Do you use : No Antivirus , FREE Antivirus , or PAID Antivirus and why?

Joseph DeGarmo · Jul 13, 2015

I've been using Kaspersky for the last two years. I installed Bitdefender Antivirus free edition on a recently-installed Windows 10 tech preview and it discovered viruses on my external hard drive that Kaspersky never detected. I know that Kaspersky is fairly heavy on memory usage, but after what I have seen, should I use Bitdefender on my Windows 10 drive and keep Kaspersky on my Windows 8.1 drive? Or ditch Kaspersky altogether and use Bitdefender on both OS's? Should I get the paid version of Bitdefender?

Guest · Jul 14, 2015

posted on the wrong thread.

simonchipmunk · Jul 14, 2015

Joseph DeGarmo :

I would stick with this Bit Defender. I personally don't like Kaspersky's antivirus.

Theminecraftaddict555 · Jul 14, 2015

Wait who actually owns Hitmanpro? ( kaspersky or bitdefender or hell both?)

Dark Lord of Tech · Jul 15, 2015

Neither they just use their scanning engines.

spooky2th · Jul 17, 2015

Kaspersky Internet Security Multi- Device 2015 5 User - Download

$19.99

http

/www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832355107&cm_re=kaspersky_multi-device_-_5_devices-_-32-355-107-_-Product

Price is good through 7-22-2015, @ midnight pacific time.

Skylyne · Jul 21, 2015

Theminecraftaddict555 :

Hey, I know some postings can be taken differently than intended. Just look at some of mine lol. I don't mean to come off pissy at times, but I do. Meh, it's the nature of text-based communication.

Have I done any real-world testing of Avast? Well, yes... though my personal experience is outdated, when it comes to first-hand use. Regardless of that fact, though, I do have something very useful- AV Comparatives. Thanks to these guys, who release very detailed, comprehensive test results, I can see just how intrusive various AVs perform with things like false alarms, known vulnerabilities, and so on. Even without these reports, I do have a good 5+ years of computer fixing/repair/etc. (on the software side) to say that Avast is truly terrible for "average" users. Now, when I say "average," I really do feel the need to dumb things down for most users. Yes, it is true that most users don't really know that much about computers. <mod edit>, even my dad doesn't know very much about computers. He was an engineer in a fab at Motorola, and probably has tested waffers that were in your cellphone at some point... and yet he's probably about what I'd consider the "average" user. He, combined with my mother (who's extremely computer illiterate), both have always been about what I'd consider "average" to most users. I've worked on laptops and desktops from people in their teens to 60's. I've seen a lot of computers over the years.

If the claimed "hardened mode" is anything to consider, I'd say the AV Comparatives test results on heuristics would show you how it's most likely to act. If you look at page 6, you'll see that it basically works for 67% of threats, and had "very many" false alarms. Now, if you want to dig a little deeper, check out the rest of the comprehensive results from AVC. Quite honestly, there's been very few times where Avast really makes me feel like they're actually doing a good job.

If people want me to make a tutorial about how to pick an AV, I could... but I doubt it will make a difference. Most of your "average" users will disregard informed decisions, and go with what "experts" claim is best... which is usually all <mod edit>... kind of like PC Mag results. Also, most people will choose the easiest method of picking an AV... which means they will likely avoid reading it... but I digress.

simonchipmunk :

I honestly want to know where you heard AVG and Avast were recommended for XP users. Maybe for the continuing protection that they put into securing XP's exploits? Based on their track record with AVC, I'd say it's not really recommended. I also remember that, back when I was reluctantly transitioning from XP, I saw a lot of AV companies making their protection last for a certain amount of time (some a year, some covered XP for a few years). Unless you've seen a public announcement, or an email from your AV company, you don't really know how well your AV is protecting XP.

For your computer on MSE, I'd like to see what something like BD would show after a couple scans lol. Just curious. It's something I always wonder after I hear this lol.

