Decent free antivirus?

[lexluthermiester]

Windows 10 still shares metric shit ton of stuff with Vista...

Shares, but is nowhere near identical to. But we're off topic, back to the AV/AM talk..

 

[therealmeep]

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I happen to use Defender, Malwarebytes, and Bitdefender, had avast at one point because i noticed it seemed a little better at detection on my machines, but it just hammered the cpu on all 3 machines i tried it on. I also tend to test all of the AVs i use in 1 specific vm, and I noticed avast had better more consistent detection, Malwarebytes was pretty damn good, AVG was pretty crappy, and norton/macafee both missed the majority of my tested malware/files.

 

[theFOoL]

Just a thing here about Defender... It was in Windows 7 but not as it is now. You had to scan manually I think? And the findings of Malware wasn't that great? But with W10 it just all came together I'm guessing. Also with W8.1 wasn't Defender like W7 just not completely a AV like W10 is now

 

[therealmeep]

Just a thing here about Defender... It was in Windows 7 but not as it is now. You had to scan manually I think? And the findings of Malware wasn't that great? But with W10 it just all came together I'm guessing. Also with W8.1 wasn't Defender like W7 just not completely a AV like W10 is now

Correct, in 7 it was a manual setup thing, with the ability to schedule, but this was mostly over user's heads, 10 is much more user friendly, it was middle of the road for finding malware, and I am not as familiar with 8.1's version of defender, however it was more in the vein of Win 7 vs 10.

 

[Countryside]

Oh yeah i forgot to mention a good +1 for you free antivirus specially when you are using Defender is
Emsisoft Emergency Kit it requires no install and it has great detection rate.

 

[BiggieShady]

Let's not forget fantastic autoruns.exe from sysinternals, truly helpful tool when dealing with stuff running on windows startup ... it has automatic file hash check using VirusTotal api ... and the ability to show only files that didn't pass the check.

 

[RejZoR]

All of this is post infection. The point of AV's is proactivity. Emsisoft or Autoruns are cleanup tools, not prevention. In that case it's better to just use Windows Defender. It's a slow AV, but it's better than nothing, that's for sure.

 

[BiggieShady]

Emsisoft or Autoruns are cleanup tools, not prevention.

Emsisoft aside, but I wouldn't call Autoruns a cleanup tool - it's only for detection purposes, and with or without infection you should know what's running at startup on your system IMO

 

[lexluthermiester]

In that case it's better to just use Windows Defender.

If it were the only thing going, sure, but it isn't and is nowhere near the best at detection or clean-up. So that is unwise advice.

but it's better than nothing, that's for sure.

Maybe, but again there many better choices.

Emsisoft aside, but I wouldn't call Autoruns a cleanup tool - it's only for detection purposes, and with or without infection you should know what's running at startup on your system IMO

Agreed!

 

[RejZoR]

What I was stating was in regards of using just Emsisoft or Autoruns. They are not a protection and in that case Windows Defender is a better option. Given the criticism of Windows Defender I always get backlash for, it should be obvious I'm not saying that Windows Defender is a good option. It's just that it's better than nothing.

 

[lexluthermiester]

What I was stating was in regards of using just Emsisoft or Autoruns. They are not a protection and in that case Windows Defender is a better option. Given the criticism of Windows Defender I always get backlash for, it should be obvious I'm not saying that Windows Defender is a good option. It's just that it's better than nothing.

Ah, I see what you're saying.

 

[BiggieShady]

I'm not saying that Windows Defender is a good option. It's just that it's better than nothing.

Backlash schmacklash ... but it's still unclear why are you ignoring vast improvements Windows Defender went through

 

[RejZoR]

Backlash schmacklash ... but it's still unclear why are you ignoring vast improvements Windows Defender went through

Because the very basic one, file scanning is teh slowest I've ever seen of all antiviruses and they haven't done a single thing through years to improve it. It's just as slow as it was what, 5 years ago? It's terrible. And we're talking on a system with high end 12 threads CPU, 32GB RAM and super fast SSD. Imagine this thing running on an office computer with 5400 RPM HDD. It just affects things too much to give it a credit for everything they stick on top of it. I mean, what's the point of users will avoid it from the get go because it's such a sluggish snail? There is no point in having all the extras if foundation is terrible...

 

[BiggieShady]

file scanning is teh slowest

It makes sense now why people who use WD only for realtime protection (scheduled scans off) and supplement the rest with MBAM free edition, have no issues with it

 

[RejZoR]

By scanning I mean "real time scanning" which means EVERYTHING works slow as a poo because of it.

