Suggest me a security suite! (urgently needed)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Guide community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

jpishgar

VP, Global Community
Staff member
Jan 5, 2010
251
4
18,965
18
Have previously polled the moderators on this and historically, it tends to be a matter of personal preference.

On my end, I use Avast - though I'm pretty sure for me it comes down to brand loyalty since the usability features have decayed considerably in recent years. Of note, even if you don't mess with torrenting or the darker areas of the web, you still do very much need some kind of protection on your machine. Better to be safe than sorry.

-JP
 

Brunostako

Honorable
Dec 16, 2013
136
0
10,710
25
Personally, my brand loyalty is to Panda Antivirus.

That's the only antivirus I've really seen to work properly. I know is not one of the best in ranking, but this one is my choice. When i found something weird happening in my computer that i can't solve, i installed it, delete the virus or whatever it found, and uninstalled it. This have worked for me.

Actually, thanks to this post, i'm trying the Panda Cloud Antivirus Free. It certainly doesn't consume any resources and already passed some of my virus tests (some virus/trojan files i have).
 

MeteorsRaining

Estimable
Jul 27, 2014
84
0
4,660
30
Agree with jpishgar, I use QuickHeal and never faced an issue, but on the other hand I had several viruses while using Avast and AVG. It's all about preference and what you do on your PC. Some Antiviruses tend to be better at blocking say Malware and some say Trojans or Rootkits. I'm aware of benefits of other antiviruses, but I'd still keep my opinion by suggestion QuickHeal.
 

boryahjasper

Estimable
Sep 20, 2014
16
0
4,590
5
Even though some people say that Norton has been reworked on and all that, it came with my new computer, it was alright. But after uninstalling it and installing Kaspersky Internet Security, it was able to operate even faster. So I still believe Norton uses a lot (too much) resources.
 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36
Well, you guys know my vote: Comodo. I have used Avast! in the past (and my folks currently run it), and I was far from impressed with it's "protection." Hey, to each their own; but I don't want to run my a/v scanner to find a virus that is months old, that it should have stopped from being installed on my computer to begin with. Avast! seemed to be more of a passive a/v software, with my experience, so (personally) I don't advocate the use of it. Panda has given me little/no problems in the short time frame I ran it (years ago). I would recommend it currently, as they have been holding their own in the a/v community ever since my introduction to them. Norton and McAfee have been on my radar over the years, and neither of them have impressed me. Hey, some people like those, and that's fine with me; I think they're crap. That's also personal opinion, though. With all the other software I've thoroughly investigated over the years, I've mostly seen purchase-required software to obtain the best features; and, in all honesty, these software companies are mostly trying to sell you their customer service (which I have no use for). Then again, I am a more advance user with this kind of thing.

On a personal level (and I hate to reiterate myself again), I still think a/v software is fairly pointless. I've been running my own computer, with an internet connection, for about 8 years, and I've been working with computers since I was a child (seriously, I grew up with a freaking Apple IIe), and I've only seen a/v software help users who fail to take the proper security measures on their own. I've not once seen it help a person who genuinely paid attention to their computer with astute detail; or a person who had a genuine understanding of their computer on a level that is commonly overlooked/misunderstood. Personally, I've had more problems with running a/v software than I've had without running one. I've not had any security suite actually stop a real threat, unless I failed to check the program myself before running it; and, even then, all of them were false positives. The list of problems I've had with security software is quite lengthy.



I will agree to disagree with this statement. I'm not trying to combat this, or twist your words, just going to give my two cents on what I took from this.

