I honestly don't pay much attention to this stuff and have just now noticed Norton is my AV. Why is it bad?
Edit: Someone linked this. Looks like Norton is one of the top picks. Almost a perfect rating. In fact if I change it to Windows 7 - it is perfect.
This is a perfect example of Reddit, OP knows quite a lot about AV and most of the people know very little so his message becomes accepted as truth.
After almost 20 years in the AV industry I can tell that the list is not bad, but it's nowhere near accurate. Especially the protection level estimates are not very accurate. http://www.av-comparatives.org and https://www.av-test.org/en/ are good starting points to form your own opinion.
If you'd like to get an invite to a beta group for an AV, mostly production quality, often better since we can fix bugs faster, drop me a PM. You can also go to beta.f-secure.com and apply directly, but it might take a while to get in unless you PM me.
Defender's pretty bad; speaking as a IT consultant, 80%~ of viruses I encounter in the wild slip right past it.
Edit: Wow, some very butt-hurt people. See Independent tests where it gets the bottom-grade; and various articles on it's poor quality.
Edit 2: I don't give a damn about karma; but I am curious why I'm getting so many downvotes even after citing my claims. Are people so invested in Windows Defender that they can't entertain the possibility it might be bad? Or have I offended some sensibilities?
You are confusing anti malware and anti virus. They are two different things. And both arguably vital. Plus your advice is a little off. Although windows av has improved, better (and still free) AV is available. I'd recommend Avast, but research your own if you prefer, lots of independent comparisons.
According to AV-Comparatives June 2015 real-world protection results (pdf) Kaspersky and Bitdefender are #2 and #3 of the best performing antivirus software currently available with 99.8% and 99.7% detection rates respectively. Avast isn't doing too bad with 98.8% at #9. I'd hardly call that "failing miserably". In AV-test.org comparison both Kaspersky and Bitdefender got a perfect score.
The reason why Spyshelter and Comodo do so well in OP's tests is because they warn about practically everything, they have huge amounts of false positives (for example comodo has been known to give several warnings upon opening notepad). An unexperienced user has no way of knowing what is actually malware and what is not, which easily leads you to click "allow" on everything by default.
The one security suite that is actually failing miserably is Windows Defender, which came dead last in both tests.
>der braucht extra Schutz,
Nö. Im aktuellen Test bekommt der Windows Defender volle Punktzahl bei der Schutzwirkung. Abzüge gab es lediglich bei der Performance und Usability.
Defender has also been consistently ranked dead last by AVTest, which doesn't rely on advertiser money like PC Mag.
It just doesn't detect as much malware as other AV products.
Source? Everyone always says this but no one actually provides evidence.
(i use ESET fyi)
EDIT:
from below
I use Kasperky Internet Security 2015, which your list said impacts performance badly. The second site /u/jusu linked literally gave it an award for being the best consumer antivirus for not impacting performance. And from personal experience, I have it running right now and it's using 0% CPU and less than 100 MB of RAM. As for detection, the same site gives it top marks. Finally, I have not noticed particularly long updates. It does frequently tell me that it had trouble updating, and I have to go in and manually press the "get updates" button, whereupon it updates and doesn't give me any more trouble. All of this for $4 per PC protected per year. Throw in some common sense and you've got an all-around excellent security solution.
Finally, someone here is using actual data instead of opinions. Here's another independent testing company.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-7/
While there are a number of strong performers, and everyone has their favorite. One thing for certain is that Windows Defender and MSE rank dead last in protection. Check the previous tests and you will see this is a consistent result.
Note: If you use Windows 8 or XP, click on the relevant link to see testing results for your version of Windows.
Actually, Windows Defender was pretty good 2-3 years ago, but has really fallen behind.
It's dead last here:
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/privat-windows/
And I'm sure if you google for other tests, the results will be similar.
Hello, how is 2005 treating you?
Norton these days is a better AV than what it used to be. It used to be a resource hogging bitch that wasn't good in detecting anything.
See https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/ and http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php.
Windows Defender has made a lot of progress over the years. Microsoft improved its usability and track record on dealing with Zero-day threats. Also, System Center Endpoint Protection (Microsoft's Enterprise Anti-Virus) uses the same technology, so your basically getting enterprise support for free.
Read a couple of independent AV reviewers - https://www.av-test.org/en/ for instance. They will say which is good at what etc.
I personally think 360, Avira are pretty good.
I wouldn't recommend no AV; well those who say they don't have any AV installed and claim they never had a virus... well. If you're a malware designer would you wanna be obvious to the user?