 

[BiggieShady]

slow as a poo

Not that I ever noticed so be that as it may ... but I gotta say, you have one colorful hyperbole right there

 

[Bill_Bright]

Just a thing here about Defender... It was in Windows 7 but not as it is now.

This was another one of Microsoft's misguided (IMO) and confusing naming schemes. The Windows Defender in Windows 7 is not, and never was the same Windows Defender as in W8/W10. They are two totally different programs. Windows Defender for Windows 7 was an anti-spyware program only. It was previously the Giant Antispyware Micrsoft bought, rebranded, then gave away.

Backlash schmacklash ... but it's still unclear why are you ignoring vast improvements Windows Defender went through

I agree. Especially for Windows 10, it is much more than basic.

To dismiss summarily a good program because it is thought to be too slow is not realistic, and frankly, makes no sense for a "real-time" scanner. How often do you manually run scans? I cannot remember the last time I did, except on individual files/attachments I just downloaded. And to that WD is really quick. See for yourself. Download a file, CCleaner for example, and save it to your desktop. Then right-click scan with Windows Defender, then right-click scan with Malwarebytes, you will see WD blows the socks of Malwarebytes.

By scanning I mean "real time scanning" which means EVERYTHING works slow as a poo because of it.

That's just not true. Your entire rant is about speed and it is not justified. If your system is bogged down that much WD, then the problem is your system. I am responsible for dozens of systems running WD and if the problem was as you claim, I would have clients yelling at me right and left. It is not happening. Nor are they getting infected.

Again, look at AV-Test and click on the Protection tap to sort on that field. WD beats out many popular alternatives. Now click on Performance and see that it again beats out many popular alternatives.

I am convinced if Windows Defender didn't have the Microsoft brand on it, most of the haters here would be opened minded about it, and think differently.

 

[lexluthermiester]

I am convinced if Windows Defender didn't have the Microsoft brand on it, most of the haters here would be opened minded about it, and think differently.

Performance matters. Defender doesn't. It often interfers with normal tasks of users and bogs the system down with needless and often ill timed full scans. It's only gained notoriety because it's included with Windows, otherwise it would have been a dismal market failure and forgotten mere months after release.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Performance matters. Defender doesn't. It often interfers with normal tasks of users and bogs the system down with needless and often ill timed full scans

Of course performance matters. That's why I pointed that out above. Did you see where it outperforms Trend Micro, BullGuard, G Data, Norton, Comodo, and the crowd favorite ESET? Did you note it was only 1/2 point down from the top?

It often interfers with normal tasks of users and bogs the system down with needless and often ill timed full scans.

Bullfeathers! There is not a scanner out there that doesn't "often" bog down systems. This has been a common complaint levied against all scanners for decades and probably the #1, or close to it, reason users switch to another scanner.

These are the same biased complaints we hear all the time from folks who have not bothered to check their facts, or the program. You run on preconceived notions and falsehoods instead of the facts. These are the falsehoods spewed by users who claim, "It's literally the the first thing I remove from a Windows 10 installation." They don't know it, they just know they don't like it!

If Windows Defender is running scans at "ill times" for you, change the schedule! It's a piece of cake! Security and Maintenance > Maintenance > Change maintenance settings > Run maintenance tasks daily at [pick the hour that is convenient for you!]. Not hard at all.

Mine runs at 2am. It does not interrupt me. It does not bog my systems down.

It's only gained notoriety because it's included with Windows

No. You are wrong again. You ignore the fact it started out as Microsoft Security Essentials which was a separate download (not included with Windows) that people tried and guess what? They liked it because it worked! And why did they try it? Because they were tired of AVG, Norton and others bogging down their systems. It was NOT a dismal market failure or forgotten mere months after release. It is still widely used by many W7 users, just as WD is widely used by many W8 and W10 users - as clearly indicated by the survey results above. Or do you consider us all fools?

 

[RejZoR]

This was another one of Microsoft's misguided (IMO) and confusing naming schemes. The Windows Defender in Windows 7 is not, and never was the same Windows Defender as in W8/W10. They are two totally different programs. Windows Defender for Windows 7 was an anti-spyware program only. It was previously the Giant Antispyware Micrsoft bought, rebranded, then gave away.

I agree. Especially for Windows 10, it is much more than basic.