Minor edit: I should add that having first-hand experience with an AV is the absolute LEAST scientific method for testing an AV's effectiveness. Anyone who understands computer security will tell you so, unless you're doing more than your AV is to find possible infections/compromises. In all honesty, the simple scanning and viewing results is only serving a psychological need; it isn't really that true. There are corners of the web where you can find malware and spyware that will not show up in AV/AM scans... and these are made by people who have degrees in software engineering. Not to mention, not every form of virus or malware is going to be picked up by heuristics due to how they act. It's much more difficult to spot compromises in computers than it is to make them. Trust the best performers, and ditch the rest. If you have a mediocre performer in the lab, you most likely won't ever know just how poorly compromised your computer is. That's just observation, but one that's educated from years of research.

<That's the second edit for language. Let's not see a third>

Theminecraftaddict555 · Jul 21, 2015

Skylyne :

Theminecraftaddict555 :

Hey, I know some postings can be taken differently than intended. Just look at some of mine lol. I don't mean to come off pissy at times, but I do. Meh, it's the nature of text-based communication.

Have I done any real-world testing of Avast? Well, yes... though my personal experience is outdated, when it comes to first-hand use. Regardless of that fact, though, I do have something very useful- AV Comparatives. Thanks to these guys, who release very detailed, comprehensive test results, I can see just how intrusive various AVs perform with things like false alarms, known vulnerabilities, and so on. Even without these reports, I do have a good 5+ years of computer fixing/repair/etc. (on the software side) to say that Avast is truly terrible for "average" users. Now, when I say "average," I really do feel the need to dumb things down for most users. Yes, it is true that most users don't really know that much about computers. <mod edit>, even my dad doesn't know very much about computers. He was an engineer in a fab at Motorola, and probably has tested waffers that were in your cellphone at some point... and yet he's probably about what I'd consider the "average" user. He, combined with my mother (who's extremely computer illiterate), both have always been about what I'd consider "average" to most users. I've worked on laptops and desktops from people in their teens to 60's. I've seen a lot of computers over the years.

If the claimed "hardened mode" is anything to consider, I'd say the AV Comparatives test results on heuristics would show you how it's most likely to act. If you look at page 6, you'll see that it basically works for 67% of threats, and had "very many" false alarms. Now, if you want to dig a little deeper, check out the rest of the comprehensive results from AVC. Quite honestly, there's been very few times where Avast really makes me feel like they're actually doing a good job.

If people want me to make a tutorial about how to pick an AV, I could... but I doubt it will make a difference. Most of your "average" users will disregard informed decisions, and go with what "experts" claim is best... which is usually all <mod edit>... kind of like PC Mag results. Also, most people will choose the easiest method of picking an AV... which means they will likely avoid reading it... but I digress.

simonchipmunk :

I honestly want to know where you heard AVG and Avast were recommended for XP users. Maybe for the continuing protection that they put into securing XP's exploits? Based on their track record with AVC, I'd say it's not really recommended. I also remember that, back when I was reluctantly transitioning from XP, I saw a lot of AV companies making their protection last for a certain amount of time (some a year, some covered XP for a few years). Unless you've seen a public announcement, or an email from your AV company, you don't really know how well your AV is protecting XP.

For your computer on MSE, I'd like to see what something like BD would show after a couple scans lol. Just curious. It's something I always wonder after I hear this lol.

Minor edit: I should add that having first-hand experience with an AV is the absolute LEAST scientific method for testing an AV's effectiveness. Anyone who understands computer security will tell you so, unless you're doing more than your AV is to find possible infections/compromises. In all honesty, the simple scanning and viewing results is only serving a psychological need; it isn't really that true. There are corners of the web where you can find malware and spyware that will not show up in AV/AM scans... and these are made by people who have degrees in software engineering. Not to mention, not every form of virus or malware is going to be picked up by heuristics due to how they act. It's much more difficult to spot compromises in computers than it is to make them. Trust the best performers, and ditch the rest. If you have a mediocre performer in the lab, you most likely won't ever know just how poorly compromised your computer is. That's just observation, but one that's educated from years of research.

So its true that Bitdefender is the clear winner eh? and the best one for free "Anti Virus"?

Also I skimmed the website twice but I could not find the part about them using the hardened mode/agressive mode in Avast?

