You have to be kidding! MS is simply the worst in every reputable AV independent analysis period! Yet with that said I totally agree with hearywarlot "the need for a AV really depends on your activities" I use MS and rarely have ever had any problems and I do higher than normal risky behavior online BUT I am a lot more informed than my clients. I dod NOT use MSE for my clients and I often "tier" protection which is what most security conscious IT people will recommend.
The only reasonable AV for windows is ProcessHacker (and some tools from sysinternals, winobj and procmon in particular). Most AVs behave like malware themselves, that is, do something with your computer, without your consent.
I am amazed that people recommend Windows Defender/Security Essentials.... If there is one company other than Google that I do NOT want access to the very last file on my computer, then it is MS. I am truly surprised by what company from what countries people allow complete access to their computers! Simply compare how something like Avast worked 5 or six years ago, and what they do on your computer today. WITHOUT ANY BETTER SECURITY! Simply understanding that the basic danger are zero day exploits and there is NO protection against them at all. Anyone paying for AV software is a fool! Like compstuff "I do higher than normal risky behavior", still I only use malwarebytes and run it around every second day and once a year find some pup and that is it.... AV software is a BUSINESS!
Looks quite complicated for someone who is not too good at this. Is there a site: "ProcessHacker for beginners"?
I wouldn’t generalize about using an AV or not. I don’t use any on my main comp at least not one that scans files on access… A thoroughly patched OS, passive protection (hosts file), Malwarebytes on demand, a bunch of security addons etc for my browser and -as others said- a bit of common sense do the job the right way for me. But at my work where being the most technologically advanced pc user among my colleagues I’ve been almost promoted to the status of their unofficial technician installing in every PC an AV of sorts is a necessity. Those people are not under zero-day threats but keep ludicrously getting rather trite and obsolete virus infections as much obsolete as the late Pentium 4s and first-gen Core2Duos powering their PCs. The hardest of all things is to find an AV not bringing those old machines to their knees. Avast that worked like a charm on those rigs 5-8 years ago is now so resource hungry and slow that renders them literally inoperable. The same goes for the best of them, BitDefender and Kaspersky. Eset NOD32, the obvious lightweight option, is considered to be less reliable these days and the most efficient solution, Clamavi with Immunet as frontend, gives a lot of false positives to name just one of its deficiencies. This situation, suffice to say, is pissing me off.
As someone above said, it depends on your activity what security software you use. I guess, Windows Defender would be enough + windows firewall + internet browser with security and privacy options turned on, meaning ad-blocker, anti-phishing, anti-tracking etc. Also, I use malwarebytes anti-exploit and anti-malware (on-demand scan). Most, important thing is to avoid warez, porn, gambling and similar sites as much as possible.
I tested/reviewed/researched a looooot of AV-Systems over years. My final results are these, - I try to be short: Few words before: You have to understand that you need much more as just a standard AV. The really dangerous malware is hidden or sit in front of the computer. For this hidden you need something called Heuristic-Method. You always have to think about what you download/execute and that some AV not telling you enough information about a found, just note "VIRUS!" for a harmless tool that can just recover passwords for example. Some AV-Systems also blocking any kind of "pirate" own or other products. So beware. The same about definition of best. Some have just interest in get fast and big size of signatures, other in performance or configurability, etc. Best Products: - Comodo Internet Security (freeware): Have all what is need, high configurability, great gui and performance - Kaspersky Internet Security (shareware) Same as CIS, in some points better performance but bader configurability/gui, also much additional stuff (only usefully for beginners) Worst Products: - Windows Defender (windows): IMHO no words need, but if you have interest just search for "OneCare". You can use Paint or you can use Photoshop, you will know what i mean. - Avira Antivir (freeware): So much computers I had to be clean of this, because so much problems, and just a AV, nothing else, even no configurability, product created for stupid people. After all, it depends on what you do with your computer. If you just do child-safe surfing and gaming (without using warez), you actually don't need any AV-System. Just make sure you keep on safe-site of web, don't put any mystique usb-sticks from any