?

Again, are their exceptions? Of course.

Unlike me, you're not talking about real-life experiences. You just apply logic to some generic assumptions.

Irl, Microsoft had no trouble acquiring RAV (which was routinely topping the charts in AV comparisons at the time) and turning it into OneLive (or something like that), which was almost always dead-last compared to anything else. They had to rebrand it to MSE and now Defender to escape the associated stigma.
So you see, while you'd assume they'd act sanely, they have enough money to just drop the ball sometimes and pay their way forward.

 

[Laurijan]

I personal setup is Avast Free (with lots of experience filtering and ignoring the spam ads it puts out) and Malwarebytes free

 

[bug]

I personal setup is Avast Free (with lots of experience filtering and ignoring the spam ads it puts out) and Malwarebytes free

Tbh, the best defense isn't the AV anyway, it's not downloading and running stuff from shady sources. Before Windows decided I must run an AV all the time, I wasn't doing that for years. I had it installed, but not running. Whenever I got something via BitTorrent or something like that, I would run a manual scan. Didn't catch a virus in 10+ years.