Skylyne · Jul 21, 2015

Theminecraftaddict555 :

Never said that, but I would say BD is in the top three I'd pick from. Personally, I'm running Webroot, and have never had it really be of any use to me. There are a few things it's blocked that I didn't catch, but the real question that has never been answered is "was it actually harmful?" That aside, BD has been, what I would consider, one of the clear leaders in the AVC testing, and typically comes out in the top three for most of the independent lab tests (when looking at raw performance, over anything else).

Theminecraftaddict555 :

As far as what the typical explanations for "hardened mode" are, it sounds like a basic heuristics engine that scans active processes for malicious/problematic processes. I use it in Webroot, and many other AVs have it. While I'm not 100% positive that the test results I linked were absolutely, definitely done with some form of "hardened mode" enabled, that is exactly the type of testing that would fit the characteristics of "hardened mode." The explanations I've seen from both Avast, and various other places (softpedia, forums, etc.), all point to it being a glorified heuristics engine given a more "cool" name. I guess one could say I'm running Webroot's "Hardcore Mode" on my computer? The program calls it "Heuristics" in the settings, but I could modify that; although, it wouldn't change what it is. Regardless, a heuristics engine is just a heuristics engine; it doesn't matter what name I put on it.

I will probably send AVC an email, and ask about that, since it's a good question. However, I am willing to bet that the reason they didn't specify running "hardened mode" in the report is because the exact settings for all AVs are set to their standard; and that means, every AV is installed, and set up according to a predetermined method (either by vendor, or the lab). Depending on who's method was used, we may have more answers.

Also, where were you looking to find either hardened mode or aggressive mode? Those are more along the lines of GUI terms, and not necessarily technical terms. While that may be what Avast has labelled their heuristics engine, that doesn't mean the alternative name will be used in a lab test report. If it is mentioned in a comprehensive report, it will most likely be referred to as the "heuristics engine" or "behavioural protection." Something along those lines will be what they call it. In fact, for the report I linked, it specifically says, "Heuristic and behavioural protection against new/unknown malicious software" right on the front page. This lines up with what Avast claims their "hardened mode" does, and therefore I'd say it's just their heuristics engine.

I might sound a bit condescending, but just trying to clear it up. I don't know what level you're on, so trying to make it clear for everyone reading.

Edit: Just sent an email to AVC about heuristics testing, and if "hardened mode" is activated, as well as the settings used. If there's an NDA involved, and they can't reveal that information, then I'll post a screenshot.

Theminecraftaddict555 · Jul 21, 2015

Skylyne :

Theminecraftaddict555 :

Never said that, but I would say BD is in the top three I'd pick from. Personally, I'm running Webroot, and have never had it really be of any use to me. There are a few things it's blocked that I didn't catch, but the real question that has never been answered is "was it actually harmful?" That aside, BD has been, what I would consider, one of the clear leaders in the AVC testing, and typically comes out in the top three for most of the independent lab tests (when looking at raw performance, over anything else).

Theminecraftaddict555 :

As far as what the typical explanations for "hardened mode" are, it sounds like a basic heuristics engine that scans active processes for malicious/problematic processes. I use it in Webroot, and many other AVs have it. While I'm not 100% positive that the test results I linked were absolutely, definitely done with some form of "hardened mode" enabled, that is exactly the type of testing that would fit the characteristics of "hardened mode." The explanations I've seen from both Avast, and various other places (softpedia, forums, etc.), all point to it being a glorified heuristics engine given a more "cool" name. I guess one could say I'm running Webroot's "Hardcore Mode" on my computer? The program calls it "Heuristics" in the settings, but I could modify that; although, it wouldn't change what it is. Regardless, a heuristics engine is just a heuristics engine; it doesn't matter what name I put on it.

I will probably send AVC an email, and ask about that, since it's a good question. However, I am willing to bet that the reason they didn't specify running "hardened mode" in the report is because the exact settings for all AVs are set to their standard; and that means, every AV is installed, and set up according to a predetermined method (either by vendor, or the lab). Depending on who's method was used, we may have more answers.