As it's been sort of a weekly topic around BAP:
No big deal. For one, every respectable AV suite (including Windows Defender) has a very high detection rate. More importantly, keeping your software updated, in particular your web browser and OS, comprises nearly the totality of protection you need. It's not just AV companies that are concerned about security, but all the people and companies that make your individual software programs and websites you see. Ensuring your protection keeps their reputation intact. Active AV protection mostly just gets in their way trying to maintain their own security solutions, not to mention degrades your machine's performance. Add common sense and you're exceeding unlikely to ever get infected.
Windows Defender is fine in the sense that it's built into the OS, which means security solutions implemented by everyone the world over are already accounting for its presence (as opposed to third-party AV software), and most of its performance penalty is in shuffling files around: if you're not copying files around between drives constantly, you should barely notice it.
You absolutely still want an AV handy to manually scan downloadables.
According to these tests - https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
Protection is one of the worst.
And these performance tests - http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/avc_per_201604_en.pdf
Page 10: 2nd worst on the performance.
tl;dr bad on performance, bad on finding threats on your PC.
Personally I use ESET NOD32, 2nd best in terms of performance and quite good at detecting, and has proved itself for years now. Also is priced very fairly, especially if you are a student, then you get like 50% off. Obviously no ads, no popups, sleek and simple interface, automated gaming mode whenever you launch a game, even when you launch a Twitch stream or youtube video in full screen.
You realize that Security Essentials gets ranked at the bottom of the heap in protection by far. It's so far outside the norm (0.5 stars), that it ranks a full 2.5 stars behind the next closest protection from "Threat Track", and 4 stars below a popular virus protection. Security Essentials is god awful.
And before you claim how fast it is, it's slower than many other virus protection apps as well, and is somewhere around average.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-7/
And on Windows 8 the performance is even worse than Windows 7.
Why would you assume that a core Windows program that's now getting tons of updates and easily competes with paid antiviruses (according to av-test.org) would be garbage forever? It's not perfect, but at least they started working on it.
And a Google search backs up my observations.
And do you have a better solution–as a professional–to finding out whether an anti-virus program has detected a virus than checking it's logs?
I struggle to think of one, but I may not be as capable as you are... Lol
Just uninstall the virus..
Windows built in anti-virus is as good as any commercial option:
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
And without ads that most "free" AV packages, and without being a CPU hog.
All the previously good free antivirus software have become bloated with ads.
http://www.howtogeek.com/218675/beware-free-antivirus-isnt-really-free-anymore/
Free Bitdefender doesn't have ads but doesn't have real-time protection, which is the main reason why I would use an AV anyway. I supplement AVs with general malware scanners like Malwarebytes or SAS.
http://www.bitdefender.com/support/bitdefender-free-edition-549.html
Another free AV without ads is Windows Defender (previously MSE) but its protection is not great compared to other AVs out there.
https://www.av-test.org/en/compare-manufacturer-results/
When it comes to paid AVs, ESET NOD32 and Kaspersky have a very good reputation. I rarely hear bad things about them and are often recommended on other forums.
As far as protection goes its tied for 1st place with the other big names, overall it's ranked I think at #7 due to performance, it slows apps down. https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
It is literally one of the highest rated AV.
Their labs are (were) crucial in virus testing.
I understand this is changed because of their connection to the government. But it doesn't rewrite history. People used them because the product was good.
It used to be good. Quoting from its wikipedia page:
>It secured AV-TEST certification on October 2009, having demonstrated its ability to eliminate all widely encountered malware.
But then declined in quality:
>it lost the certificate on October 2012, having shown a constant decline in protection and repair scores. In June 2013, MSE achieved the lowest possible protection score, zero.
The newest tests from AV-Test.org ranks it the lowest with a score of 0.5/6.0 in protection. (Windows Defender in their tests as that is the equivalent of MSE for Windows 8 and up).
Seriously, people keep reccomending Windows defender but it is horrible when it comes to protection.
It regularily scores 0,5/6 over at av-test.org, people should not use it.
Also some general advise on AVs, when people say "I've never had a virus" that basically means "My AV never found a virus". This isn't the 90's where malware was all flashy and you got a small bomb on your PC, a trojan or a rootkit will make sure that you'll not notice it for example.
(Sorry for the bolding but this is a serious issue).
Edit: And as per usual that gets downvoted..
> I've had Windows defender off for about 4 years or so
Turn it back on ;)
Windows Defender is one of the best AVs out there (it's come a LONG way since the early implementations), and it can automatically scan and prevent lots of stuff. You can explicitly scan if you suspect something, but in general, everything downloaded automatically gets flagged for extra scrutiny these days anyways.
https://www.techspot.com/news/81396-windows-defender-ranked-joint-best-antivirus-program.html
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/ - for the latest ratings
There were a few other independent rankings too that it topped around the same time, but I forget those.