strangers in your computer, use a router-device and powerfully adblocker for your browser at least. If you have more clue about the system and the web, you can use a security suite like CIS (Comodo) and deactivate the AV-Part for better performance. Take a look in the configuration of the suite. If you are a funny no-risk-no-fun boy , surfing on the most crap part on the internet, I would recommend using KIS (Kaspersky), turn all Switches to high, run done all the wizards. With this you can do what ever you want, but only listen to KIS and you will be safe. Take more look in browser security/privacy addons and try always to get more knowledge about all. (There is so much you can do for protect your privacy/security as just AV-Systems) And my personal tip: ALWAYS use a backup USB-stick/extern hdd for your important personal stuff, never give any information about your personality in any website, and remove your traces (not saving passwords anywhere for example). So you will be on the safe-site. Step for step you can look for some websites you can trust (amazon, ebay, MDL ). If you are still very unsure about everything, just use a live-linux for any quick on-demand jobs. EDIT: I forgot, for some cases (long time ago) not all AV-Systems (even CIS/KIS) will find some special malware/adware. After another research there is only one left that working really well for a rare scan-job: Lavasoft Ad-Aware. EDIT2: I read here something about Processhacker. Take a look: Comodo Killswitch.
I follow what's given by various rating groups, and then select the free versions of those that do best overall in terms of protection, performance, etc. Given that, I'm currently using Avira.
In my experience all "benchmarking" PcWelt publishes are fancy packaged advertisements from the test winners. If not all the magazines in Germany would do this they would get sued for unfair competision not disclosing all the advertisements this posts contains. (Abmahnung!!) I discarded all these "comparrisons" for a long time. About 10 years back all things from Symantec got all the first places but every suporter in the field suporting customer pcs knew that this was not the reality. The symantec crap threw on my personal systems many GBs intoo the abbys with no other influence than beeing installed on it and simply failing in the worst case possible out of the blue. There AV was painfully slow and mised several bad viruses other AVs found. Since than I don't take such benchmarks seriously any more. My opinion is that the position of these rankings are corealating to the amount they paid the magazine for adds. And MS isn't paying for advertising there Windows Defender so it always gets a bad spot. It's not the best (MS is not an AV-specialist) but I'll take it every time over Norton AV. Avira beeing German also had some influence not that I think Avira is bad. They must have paid the magazine a decent enought amount to be on the top place.
very true. if you install the testwinner your desktop will try to do a helicopter act and take to the air by means of its fans.
Really!? I cannot believe as far as we have come in the digital age that people still must post stuff like this. There is not an antivirus that is made that will save you if you don't use the most powerful antivirus there is .......... common sense. Don't believe those tests, never have, never will. I believe the best test results are sold to the highest bidder.
AV-Comparatives is another source for AV benchmarking - Avira and Kaspersky (among others) also score highly there. Although tests like these should be viewed with a skeptical eye, if the 'winners' are still Avira and Kaspersky, we're standing on pretty good ground. User behavior is no doubt the #1 risk factor - yet I've seen the benefit of using security products, particularly with less technically literate users. Saving these users from themselves is an ongoing battle, but a solid AV can be part of the mitigation plan. For instance, I have had good luck with the combination of the free Avira and paid Malwarebytes Anti-Malware solving the most common problems these users face (the typical browser bars, adware, etc.). These users could probably get away with using NoScript, but just try to get them to set permissions - they won't do it and will get frustrated that websites aren't working as they should. We certainly shouldn't be disparaging the OP for posting this; I could understand if it came from an account that only promoted these products, but that is not the case here. If anything, it will invite discussion as to what recommendations, if any, are suspect so we can all make more informed decisions. Vielen Dank, Katzenfreund.
And I cannot believe that people who themselves have nothing to contribute, all they can do is criticize those who try to contribute. Criticizing is easy. Any "lacking person"* can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most "lacking persons"* do. (Dale Carnegie) * Original word diplomatically replaced to avoid contravening the rules.