Also, where were you looking to find either hardened mode or aggressive mode? Those are more along the lines of GUI terms, and not necessarily technical terms. While that may be what Avast has labelled their heuristics engine, that doesn't mean the alternative name will be used in a lab test report. If it is mentioned in a comprehensive report, it will most likely be referred to as the "heuristics engine" or "behavioural protection." Something along those lines will be what they call it. In fact, for the report I linked, it specifically says, "Heuristic and behavioural protection against new/unknown malicious software" right on the front page. This lines up with what Avast claims their "hardened mode" does, and therefore I'd say it's just their heuristics engine.

I might sound a bit condescending, but just trying to clear it up. I don't know what level you're on, so trying to make it clear for everyone reading.

Edit: Just sent an email to AVC about heuristics testing, and if "hardened mode" is activated, as well as the settings used. If there's an NDA involved, and they can't reveal that information, then I'll post a screenshot.

So BD free would be the top 3 free AVs or paid?

Skylyne · Jul 22, 2015

Theminecraftaddict555 :

I don't know why you're trying to get me to classify that. My personal top picks will vary from others, based on different criteria. Also, the top performers will always change, based on new test results. As far as I'm aware, the free version of BD is the same AV as the paid version. What it does outside of being an antivirus, I'm not sure. Will it work for basic AV use? Definitely. Outside of that? I have no idea.

Also, here's a screenshot of the response I got from AVC. The second part is regarding a question I asked about Webroot not being included in their test results. Interesting information all around, though.

If the "hardened mode" is exactly what they are explaining (and I'm sure it is), then I think I'm going to laugh at everyone who uses it from now on. Honestly, it sounded like a basic heuristics engine, to me. Either way, there's your answer on how they do the testing with Avast.

As far as Webroot is concerned, I think it's safe to say that I'll be ditching them for someone else in the near future. I've come to trust AVC the most, so I'd take their word for it. I will be sending another email to them shortly, asking to elaborate on the poor performance, and if they stopped reviewing it due to previously low scores, or currently low scores on testing. If the latter, I think I have a bone to pick with Best Buy... their Geek Squad has pushed it pretty hard on a few people I know, swearing it's "the best." Definitely would like to see where they stack up now, though.

Theminecraftaddict555 · Jul 22, 2015

Skylyne :

Theminecraftaddict555 :

I don't know why you're trying to get me to classify that. My personal top picks will vary from others, based on different criteria. Also, the top performers will always change, based on new test results. As far as I'm aware, the free version of BD is the same AV as the paid version. What it does outside of being an antivirus, I'm not sure. Will it work for basic AV use? Definitely. Outside of that? I have no idea.

Also, here's a screenshot of the response I got from AVC. The second part is regarding a question I asked about Webroot not being included in their test results. Interesting information all around, though.

If the "hardened mode" is exactly what they are explaining (and I'm sure it is), then I think I'm going to laugh at everyone who uses it from now on. Honestly, it sounded like a basic heuristics engine, to me. Either way, there's your answer on how they do the testing with Avast.

As far as Webroot is concerned, I think it's safe to say that I'll be ditching them for someone else in the near future. I've come to trust AVC the most, so I'd take their word for it. I will be sending another email to them shortly, asking to elaborate on the poor performance, and if they stopped reviewing it due to previously low scores, or currently low scores on testing. If the latter, I think I have a bone to pick with Best Buy... their Geek Squad has pushed it pretty hard on a few people I know, swearing it's "the best." Definitely would like to see where they stack up now, though.

interesting...So what do you think about tomshardware's pick of the top free antiviruses unless that article seems to outdated to be looked at for the time being

Skylyne · Jul 22, 2015

Without a linked article, I can't say. Also, I only pay attention to the independent labs for the most important information (actual testing results). When it comes to the GUI, user friendliness, and the rest of those things, I don't really care about that. I can work with most software, as long as it does its job, so I'm not one to read the articles much.

From the ones I have seen from TH, it doesn't strike me any different from most major publications. TH seems to focus on other criteria more than I do.

Joseph DeGarmo · Jul 22, 2015

So did the ratings shift during the past several months? I've been using Kaspersky and all of a sudden, I've had issues with random network disconnects which was apparently resolved by reinstalling Windows. So was there a malicious file somewhere that Kaspersky knew nothing about? I scanned my external hard drive using Bitdefender free and it found what looked like infected files, but the files should be safe. Should I jump on the Bitdefender bandwagon, then?