Recently it looks like there's been some AdWords buys by a bunch of people looking to make a buck selling Norton and BitDefender - but if you look at the arguments against, a bunch of it is nonsense...
Have you tried it recently? Antivirus testing companies give it an almost perfect score. After having bad experiences with avg, kaspersky, and bitdefender I tried Norton and have been generally happy with it for a little over a year now. It has a pretty shitty reputation as well but besides the toolbar plugins it bugs you about its pretty slim, fast, and effective.
Source https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-8/
Edit For the record Im only wondering. I haven't used mcafee in over a decade, so I have no bias either way.
there is a german company called av-test. they do frequent tests of all better known AV applications. you could check out there current ranking. https://www.av-test.org/en/compare-manufacturer-results/
greets from magdeburg, Germany. the home of av-test :P
I've heard that from other consultants too; but it is genuinely my experience. I deal mostly with the domestic side, so perhaps it's a difference of environments; maybe Microsoft focuses on business-grade threats.
In any case, I've certainly found it to be a thing. I often expose a clean virtual machine image to novel viruses I find in the wild, to test anti-virus capabilities; more often than not Defender misses them.
Edit: Nope, even in business environments it sucks. I suppose arguments that it doesn't are either anecdotal or bias.
The best option is to delete McAfee and use windows defender instead. Windows defender got full points in the most recent test by av-test here. I use windows defender and never had a problem with malware, or the output folder being deleted.
It can come in with any attack vector, not just shady sites/material. Especially since it's the worst at detecting viruses
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/
MSE catches almost nothing. It's basic and does not offer many options. MSE is a joke
You wanted a source? Here is one: http://www.howtogeek.com/173291/goodbye-microsoft-security-essentials-microsoft-now-recommends-you-use-a-third-party-antivirus/
And here is a ranking of AV solutions: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-7/august-2015/
Really? According to this report by AV-Test (an independent security agency) Windows Defender is still just as effective as its competitors. The advantage of Windows Defender in my opinion is that it doesn't slow your computer down or mess with the network settings, as I've seen some antivirus programs do during my job as IT support at my university.
Independent testing of AV products show most detect 99%+ of KNOWN malware. It's the 0-day that is much more difficult. https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
Most users will be running into known malware, if they run into anything.
I completely agree with you about Noscript and add to it the importance of running an adblocker because Ads are well known to serve malware to otherwise safe sites.
Either way it's not a competent enough antivirus to be used on its own. In every performance review, Windows Defender had the poorest protection of all other tested AVs out there, both free and paid.
I haven't been keeping up with AV news lately, but a while back I read a test where essentials came out as the best of the free AVs.
Windows 10 Anti-virus is Windows Defender ( based on Microsoft Security Essentials). check the latest tests for how well it does. https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/business-windows-client/
Careful guy, you don't have to use McAfee, but Defender has consistently ranked dead last in third party tests, by a wide margin, in malware detection.
Ya, that's not always the case here on reddit. This is one of the replies on the OP:
>This is a perfect example of Reddit, OP knows quite a lot about AV and most of the people know very little so his message becomes accepted as truth. After almost 20 years in the AV industry I can tell that the list is not bad, but it's nowhere near accurate. Especially the protection level estimates are not very accurate. http://www.av-comparatives.org[1] and https://www.av-test.org/en/[2] are good starting points to form your own opinion. If you'd like to get an invite to a beta group for an AV, mostly production quality, often better since we can fix bugs faster, drop me a PM. You can also go to beta.f-secure.com and apply directly, but it might take a while to get in unless you PM me.
Windows Defender has a detection rate of 99,3% in the most recent test and scores full points in usability, performance and protection which is pretty good for a free product.
Remembering from a few years of script kiddie knowledge:
When using free FUD crypters (makes known malware undetected for anti-virus engines), or paying for private FUD crypters (custom made, paid), Avira Heuristics on "High" settings was always the most difficult to pass. I don't know if it's still the case. It was 5 years ago. FUD Crypter developers and malware developers used services that have the most common AV-Engines alltogether and tested their new creations against a list of at least 10-20 AV engines, on "High" heuristics settings.
Here are two bodies that independently test AV Engines:
Really not familiar with it. I don't think MSE is available in Windows 10, there is only Windows Defender.
Avira tests well against other AV. Windows Defender doesn't do well in the protection category, not just on that site but I've seen it mentioned elsewhere too.
As far as I know, MSE has gone downhill lately. Try Avast, AVG, or Bitdefender.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-7/
Av-test agrees with me.