To dismiss summarily a good program because it is thought to be too slow is not realistic, and frankly, makes no sense for a "real-time" scanner. How often do you manually run scans? I cannot remember the last time I did, except on individual files/attachments I just downloaded. And to that WD is really quick. See for yourself. Download a file, CCleaner for example, and save it to your desktop. Then right-click scan with Windows Defender, then right-click scan with Malwarebytes, you will see WD blows the socks of Malwarebytes.
That's just not true. Your entire rant is about speed and it is not justified. If your system is bogged down that much WD, then the problem is your system. I am responsible for dozens of systems running WD and if the problem was as you claim, I would have clients yelling at me right and left. It is not happening. Nor are they getting infected.

Again, look at AV-Test and click on the Protection tap to sort on that field. WD beats out many popular alternatives. Now click on Performance and see that it again beats out many popular alternatives.

I am convinced if Windows Defender didn't have the Microsoft brand on it, most of the haters here would be opened minded about it, and think differently.

Sure, a 4.5 GHz 12 thread system with 32GB of RAM and super fast 2TB SSD is the problem. Same problem that runs circles around most new systems even today, despite its age. I also don't care what some test says because that's not what I've seen on ANY system. Not on single one of them. It was always slow no matter what system it was. And still is slow. I trust detection tests, but this performance test is pure BS. Because it doesn't line up with anything I've seen IRL.

I don't want to be "insulting" again, but you don't seem to understand shit. WD is slow at exactly that. At real-time scanning. And t's stupid slow. I've tested literally all AV's in existence and not a single one slows things down as noticeably as WD. Not even those that performed "poorly" in AV Test performance tests. I don't give a damn about on-demand scans, the scan time s irrelevant there unless it takes 3 days to finish. Real-time matters because it affects everything.

As for me just bitching over it because it has a Microsoft label on it, that's BS too. You may not know, but I do. The engine used to be RAV Antivirus. People were raving about it, but I frankly never seen anything particularly spectacular about it.

Now I'm gonna stop participating here, because no matter what I'll say you'll keep on defending WD like a holy grail, like the best thing after sliced garlic and butter bread even though it's none of that. It's alright, but ANY free solution is vastly better than WD at nearly everything but maybe ease of use as WD has nearly no controls. If you ignore that, there are tons of way better products that have better performance, detection and speed wise.

 

[TheMailMan78]

I mean we can play "dueling sources" all day but the reality is unless you actually study or work in the field or even for some of these companies your word is no better than anyone else's.

https://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

Hmmm look at that....Bitdefender out did all of the with zero false positives.....gee who would have thought?

 

[lexluthermiester]

Or do you consider us all fools?

No I consider you a shill for Microsoft. Your sig shows that you're a "MS-MVP" so of course you are going to have a bias(forced or otherwise) for a Microsoft product.

If Windows Defender is running scans at "ill times" for you, change the schedule! It's a piece of cake! Security and Maintenance > Maintenance > Change maintenance settings > Run maintenance tasks daily at [pick the hour that is convenient for you!]. Not hard at all.

That's a power-user setting and difficult to find, especially in Windows 10. No normal user is going to find it. Those settings need to be in the common controls. Your example is a perfect reason why other AV/AM suites are better for the general public. That, along with all of the other many annoyances it causes, is why Defender is removed(read deleted) from each and every Windows installation I do. The root folder is left in place and access is denied to the "System" and "Trusted Installer" user groups to prevent it from being reinstalled in an update. Then a proper and competent AV/AM is installed.

No. You are wrong again. You ignore the fact it started out as Microsoft Security Essentials which was a separate download (not included with Windows)

Actually, you are wrong. Windows Defender was included by default starting with Windows Vista. MSE added on to some of that functionality, but was mostly aimed at Windows XP users. That was the shpeal which Microsoft Reps gave when they visited my store.

Hmmm look at that....Bitdefender out did all of the with zero false positives.....gee who would have thought?

True. Worthy of another look. By that list it would seem that many an AV/AM suite that used to be crap are now worth a look. Bill linked the Windows 10 list. Here's the Windows 7 list, which is newer;
https://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-7/

 

[theFOoL]

Hmm seems the normal person would just stick with MSE

 

[Melvis]

Yeah I do this for a living too. No AV will stop morons. Working brain is required. You can read the links and the AV tests yourself. Windows Defender is beating most 3rd party AV now. It's right up there with Bitdefender and Kaspersky which are the absolute best 3rd party AV's and the only one I'd even consider.