Skylyne · Jul 22, 2015

Joseph DeGarmo :

Depends on where you get your testing information? And, quite honestly, when it comes to ranking an AV, test results would vary every day, in a true real world test environment. Due to the fact that lab testing is done ONLY with known vulnerabilities that should be covered as is, with each new vulnerability found, one AV may stand out for a few weeks, or maybe months, depending on what kind of exploit/backdoor/etc. there may be, and who manages to patch their AV first.

As far as rankings go with lab testing, results are mostly published once or twice a year, from the sources I've seen, and that is usually what you want to go off for an overall AV. Right now, using my personal criteria, BD, Kaspersky, and ESET seem to have the best ranking scores for minimal user interaction, false flags, false alarms, and overall protection (using AV Comparatives for test results). So far, they're the best place for in depth lab results, so I mainly use them for my personal ranks/scale.

From what I've read about BD and Kasp, I'd pick BD over Kasp any day, because most people seem to have a more paranoid security software with Kasp. Not really heard much about ESET, and I'm not that impressed with their GUI, so I'd personally stick with BD. Also, I haven't used it very much, so that might change should I start using it. On the flip side, an AV should be more about actual protection, and less about how nice the UI is. any other the three I mentioned currently pass my personal criteria. I'll be linking a tutorial in my signature, showing how I would go about choosing an AV. It's lengthy, but that way people can see what I do for picking my "Top X" AV software recommendations. Usually takes me about 10 minutes to pick a small chunk, based on AVC's reports lol.

Edit: I've asked AVC if there's a possibility of being sent copies of unpublished test results (aka any test results from software that doesn't make the cut for their usual reports). While I'm sure many are under an NDA, to prevent companies from looking poor in lab tests, I asked for any copies, rough or finalised, that may be given out by request. If possible, I'm going to see about regular requests, or a sort of email subscription for this; depends on what my response is. If there are any findings worth sharing, I'll be sure to post it up... as long as a sticky is made for this kind of information. If I'm given a green light to post up internal reports on AV testing, I'll want that stuff to be easily available for everyone when I do post it

Theminecraftaddict555 · Jul 22, 2015

Skylyne :

Joseph DeGarmo :

Depends on where you get your testing information? And, quite honestly, when it comes to ranking an AV, test results would vary every day, in a true real world test environment. Due to the fact that lab testing is done ONLY with known vulnerabilities that should be covered as is, with each new vulnerability found, one AV may stand out for a few weeks, or maybe months, depending on what kind of exploit/backdoor/etc. there may be, and who manages to patch their AV first.

As far as rankings go with lab testing, results are mostly published once or twice a year, from the sources I've seen, and that is usually what you want to go off for an overall AV. Right now, using my personal criteria, BD, Kaspersky, and ESET seem to have the best ranking scores for minimal user interaction, false flags, false alarms, and overall protection (using AV Comparatives for test results). So far, they're the best place for in depth lab results, so I mainly use them for my personal ranks/scale.

From what I've read about BD and Kasp, I'd pick BD over Kasp any day, because most people seem to have a more paranoid security software with Kasp. Not really heard much about ESET, and I'm not that impressed with their GUI, so I'd personally stick with BD. Also, I haven't used it very much, so that might change should I start using it. On the flip side, an AV should be more about actual protection, and less about how nice the UI is. any other the three I mentioned currently pass my personal criteria. I'll be linking a tutorial in my signature, showing how I would go about choosing an AV. It's lengthy, but that way people can see what I do for picking my "Top X" AV software recommendations. Usually takes me about 10 minutes to pick a small chunk, based on AVC's reports lol.