EDIT: And then milkofthedog comes in with a quality post. Also yes, props to anything Sophos. They have a good Android AV, too.
Personally I live with just Windows Defender and a manually triggered MalwareBytes scan every week or 2.
I'm quite cautious and I don't really do anything risky so am probably less likely to get a virus than some. I might consider a separate AV if I displayed more risky behaviour (torrenting and such like) as Windows Defender apparently has a poor detection rate these days in some tests, e.g.,
https://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
Avira Pro, BitDefender and Kaspersky seem to win overall in that last link (although that's form Win 8/8.1 not 10)
Normalerweise reicht der Windows Defender. Windows hat hier in letzter Zeit deutlich aufgeholt. Ansonsten finde ich diesen Link sehr hilfreich:
https://www.av-test.org/de/antivirus/privat-windows/
Nachtrag: Das Für und Wider muss jeder für sich selbst abwägen. Ansonsten ergänzend als Denkanstoß:
I don't understand why people constantly recommend defender when it's consistently rated by 3rd party testers as one of the worse AVs for protection. The only real benefit that Defender has is that it is invisible to the user.
Was wondering if it really was that bad. Was kinda shocked to see that the protection score it got was 0.5/6.0 on AV-test.org. But on closer look it still has 80-90% detection rate, so at the very least it's better than not having anything installed or having an expired antivirus program that will stop updating the virus definitions...
With all due respect, that's not an empirical source.
These 2 sources says otherwise:
https://www.av-test.org/en/compare-manufacturer-results/ http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/avc_prot_2015a_en.pdf (look under Summary Result).
Ciao, sicuramente è successo qualcosa.
Innazitutto ti consiglio di disinstallare Malwarebytes. Microsoft Defender (il nuovo nome per Windows Defender) è assolutamente eccellente come dimostrano i test effettuati sui migliori servizi antivirus. Come puoi vedere dai test di AV-Test infatti, Microsoft Defender ha ottenuto i risultati migliori rilevando il 100% delle più di 20000 minacce testate. https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/june-2021/microsoft-defender-4.18-211316/
Fatto questo vedi se la situazione cambia. Dovresti anche, se non l'hai già fatto, aggiornare Windows. Se hai appena installato il sistema è sicuramente quello il problema, ma comunque è meglio farlo sempre.
Se non riesci comunque a risolvere il problema ti consiglio di contattare il supporto ufficiale Microsoft. Se vuoi scrivermi in privato ti posso comunque dare una mano volentieri.
Spero di averi aiutato.
It was. But it's actually on par with the top anti-virus according to av-test.org. Do what you want of that info.
Most free antivirus is going to be fine. If you're actively engaging in risky behavior, software torrenting for example, then having some redundancy and applying good practices is required.
e.g. Run something like Avast + Malwarebytes together. Don't pick bobstorrentserver.cn and shit too.
Realistically you're biggest issue will be getting caught by your ISP.
Windows 10's integrated virus scanner usually scores equal to or better than a lot of free stuff out there.
You can see reviews at this site: https://www.av-test.org/en/.
MS is currently middle/low of the pack but has been upper levels in other months. Just depends on the threats and updates going on.
Meh. I mean, it does its job without bothering you, but regarding detection rates it's still quite a bit behind the solutions from specialized companies, well at least the better ones.
https://techtalk.pcpitstop.com/2017/04/10/detection-rates-revealed/
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
As far as I've read the main difference appears to be with behavioral analysis, i.e. other programs are much more likely to catch new viruses, that haven't been cataloged yet.
So not using a dedicated antivirus (and decent free ones are out there, I personally recommend avira) means indeed giving up a bit of security. Depending on what you do on the computer and how bad it would be if someone got your data, it can however be worth it.
Yep, because nortons detection rate is actually excellent and it's easy to use. The biggest complaint against norton is that it's a resource hog (which av-test does show, if you had actually bothered to check the test results.)
When was the last time you actually used Norton Security? Or did you just choose to jump on the "but norton is shit" bandwagon? I like to shit on symantec as much as the next guy in the sysadmin field but their virus/malware detection has always been really good (their threat DB along with mcafees is actually a good research point if you want to remove malware manually).
The software itself is a piece of shit, at least it was the last time I used it, but it's a pretty capable piece of shit.
And honestly, performance isn't the biggest factor anymore. Personally I don't care about AV software at all. I'd much rather use an adblocker, smartscreen/defender and common sense. But when it comes to my mom's pc (or a similar scenario) performance actually doesn't matter as much as it did 10 years ago. I want something that alerts and logs as much as possible, even it that means dealing with Norton. And unless you are on 5 to 10 year old machine the performance impact doesn't matter that much (depending on hardware and usage scenarios of course).
