Anti-virus for SP3

[jmshub]

These days, I just use Microsoft Security Essentials / Windows Defender. The last antivirus I paid for was NOD32. It was very lightweight and stayed out of my way. I can recommend it.

 

[Nerdy Woman]

I can't find it now, but I read an article from one of the respected sources a few weeks ago that rated the top 20 or 30 anti-malware products. It was a source that made their determinations through actual testing, not by the gut feelings of people who said, "I always use such and such and I've never been infected." I read it with interest because currently on my SP3 I'm just running Windows Defender.

While I don't remember the whole list, I did make note that Kaspersky was listed as number one. That's what I'm running on my server at home, as well as my entertainment PC, and both of my wife's PCs. I've used Kaspersky for at least 5 or 6 years, and I think longer than that, and cannot recall having been infected once while running it.

I want to say that Windows Defender was somewhere around 4 or 6 on the list.

I've been hunting for the same article. Microsoft's built-in Defender software was rated very highly because they are alerted to malicious code that makes PCs go wonky much quicker than 3rd parties that must rely on user reports or willingness to give them feedback (very limited). It's looking like Windows Defender is a much better option than the urban myth journalists would have us believe.

I've got McAfee on all our PCs (included with our AT&T internet subscription so it costs nothing), but given the memory overhead as well as the much lower rating, I'm rethinking that.

 

[hopmedic]

It's looking like Windows Defender is a much better option than the urban myth journalists would have us believe.

Yup.

I've got McAfee on all our PCs (included with our AT&T internet subscription so it costs nothing), but given the memory overhead as well as the much lower rating, I'm rethinking that.

Yeah... Most anyone involved in IT in any capacity would tell you to avoid McAfee or Norton/Symantec with every fiber of your being. I'm one of those guys. :wink:

 

[TechFreak1]

I can't find it now, but I read an article from one of the respected sources a few weeks ago that rated the top 20 or 30 anti-malware products. It was a source that made their determinations through actual testing, not by the gut feelings of people who said, "I always use such and such and I've never been infected." I read it with interest because currently on my SP3 I'm just running Windows Defender.

While I don't remember the whole list, I did make note that Kaspersky was listed as number one. That's what I'm running on my server at home, as well as my entertainment PC, and both of my wife's PCs. I've used Kaspersky for at least 5 or 6 years, and I think longer than that, and cannot recall having been infected once while running it.

I want to say that Windows Defender was somewhere around 4 or 6 on the list.

Let me say that the reason I'm not running Kaspersky on my SP3 is because way back when Win8 was still in developer preview, or maybe it was right when Win8 had come out, I'd installed Kaspersky and it prevented my Windows Phone emulators from running, so I uninstalled it. Since then I've had an SP2 and an SP3, and I've just never tried installing Kaspersky again to see if they resolved that issue. Since I've been completely malware-free running Windows Defender, I didn't see the need to install Kaspersky again.

The most important thing to remember is that there is no anti-malware tool that will catch every bit of malware out there. It is important to use an anti-malware mentality when using a computer. Don't open attachments in email that you aren't expecting. Make sure the website you are entering info into is actually the website you think it is. Stay away from sites of the type that are more likely to try to install malware. You get the idea. Here's a link with some tips:
How to browse the internet safely in eight simple steps | AVG Blogs

I don't mean to burst your bubble, I had a less than an enlightening experience with Kaspersky and have seen infected machines with kaspersky up to date. The other annoying behaviour is that kaspersky takes up insane amount of resources when it comes closer to renewal, thus completely grinding everything to a halt.

This behaviour was exhibited not once but with every single iteration of kaspersky that was installed on almost every machine starting from the version that was running before i started working in that office. Unfortunately they were running XP so I cannot say if the same would occur on windows 7 and higher. IT had better machines running windows 7 and they all swore by it, I listened to what they said with respect until the day they started upgrading all machines to 8gb ram running windows xp 32bit adamant it was money well spent and would speed up the machines greatly... LOL.

To the OP like others and what Hopmedic said what really counts is your browsing habits and if you start opening up random attachments from emails. The worst culprit from the latter is what may look like an email from someone you know but in reality their account has been hacked and emails have been sent (my yahoo got hacked, I only knew when they sent an email to another email that I used and was saved in the address book). The most common indicator is gibberish emails containing spurious links, if that doesn't set someone's alarm bells ringing then I don't know what to say. :winktongue:

 

[hopmedic]

I don't mean to burst your bubble, I had a less than an enlightening experience with Kaspersky and have seen infected machines with kaspersky up to date. The other annoying behaviour is that kaspersky takes up insane amount of resources when it comes closer to renewal, thus completely grinding everything to a halt.

This behaviour was exhibited not once but with every single iteration of kaspersky that was installed on almost every machine starting from the version that was running before i started working in that office. Unfortunately they were running XP so I cannot say if the same would occur on windows 7 and higher. IT had better machines running windows 7 and they all swore by it, I listened to what they said with respect until the day they started upgrading all machines to 8gb ram running windows xp 32bit adamant it was money well spent and would speed up the machines greatly... LOL.

To the OP like others and what Hopmedic said what really counts is your browsing habits and if you start opening up random attachments from emails. The worst culprit from the latter is what may look like an email from someone you know but in reality their account has been hacked and emails have been sent (my yahoo got hacked, I only knew when they sent an email to another email that I used and was saved in the address book). The most common indicator is gibberish emails containing spurious links, if that doesn't set someone's alarm bells ringing then I don't know what to say. :winktongue:

This doesn't bust my bubble. The majority of what you'll find online about Kaspersky is just the opposite, which would suggest that there is a different problem.