Edit: I've asked AVC if there's a possibility of being sent copies of unpublished test results (aka any test results from software that doesn't make the cut for their usual reports). While I'm sure many are under an NDA, to prevent companies from looking poor in lab tests, I asked for any copies, rough or finalised, that may be given out by request. If possible, I'm going to see about regular requests, or a sort of email subscription for this; depends on what my response is. If there are any findings worth sharing, I'll be sure to post it up... as long as a sticky is made for this kind of information. If I'm given a green light to post up internal reports on AV testing, I'll want that stuff to be easily available for everyone when I do post it

Keep us updated on the info

Also if you were to pair an AV with malwarebytes premium, hitmanpro, and super anti spyware...Would the opinion scanners catch "most" of the malware, viruses, trojans, worms that the AV itself would miss etc......I want to hear your thoughts on this

Joseph DeGarmo · Jul 22, 2015

Skylyne :

Joseph DeGarmo :

Depends on where you get your testing information? And, quite honestly, when it comes to ranking an AV, test results would vary every day, in a true real world test environment. Due to the fact that lab testing is done ONLY with known vulnerabilities that should be covered as is, with each new vulnerability found, one AV may stand out for a few weeks, or maybe months, depending on what kind of exploit/backdoor/etc. there may be, and who manages to patch their AV first.

As far as rankings go with lab testing, results are mostly published once or twice a year, from the sources I've seen, and that is usually what you want to go off for an overall AV. Right now, using my personal criteria, BD, Kaspersky, and ESET seem to have the best ranking scores for minimal user interaction, false flags, false alarms, and overall protection (using AV Comparatives for test results). So far, they're the best place for in depth lab results, so I mainly use them for my personal ranks/scale.

From what I've read about BD and Kasp, I'd pick BD over Kasp any day, because most people seem to have a more paranoid security software with Kasp. Not really heard much about ESET, and I'm not that impressed with their GUI, so I'd personally stick with BD. Also, I haven't used it very much, so that might change should I start using it. On the flip side, an AV should be more about actual protection, and less about how nice the UI is. any other the three I mentioned currently pass my personal criteria. I'll be linking a tutorial in my signature, showing how I would go about choosing an AV. It's lengthy, but that way people can see what I do for picking my "Top X" AV software recommendations. Usually takes me about 10 minutes to pick a small chunk, based on AVC's reports lol.

Edit: I've asked AVC if there's a possibility of being sent copies of unpublished test results (aka any test results from software that doesn't make the cut for their usual reports). While I'm sure many are under an NDA, to prevent companies from looking poor in lab tests, I asked for any copies, rough or finalised, that may be given out by request. If possible, I'm going to see about regular requests, or a sort of email subscription for this; depends on what my response is. If there are any findings worth sharing, I'll be sure to post it up... as long as a sticky is made for this kind of information. If I'm given a green light to post up internal reports on AV testing, I'll want that stuff to be easily available for everyone when I do post it

So will Bitdefender free be enough? Or should I get the subscription version?

Theminecraftaddict555 · Jul 22, 2015

Joseph DeGarmo :

Skylyne :

Joseph DeGarmo :

Depends on where you get your testing information? And, quite honestly, when it comes to ranking an AV, test results would vary every day, in a true real world test environment. Due to the fact that lab testing is done ONLY with known vulnerabilities that should be covered as is, with each new vulnerability found, one AV may stand out for a few weeks, or maybe months, depending on what kind of exploit/backdoor/etc. there may be, and who manages to patch their AV first.

As far as rankings go with lab testing, results are mostly published once or twice a year, from the sources I've seen, and that is usually what you want to go off for an overall AV. Right now, using my personal criteria, BD, Kaspersky, and ESET seem to have the best ranking scores for minimal user interaction, false flags, false alarms, and overall protection (using AV Comparatives for test results). So far, they're the best place for in depth lab results, so I mainly use them for my personal ranks/scale.

From what I've read about BD and Kasp, I'd pick BD over Kasp any day, because most people seem to have a more paranoid security software with Kasp. Not really heard much about ESET, and I'm not that impressed with their GUI, so I'd personally stick with BD. Also, I haven't used it very much, so that might change should I start using it. On the flip side, an AV should be more about actual protection, and less about how nice the UI is. any other the three I mentioned currently pass my personal criteria. I'll be linking a tutorial in my signature, showing how I would go about choosing an AV. It's lengthy, but that way people can see what I do for picking my "Top X" AV software recommendations. Usually takes me about 10 minutes to pick a small chunk, based on AVC's reports lol.