I've ran with Sophos Home for several months now, and it has worked great for me. It's also available for free on up to 10 devices and allows you to do remote management of said devices via a web console. It allows me to also manage my dad's PC security software remotely without having to drive an hour.
It doesn't appear in AV-Test, but it uses the same tech as their corporate product, which does appear: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/business-windows-client/windows-8/june-2016/sophos-endpoint-security-and-control-10.6-162302/
Windows Defender is consistently rated by 3rd party testers as one of the worst AVs when it comes to protection. The only real benefit Defender has over the others is how hidden it is to the end user.
AV-Test (https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/) is a site I love because they not only measure the effectiveness of the antivirus but realtime performance hits by various antiviruses (it's also good because you can point to this to avoid personal experiences of people who will claim they have the ultimate knowledge of how good one antivirus is because it gave them an error one time and they uninstalled it immediately). I used to use Avast exclusively but I noticed applications taking quite a bit longer to launch after a while so I removed it and my PC felt like a fresh install. Installed bitdefender and there was no performance hit. I believe only Bitdefender, Avira, McAfee and Kaspersky score a perfect score on AV-test for 0 seconds measured impact on performance (when not scanning, so running in the background, funny how Kaspersky is considered non-impactful for performance now, it used to be the worst in that regard 10 years ago or so), so those are the only ones I'd use. I really don't want my antivirus to affect my performance, even if it means it'll catch 95% of common viruses instead of 93%.
The easiest way is probably to create a live usb system with persistence and install an antivirus of your choice. Here's something to read: https://www.av-test.org/en/news/news-single-view/linux-16-security-packages-against-windows-and-linux-malware-put-to-the-test/
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/ look at Microsoft defender, it's been at the top for the last couple of years now. it's free and it works.
So ein Humbug. Windows Defender ist schon seit Ewigkeiten exzellent und übrigens in den meisten Fällen auch marginal schneller als BitDefender.
https://www.av-test.org/de/antivirus/privat-windows/
"Experten" Tipps mit dem Antivirus rumzufummeln gehören ins vorletzte Jahrzehnt.
Built-in Windows Defender and your common sense are usually sufficient imo
Maybe some Anti-exploit but I don't know any free ones.
Other than that, you could check out the latest AV-Test.
If your laptop is laggy, it might be good to uninstall any programs you don't need and see if something is running in the background (via task manager). Ideally you'd format your laptop and reinstall Windows or alternatively use the Fresh Start option in settings.
Avast/AVG is bloated software that slows down your computer, and they sell your browsing info to marketers. You DO NOT NEED a 3rd-party antivirus with Windows 10. Windows Defender is a top-rated antivirus suite, so just use that + uBlock Origin on your browser(s) and you'll be good to go.
Well then you have no idea what you're talking about. Defender holds it's own when compared to the top AV applications: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
I really think the people talking about "common sense" aren't contributing to this discussion at all. OP isn't asking for life advice, he's asking for the best free antivirus.
According to these tests, Bitdefender seems to be the best choice.
I'd go with Bitdefender and Malwarebytes if I had to make a choice.
u/knightmares-'s observation is sound.
To confirm, check what's most effective for the last month or several months and be surprised at where defender scores. Sort:
* AV-Comparatives by value (as in effectiveness), be wary of false positives (orange line).
* AV-Test by protection (also performance).
Maybe install Malwarebytes Pro.
Also check that all 3 backup plans are functional so you can pull infected systems for post-breach analysis, while restoring and remaining operational.
Check what's most effective for the last month or several months. Sort:
* AV-Comparatives by value, be wary of false positives (orange line).
* AV-Test by protection and/or performance.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/
Paid and free AVs have the same detection engines. Windows Defender is second bottom.
This comment will likely get downvoted as it always does, becase Windows Defender being good is one of those myths that people hang on to for dear life.
That's when it's working properly. When it isn't working properly, it has common bugs that make it eat CPU and/or hard drive bandwidth.
You should always run a good free AV. You are not God, your common sense is not infallible. Neither are browser extensions. Not all malware makes itself obvious.
I've been an IT technician for 20 years. People who rely on their common sense fill my business account, monthly. Most of the machines I have to clean are "protected" by Windows Defender. Curiously, when I put a decent free AV on there, they tend not to come back with viruses. If the customer doesn't let me put one on, they're normally back a month or two later.
Here's February 2017 from a different comparative site. Real-world tests, Feb 2017:
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php
Windows Defender second bottom when it comes to protection, again.
Performance tests:
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php?chart=chart4&year=2016&month=10&sort=0 Windows Defender is the worst in class.
tl;dr - use a better free AV for better protection and better performance. Common sense is good but not infallible.