Its not about stopping its about prevention. No matter how "safe" a user is and or how "good" a AV is, its all about prevention to minimize the damage that could be caused on a system. Sending me links isnt going to convince me as I have seen plenty in the past say the exact same thing when its a load of BS and very biased. I rather see things done in real time there is alot less bias towards a product, so I like to watch these three guys doing there testing on AV's.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKGe7fZ_S788Jaspxg-_5Sg

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClbIm1RGcH9d9Tj0Xtj87OA

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCMVochGJH4ejgozWHd4tg0Q

And anyone who says [fill in the blank] is "all you need" is a BSer is feeding others a load of BS. Regardless your solution of choice, users should always use a secondary scanner to verify nothing sneaked on by. Why? Because even the best security is easily thwarted if the user opens the door and lets the badguy in. That exactly why "socially engineered" methods of malware distribution works so effectively. Users must keep their systems current and not be "click-happy" on unsolicited links, downloads, attachments, and links.

Exactly so if anyone that says that Windows Defender is "all you need" or "will do the job" is just feeding total BS because your always going to get the common everyday user thats going to click on every damn thing and just "expects" the system to protect them. I always tell people to be careful with your email links that you get and facebook links and to install and run a second on demand scanner like malware-bytes and keep there system up to date, sadly not everyone does this hence why I suggest something a bit more reliable and not rely on WD as I spent yrs when I first opened my doors cleaning PC's that didnt have a AV installed, since then the PC's that come in with Viruses has gone down 90%, its rare to see one come in and if I do its because they didnt update there AV most of the time.

Your comments about WD are, IMO, tunnel visioned. For many years in my shop, malware removal was the biggest service we provided. It was great for business! But it sure wasn't only or even mostly MSE/WD users who were infected. No solution was immune! For many years infected Windows 7 computers using Norton and McAfee dominated. Why? Because those two products were commonly pre-installed on factory made computers bought by consumers. Next was probably AVG because that was widely suggested, but we saw and still see systems supposedly fully protected by Kaspersky, ESET, BitDefender, Avira, Trend Micro and [fill in the blank] too.

Thats not how you do business, I prefer to run my business as truthfully as possible, yes it might be "good for business" but its basically lying and deceiving the client and I know for a fact the original Computer Business here in town went by that practice and within 3 weeks of me starting up my business he closed his doors after 7yrs of running and within 6months his business went under because of his poor business practice ripping off people and putting MSE on everyone's computer and claiming it was good and then charging god knows what to clean there PC's and here I am after 8.5yrs still going. Like I said above its all about prevention to the highest %, yes no system is immune but you can minimize the damage by installing a better product over WD/MSE thats a fact.

And the fact of the matter is, the most common element in these systems was "outdated" and modified Windows defaults! That is, users dinking with Windows defaults thinking they knew better than Microsoft. And of the systems that ran slow, most were simply full of clutter, 1000s and 1000s of cookies, extra toolbars, auto-updaters for programs they rarely used, etc. Hard drives nearly full and severely fragmented (again, because users dinked with settings). Tiny or no page files because they were told by some wannabe memory management "expert" claiming no PF was needed when lots of RAM was installed.

Since W8.x came out, infected systems coming into my shop have decreased dramatically such that my core business (IT consulting and custom computers) is now the biggest service segment again. Why? Because Windows 8.x and Windows 10 keep themselves updated - if the users don't dink with the settings. Not because they switched away from WD.

As las suggests, the user is ALWAYS the weakest link in security. Again, they must keep Windows current and not be "click-happy". Also important is to always, as in EVERY SINGLE TIME, select the "custom" install option when installing 3rd party applications to ensure you have to the option to "opt-out" of unwanted toolbars, search engines, updaters and adware.

Frankly, IMO, these constant disparagings of one solution or another ad nauseam is just silly. Virtually will protect the computer if the user would only compute defensively. Just like a Ford or Chevy pickup truck will serve those owners well, Camry vs Accord, Intel vs AMD, or NVIDIA vs AMD will provide good service. Not having the top rated (for that month) product does NOT mean your product of choice will fail to do its job.

I agree with everyone else you have said

 

[RejZoR]

Hmmm look at that....Bitdefender out did all of the with zero false positives.....gee who would have thought?

I remmeber Bitdefender from days when it was rather mediocre and INCREDIBLY buggy. It still has some dumb glitches, mainly in free version, but at least they really ramped up detection which is probably one of the most consistent ones for years.