Edit: I've asked AVC if there's a possibility of being sent copies of unpublished test results (aka any test results from software that doesn't make the cut for their usual reports). While I'm sure many are under an NDA, to prevent companies from looking poor in lab tests, I asked for any copies, rough or finalised, that may be given out by request. If possible, I'm going to see about regular requests, or a sort of email subscription for this; depends on what my response is. If there are any findings worth sharing, I'll be sure to post it up... as long as a sticky is made for this kind of information. If I'm given a green light to post up internal reports on AV testing, I'll want that stuff to be easily available for everyone when I do post it

So will Bitdefender free be enough? Or should I get the subscription version?

Sky has said before that he believes that the free version's detection and protection is the same as the paid versions

Skylyne · Jul 24, 2015

Theminecraftaddict555 :

Let's just say that I learned a few things, but this is to be considered an off the record source. Let's just say the information has been verified. Take my word on it or not, but I firmly believe it.

- Webroot has been performing poorly in all big lab tests, which is why we do not see it in any major lab publications for review.
- Qihoo has not been in the AVC labs public reports due to "misbehaviour," which leads me to believe the Chinese government was trying to release the test results only under a form of NDA agreement.It's been suspected they have very friendly ties with the software company, and the software has many security problems because of this.

Theminecraftaddict555 :

Fun fact: practically every computer that is connected to the internet, EVER, will be infected with a form of malware for a period of time. Pick an AV and an AM, live AV protection, weekly AM scans. Anything more than that is truly overkill for what you actually prevent.

Joseph DeGarmo :

As I've said before, if all you need is an antivirus, the free option from Bitdefender is probably the best choice on the internet (that I'm aware of). For anything more than AV, I'd recommend paying for an AV that has what you need. Don't skimp on AV performance though. For a full security suite, always pay for it. There are a few choices you can't go wrong with.

Theminecraftaddict555 :

More like I know that's how it's programmed lol, but basically

I've been saying this a lot the past week, and I think some people here should know this phrase too. "If you knew everything that I know, you'd be forced to either slowly stop caring about your personal security, for survival reasons, or avoid computers like the plague." I'm not even joking. I know that Google makes roughly $50k for the gmail account that I signed up with on here, and my new Google Wallet card will probably make them more than twice that in a few years. Knowing this, it creates a moral dilemma that makes you realise that living with this 24/7 bought and psycho-analysed surveillance is probably one day going to lead to a fucked up way of income. And I'm okay with that. And I am not okay with that. At all. Doing my part to keep the crazies at bay, though. The entire internet will one day be run by an advertising company. I'll bet everything on that. At this point my future in computer security will one day truly be obsolete.

Yeah... that's what I think about when people want to know about what goes on in my head with computer security. Thought it was slightly relevant? Can't hate me for not knowing why I take AV software the way I do now lol. Enjoy.

Bu yeah, BD free is cool for a basic AV. If you computer might have some infection, though, or there's a decent Windows issue (ie: file system problem, registry errors galore, etc.) BD's AV will barely function correctly. I've installed it on maybe 3 computers, and was only told to fix one of them. BD's free version is touchy with computers that aren't 100%. And that's funny because I modify my Windows distro a fair amount, and have no problem running it whatsoever. Guess I'll ditch Webroot tonight, and just run BD again on this machine. Why not? I'll run with the best of them for a few months haha.

Theminecraftaddict555 · Jul 24, 2015

So I should have a basic AV and AM, an AV that has real time protection, and an antimalware scan each week or two weeks or whatever correct?

*BTW is Bitdefender's 60 second virus scanner a live AV scanner?*

Do you use : No Antivirus , FREE Antivirus , or PAID Antivirus and why?

Estimable

Guest

Guest

Estimable

Distinguished

Retired Moderator

Distinguished

Estimable

Distinguished

Estimable

Distinguished

Estimable

Distinguished

Estimable

Estimable

Estimable

Distinguished

Estimable

Distinguished

Estimable

Distinguished

Similar threads

Share this page