No, no, no.
This is one thing that Reddit is wrong about. Windows Defender is sub par.
It's not even the lightest on system resources. You can check out av comparative tests for proof. It comes bottom or nearly bottom in every category.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/
And before someone chimes in with "common sense" - that's how you get infected with trojans that silently collect your credit card details and banking logins.
> In many Linux forums, the freeware products from Comodo, ClamAV and F-Prot are recommended for private users. That is not good advice, however.
Maybe they're right.
Because the others do a better job. Windows defender scores a 3 out of 6 in Protection, 5 out of 6 in Performance, and 5.5 out of 6 in Usability by AV-TEST. It scored an 88% in real world testing against zero-day threats and 99.8 against widespread and prevalent malware.
Meanwhile BitDefender for example scores 6 out of 6 in all categories. It scored 100% on real world testing against zero-day threats and widespread and prevalent malware.
Avira, BitDefender, Kaspersky, Norton, and Trend Micro all got Top Pick while Windows Defender didn't. Most of these use less resources while running and all of them do the actual job of virus and malware protection better. I don't know about all of them, but I know BitDefender is free unless you want extra features that aren't necessary for most home users. Seems pretty worth it to me.
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/
I use Avira, one of the best if not the best (free) anti-virus, no worse than Bitdefender and Kaspersky which are not free. It's very lightweight, highly accurate, and has very very few false positives. You can check the latest tests by the above two independent organisations.
Malwarebytes is not an antivirus.
>Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is not meant to be a replacement for antivirus software. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware is a complementary but essential program which detects and removes zero-day malware and "Malware in the Wild".
and looking here https://www.av-test.org/en/compare-manufacturer-results/
I'd not go with Microsoft Security Essentials.
i would say unless you re running a big company (and this is most for throubleshooting if something goes wrong) or you have tons of really important information on your pc (you should not have there, external hdd is your best bet) windows defender is well well enough keeping your system virus free. i really dont see a point paying 40€ a year for that antivirus since windows defender with some help from free malwarebytes or similar program is well enough.
https://www.av-test.org/en/?r=1
on av test it reaches same lvls as others paid options. soo again i dont see a point into paying some 3rd party antivirus options. as long as you have your windows up to date ofc!
The PC security channel is good for newbies if it comes down to AV. But if you are looking for serious recommendations than you better do the research yourself. Why?
He only tests the programms on DEFAULT options. Meaning for most of the AV there is a high fail chance because they are built to not be intrusive and rely heavily on the user having a brain. If you are more advanced tweaking the AV program for example avast makes for a pretty damn good free protection.
The dude works for a AV company and is not neutral sadly. He also only uses simple and short testing methods.
most AV programs come down to your personal preferences. Like previously said if you are not a newbie than Windows Defender should be more as enough.
So in conclusion trying isn't good to really recommend a certain AV. The best is to say that one needs to do his own research and see for himself. I've used "AVAST!" free version for a pretty long time and for me as a lazy slack I like having the option to look for updates of 7zip or VLC it's handy and i can also freely see and tweak how strict the AV searches for threads and how to deal with it. If i had it on DEFAULT i would agree it's not "THE BEST" AV option.
https://www.av-test.org/antivirus/privat-windows/windows-10/februar-2019/ This is pretty reliable and also more recent. If tests even matter more to you, because everyone does it differently.
Ugh and yes while AVAST!, Kaspersky and Bitdefender are pretty neat they come with your traditional spyware. And if you call me out on this, read their privacy policy or data conclusions. It's not enough to opt out of analytics sharing.
Of course Dell does. They get steep discounts or straight up get paid for letting vendors (in this case McAfee) install their bloatware that is usually more disruptive than a virus. It's how Dell maximizes profits on their consumer market segment machines by helping to offset hardware and software costs.
If you really want actual 3rd party independent test results, look here before you drop money on McAfee.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/august-2018/
In most cases you are better off putting that money towards a backup solution first though since the number of zero day exploits are always increasing and you are likely the weakest link in the security of your computer.
Windows defender increased its detection and performance pretty good and better than the most paid antiviruses. These pre installed antiviruses got installed because the antivirus creator paid the seller that he installs his antivirus on it. With pre installed I do not mean the windows defender. I would say that defender is better than it, here is a test for windows defender: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/business-windows-client/windows-10/february-2018/microsoft-windows-defender-antivirus-4.12-180674/ . Im sorry for my bad english :/
It's within spitting distance of top rated antiviruses and scored 100% on the 0day tests for April. I'd say it's good enough.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/ for the ratings for home use. I wouldn't say it's good enough for corporate use however.
according to statistics (i forgot one of the links), back in 2003 there were 60000 viruses for windows and ~85 summed up between mac (~40), propietary unixes (~5), and linux (~40).
in 2009 it was said that there were 700-800 viruses for linux.
and in 2016-Q1 2017 with 2015 comparisons there were 127.5 millions of malware detected on 2016, and 600 million windows virus samples.