 

[RichardBurt]

Thank god nobody suggested AVG :winktongue:

I use BitDefender Free edition. Light, good pedigree and no impact on resources.

 

[stephen_az]

MS sales rep who sold me my SP3 recommended Kapersky because it was the least resource intensive.

Posted via the WPC App for Android on BlackBerry Z30

No offense but I would love to know what that rep was smoking. Kaspersky's products are the most resource intensive and famously buggy. That is the one product line I would never recommend any machine.

 

[Nerdy Woman]

I just uninstalled McAfee Security Center. I hadn't realized what a difference there was between the resources sucked by it (which I knew was a lot at 250 MB RAM) and Windows Defender (2-3 MB RAM).

While I had McAfee installed (not even running), I was locked out of seeing Defender and Firewall interface (smart move on Microsoft's part to prevent users from running multiple defenses). They are much more robust and flexible than the last time I looked 2 or 3 years ago. I'm very impressed.

 

[stephen_az]

Aside from Microsoft's built-in antimalware, any recommendations for security software for my SP3 that's not going to kill my battery?

There is absolutely no reason to use anything other than Windows Defender. It is not the limited functionality utility of previous versions of Windows and provides good real time protection with an absolute minimum impact on system resources. The various free programs offer nothing more in terms of real functionality and all use more system resources. The paid programs are then an even bigger joke since they are all substantially more resource intensive; frequently (again) offer nothing more; and carry a price tag for the courtesy. I would honestly suggest saving yourself some money and aggravation and just sticking with the program that has already been running in the background since the first time you turned on the device.

 

[pgg101]

No offense but I would love to know what that rep was smoking. Kaspersky's products are the most resource intensive and famously buggy. That is the one product line I would never recommend any machine.

No offense taken...just repeating what he told me. He advised against just relying on Windows Defender alone, and advised against McAffee.

Posted via the WPC App for Android on BlackBerry Z30

 

[RajeevT]

I've been hunting for the same article. Microsoft's built-in Defender software was rated very highly because they are alerted to malicious code that makes PCs go wonky much quicker than 3rd parties that must rely on user reports or willingness to give them feedback (very limited).

You're right, it was rated very highly. No longer, check any AV review site including all the reputed ones. And why should third parties be any slower? The better ones all have well-staffed dedicated teams scouring the net to obtain the latest samples of malware in the wild.

Microsoft: Security Essentials is designed to be bottom of the antivirus rankings | Security | News | PC Pro

Goodbye Microsoft Security Essentials: Microsoft Now Recommends You Use a Third-Party Antivirus

Microsoft Security Essentials Tanks Another Antivirus Test

If you're tech savvy you may get by with MSE/Defender alone, but for any average computer user (such as my parents, relatives etc.) I would never let them browse with only that very basic base-line protection (Microsoft's own words BTW) as the only line of defence.

 

[xpien]

No offense taken...just repeating what he told me. He advised against just relying on Windows Defender alone, and advised against McAffee.

Posted via the WPC App for Android on BlackBerry Z30

Well, windows defender is disabled when you install any other anti-virus. So "He advised against just relying on Windows Defender alone" has no sense at all. :wink:

 

[DJCBS]

I'm using Kaspersky on the SP3 and haven't seen any decrease on anything. Neither on battery life, nor speed...nothing.

 

[RichardBurt]

Sometimes you lot scare me with your lack of knowledge of the subject.

Read, learn, inwardly digest. Windows built-in is rated worst for detection, blocking etc. Kaspersky, BitDefender, Panda, AVIRA and Emsisoft are rated as the top 5 packages. Windows built-in is rated as the lowest.

 

[Pete]

Well, you can pretty much rely on an AV comparison website to advocate the use of AV software. The comments section of that document does acknowledge that MS Security Essentials does cover the basis and implies that AV products are necessary for the users who ignore warnings (or don't want to see the warnings and make their own decision).

Note that the document makes no mention at all of the performance implications of using various tools or costs involved.

Safe browsing habits is still king.

 

[berty6294]

Sometimes you lot scare me with your lack of knowledge of the subject.

Read, learn, inwardly digest. Windows built-in is rated worst for detection, blocking etc. Kaspersky, BitDefender, Panda, AVIRA and Emsisoft are rated as the top 5 packages. Windows built-in is rated as the lowest.

Ahh I forgot about Panda, Panda is dope. But Avira was the worst experience I have ever had in my life! Its been a while so idk what its like now, but it used to be a nightmare and impossible to remove under any normal means.

 

[raqball]

I went ahead and purchased Webroot.

The problem with all these studies is that they all have different top 5 lists. There does not appear to be a clear winner.

I will run Webroot and then do a scan every few weeks with Malwarebytes. I am pretty cautious on the web and probably would have been fine with Windows Defender but decided its better to be safe than sorry.

 

[hopmedic]

No offense but I would love to know what that rep was smoking. Kaspersky's products are the most resource intensive and famously buggy. That is the one product line I would never recommend any machine.

A completely inaccurate statement.

 

[hopmedic]

You're right, it IS rated very highly.

Corrected.

Really??? You're going to battle facts from a recent article by linking to articles that are more than a year old???

 

[raqball]

Really??? You're going to battle facts from a recent article by linking to articles that are more than a year old???

I thought the same thing when I saw the links. I am under the impression that the new Windows Defender is much better than Microsoft Security Essentials.

Maybe Microsoft should have went with a new name to distance itself from the previous crappy versions?