I've been torrenting for over a decade, and I've yet to have a genuine problem with any of my downloads; I've been using pseudo-TLD (top level domain) services off and on for a few years; and I also frequently use websites that have a history of using advertisers that host malware/etc., and have not once had a problem. For example, I once scanned my PC after two years of heavy torrenting, using numerous .onion and eepsite services/websites, and browsing some well known "risky" websites in general; after the full virus scan was complete on all used hard disks, I had nothing but two false positives (with about half a terabyte of information). How did I know they were false positives? Well, first I searched Google, and then I uploaded a copy to multiple on-line cloud-based virus scanners; the results pointed to false positives. Now, while my anecdotal evidence is definitely subject to criticism, I hope it is looked at from a neutral perspective. Why? I use plenty of other security measure that are not a/v software: I use security minded browsers (Aviator and Iron are great examples); I use AdGuard, as I've found it better than any AdBlock extension available; I regularly clean my computer's temp folder/registry/cookies/etc.; I do not let any web browsers save session information, unless I trust the website; I routinely clean up Windows services; I regularly check my RAM/CPU usage for anything out of place; I only download from file sharers/websites I trust; I check anything I find suspicious with an a/v service (usually cloud services)... the list goes on. This is also bred into my daily routine, so I don't really have to think about it. It has gotten to the point where any a/v software I install has to be pruned back on its duties to the point that it's barely allowed to do anything; so it sits there consuming resources, and barely does its job.

If you are security minded from the get-go, you do not need security software. If you have plenty of resources to spare, it's worth having; but if you don't, or it slows down your daily use significantly, and you're highly security minded to begin with, it's going to get in the way more than help you. Also, for those advanced enough to understand their way around a/v software, and know how to tweak their OS for extra security and performance, a/v software becomes a hassle, due to its constant permission requests, and auto-blocking. I've had plenty of legitimate software unable to install because auto-sandboxing preventing essential files from being installed... and no, I'm not talking about shady software.

I'm sure I've said more than enough on this, but I just can't help thinking that a/v software is given too good of a reputation on here without substantial reasons supporting it. The whole "better safe than sorry" argument doesn't really hold up when you start diving much deeper into security measures, and you start getting more involved. It reminds me of when I was trying to get a suitable GPU, and everyone kept using the old myth of "more is better." Well, just like purchasing hardware, picking a security software seems to be something that is based on benchmarks for only a certain niche of users; and that kind of bothers me. Meh... I guess this is just me ranting haha. Carry on fellas!
 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36
Minor note to those interested: after removing my last security software (Comodo), I have seen substantial improvements in performance. Because of the way it was sandboxing a lot of applications, the large amount of active network monitoring, and so on, it was causing my CPU to bottleneck in various ways. Now, I am currently on old hardware, but it should be noted that the security suite, on its own, does not consume very much resources at idle (I posted a picture earlier on showing it). I also did not run the live virus scanner at all while, which means my speeds would likely have been much slower with it running. It was, however, running when I took the screenshot posted earlier; just to clear that up.

It's quite surprising how much a lightweight security program can bog your system down when you start putting it under load. I think that gets overlooked all too easily. Hey, that's just my two cents.
 

peterracine

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2011
9
0
18,520
1


 

peterracine

Distinguished
Jul 3, 2011
9
0
18,520
1
I do not pay for antivirus and I have malwarebytes and superantispyware installed on my machines in case of a bad infection. I would also like to add that if for some reason these great antimalware programs could not help you, I have had a lot of success with difficult malware infections using adwcleaner. It is not well known but, I am surprised at how fast it works and it also finds the difficult malware I cant get rid of manually.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
T Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
R Antivirus / Security / Privacy 0
U Antivirus / Security / Privacy 8
G Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
M Antivirus / Security / Privacy 1
N Antivirus / Security / Privacy 7
Forever Oleg Antivirus / Security / Privacy 14
C Antivirus / Security / Privacy 4
K Antivirus / Security / Privacy 4
G Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
E Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
Z Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
A Antivirus / Security / Privacy 9
L Antivirus / Security / Privacy 4
subtleendowment Antivirus / Security / Privacy 1
Steel724 Antivirus / Security / Privacy 6
J Antivirus / Security / Privacy 8
Retaliator Antivirus / Security / Privacy 4
reaper2794 Antivirus / Security / Privacy 16
arshad111 Antivirus / Security / Privacy 9

ASK THE COMMUNITY