EDIT: that 85 is not an absolute amount of viruses.
EDIT 2: added a list of linux malwares (not exhaustive). the list is in the "threats" section of the page.
I'd say it holds up pretty well against paid AV:
Although it has a rather high false positive count, the protection seems adequate. It also has a high "user-dependent" percentage at av-comparatives. This basically means defender pop-ups with a warning window, allowing you to quarantine or close a program vs allowing it to execute and do whatever action its blocking.
My guess is that the inclusion of exploit mitigation has caused this improvement. I'd say that its good enough if you're a power user, but kinda falls short when you're not. A average user might not know what to do with false positives or securty alerts.
> Detection of Windows malware [..] Alarmingly feeble are the results of Dr. Web with 67.8%, F-Prot with 22.1% and ClamAV with only 15.3%!
This post has a petty good recent summary of the Antivirus market. Avira is pretty good for being free.
Bitdefender, eset nod32 or Kaspersky IS are all really good, but you have to pay for them. They are not too expensive though.
Honorable mention for Malwarebytes since it is a great tool, but that doesn't help until you already have an infection.
Symantec took first place during the annual poll of SANS Security Practitioners 2015. SANS has some of the most highly sought after security training/certification in the world and they chose SEP as their preferred endpoint protection platform. This speaks volumes for Symantec. IMO
https://www.sans.org/critical-security-controls/best-of-awards
Symantec took first place this here also. No small feat.
https://www.av-test.org/en/award/2015/best-protection-symantec/
Never used ESET, but I can say Symantec has been solid for us.
>Lo and behold a few minutes later windows defender detected this gem. Yes, i only have defender, been using pcs long enough to know the best antivirus is a brain.
Windows Defender has the lowest protection rate of any AV software[1]. So let's say a hacker found an exploit in Dota 2 and was able to deliver payloads to spectators. Do you actually believe that such a sophisticated attack would be picked up by the worst antivirus software in existence? Not to mention the fact that everyone on Windows would have Windows Defender or something better. If you have a functioning brain then you should know better than to trust Windows Defender to protect your system.
Get a better AV for active protection. Then get something like MalwareBytes or HitmanPro for on-demand scanning only. HitmanPro has a free trial period, and I would recommend you download that ASAP because if WIndows Defender detected something there is probably a bunch of other malware that wasn't detected. You can refer to av-test.org to pick a higher rated AV program.
[1] https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-10/
ESET is pretty good, not the very best but it does a good job.
This site does some very nice comparisons quite regularly.
Reddit has a bit of a love for the Microsoft Windows Defender but it often falls short in actual protection tests.
Although Defender isn't up to par with the best free anti-virus software out there in regards to protection - it is generally adequate. I'd personally move away from Avast as it is pretty "aggressive" and has caused some people issues with Windows 10 - it is also a bit of a resource hog. See here for a good and current AV software review.
I found it super interesting how these actually work. AV-Test.org did a short write-up on an analysis of some similar viruses : https://www.av-test.org/fileadmin/pdf/av-test_2016-02_locky_cryptolocker_analysis.pdf
99% of the AV-TEST reference set and 95% of 0-day is not bad at all. It used to be much worse, so it sounds like Microsoft has gotten on the ball. Good!
There are a few sites that do tests on various antivirus products and publish the results. Here's a couple of them: -
http://www.av-comparatives.org/
However, neither of them have tested Windows Defender in Windows 10 yet - only earlier versions of Windows. I know AV-Test is going to include it in their testing starting soon though.
To add to what /u/uid_0 said, insecure browser plugins are another point of weakness, particularly Java and Flash. Just yesterday, yet another vulnerability was reported in the very latest version of Flash, for instance. I can't remember the last time I used a website that required Java, so I haven't even installed it, but if you do need to install Java and/or Flash, you can change the settings to "Ask to activate", then, for example, when you visit a web page with a Flash object on it, your browser will ask you if you want to allow the Flash plugin to load, rather than it just loading up automatically. In the popular browsers, you can choose to remember your choice on a per-site basis.
> and confirmed as overly decent.
Except, no, it's not. It's been failing AV tests consistently for several years. The last good score it has had was back in 2010.
Turn off hibernation if you don't use it. This will eliminate the considerable hiberfil.sys disk usage.
Press Windows Key > type disk > run Disk Cleanup as administrator. Uncheck the Downloads folder if you've got stuff in there you want to keep. Check the More Options tab for - you guessed it - more things you can remove.
Go to Settings > Update & Security > Delivery Optimization and turn it off.
Uninstall Avast. Defender is just as good, and Avast is just taking up space.
Try WizTree to see exactly what is using hard drive space.
I would recommend using Windows Defender. It's consistently passed AV-Test's benchmarks with high scores for years at this point. You can find the actual results for Windows on AV-Test.org:
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
Just to note, I'm not dissing your AV software, just mentioning that Windows Defender is both baked into Windows and has consistently been leading the pack in terms of AV security for a long time, as verified by an independent, German-based research institute.
Ah, YouTube. I hear you can also learn about the Flat Earth, Covid-19 transmitted by 5G EM, and Venezuelan malware in voting machines.
That Defender video is a year old. Also, running pre-loaded malware from an elevated command window in a VM isn't exactly a real-world test.
Avast used to be great 10 years ago. Now they sell your personal information and push a lot of bloatware. Registry cleaner? Really?
Here are the latest test results - https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
It might be worth mentioning to your organizations that while its okay to pay AV vendors for 3rd party security, the free AV, Microsoft Defender, that comes with the Windows 10 OS actually outperforms just about every 3rd party AV. You may find that you are spending a stack of effort installing and maintaining Avast when you are just turning off a better AV that doesn't tend to have additional integration problems like every 3rd party AV does.
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
You might find a lot of websites that poo-poo Windows Defender, but keep in mind who sponsors those websites. Computer security is all about fear, uncertainty and doubt, and businesses like Norton/Symantec have traditionally been the biggest proponent of FUD - they aren't here to help you, they are just there to pry money from you in exchange for ineffective security products.
Discover card could have been skimmed They made a copy and went around town buying stuff. This is a HUGE problem where I live.
The other ones seem fine and nothing to worry. It sounds like they did NOT get in if your account is locked. I'd call those services and verify with them recent logins and IP addresses. Make sure nothing is out of the ordinary. An account somewhere else might have been compromised so the bad actors are just spraying websites. Check haveibeenpwned.com to see if your email is in any known data breaches.
2FA your accounts. Avoid SMS if it is an option. Start using Google Pay, Samsung Pay, Apple Pay, whatever when making purchases. Especially at terminals (such as gas stations) that are unattended. Due to my areas rampant skimming problem, which are always found at gas stations, I only go to stations that support Google Pay at the pump.
​
It could be the computer/phone too. Whatever you use to access your bank accounts. Never use your password managers browser plugin. When you "copy" your password everything has access to read this. It could be a key logger but I'd imagine that they'd wait to be 100% successful before they get locked out.
Anti-Virus won't always save you. If you are willing to pay for one (If you are on Windows, Defender is plenty good) make sure it's a top product. https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/
​
It is also ideal to use banking stuff only on one device that is only used for that signal task.
Man, I remember not that long ago when defender was so poorly ranked it was all you could do to figure out a way to disable it.
Sure looks like they’ve turned this product around:
Good on them!
I know there’s some talk from browser manufacturers that say running without av may be the safest way to roll, but I’m curious if windows defender operates differently than other antivirus and doesn’t invite the same vulnerabilities as the rest.
Yeah well, if they're bribing their way through then so is Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Sophos and even Microsoft judging by the latest month of test results. See https://www.av-test.org/en/about-the-institute/test-procedures/ for their criteria.
Not an either-or situation anymore. While it used to suck (like really bad, I have no question as to why people don't trust it) lately Windows Defender (or security essentials if you're not on windows 10) is actually really good.
I haven't used AV apps on any device for a long time, even on my computer. They're just a product of a bygone era, these days protection comes out of the box.
While well-regarded sites like AV-test has found that Google Play Protect is actually quite poor, and very rudimentary, it still is better than nothing, and most people shouldn't be worried. But if you want more protection, then you can download one of the big names like the ones listed here: https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/mobile-devices/ Avast, AVG, Avira, are all available on the Play Store. Alibaba Mobile Security needs to be downloaded from their website.
Another thing to understand is that different phones offer different kinds of protection, like obviously a phone with a fingerprint sensor has more protection than one without. And there is no substitute for a phone not receiving regular Android security updates. Unfortunately, in this regard, many phones don't get updated. You can see which patch your phone is at in Settings > System > About > "Android security patch level". My phone gets regular updates, and right now it says 1 February 2018, which is quite good. The latest is 1 April 2018, but zero phones get it on time except for Google's own Pixel 2.