[Poll] Which Antivirus do you use?

[Adjoint]

Let's see which antivirus is most popular among PF members.
Vote for your favorite antivirus program and also share your comments. Give it a go!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I've been using Windows Defender for a few years now. No problems.

 

[adjacent]

Why don't you put a poll?
I use ESET Smart Security 7 now.

 

[Adjoint]

Why don't you put a poll?

Done!

 

[harborsparrow]

For personal use, I strongly prefer the Microsoft solution because it does not intrude on the machine's operation, whereas most commercial antivirus software that I've used is so intrusive (and sometimes actually prevents good software from running) that it can be nearly as bad as getting a virus, besides eating up a lot of CPU time.

 

[Routaran]

I use MS Security Essentials as well. It's lightweight and non-intrusive. Usually after an infection occurs on a system, one of the biggest problems with cleaning is the Antivirus program getting in the way. Often it can interpret your attempts to disable services/processes that are active as virus like behaviour and prevent you from fixing the problem.

If you do use McAfee/Norton/AVG, etc. keep the removal tools for said software handy as well, it's helpful to get rid of them as a first step of cleaning.

 

[fluidistic]

I rarely use Windows now that I've tried Linux. But on Windows my anti virus is Avira.
I also have "Spybot Search & Destroy" as anti spyware.

 

[StevieTNZ]

I use GData Total Protection.

 

[peterdavidson9]

I am currently using a double protection on my PC. I am using AVG with Immunet antivirus software.

 

[Adjoint]

I am currently using a double protection on my PC.

As far as I know, using two antiviruses simultaneously is not a good decision.

 

[enorbet]

As far as I know, using two antiviruses simultaneously is not a good decision.

Actually it is a good idea if setup right. Besides the difference between true virii and malware, requiring at least one of each type of protection, AV and AntiMalware software are all reactionary requiring constant updating of definitions and utilized by often very different algorithms. Just don't run them automatically and simultaneously. Unless you schedule them to run at specific times automatically, just do that manually and regularly... shut them off and use good Net sense in what you click on, download or install.

An important accessory that can help a great deal are addons for blocking scripts in your browser. Personally I run Linux and worry a lot less, but I fix a LOT of Windows machines and I dislike callbacks so the above is how I prevent recurring nasty surprises and can actually schedule routine proper maintenance and maximize my clients' performance.

 

[cobalt124]

Norton when I can afford it, when I can't free versions of AVG or MSE (good experience), Avast and BitDefender (bad experience). Free version of Malwarebytes fixed one of our laptops in two hours after I'd spent the best part of two days trying to clean it up.

 

[elusiveshame]

I used to use free-av/avira as it only let one virus in after 8 years, but I switched over to avg free for the last 2.

A few other things that I use as well to compliment virus scanners are hijack this, spybot, adaware, and malware bytes. I also use ad block plus (highly recommend) and for the sites I know rely on ad revenue and offer quality services or information, I disable it.

I haven't used microsofts solution, but I hear nothing but good things. I've had bad experiences with Norton, and I've had mediocre experiences with mcafee on an enterprise level, but I'm not fond of their personal user software.

A lot of these I haven't heard of, so I may have to set up a few vm's and give them a thorough testing to see if there's one that I like better than avg :D

 

[jedishrfu]

While not a virus scanner per se, Hijackthis is a good tool to have. It identifies what software hooked into your browser or system interrupts which you could check periodically to see if you've got some malware running and then allows you to remove it.

http://download.cnet.com/Trend-Micro-HijackThis/3000-8022_4-10227353.html

 

[elusiveshame]

Yeah, it's definitely a nice tool to have next to your virus scanner, especially if you're not familiar with the registry or afraid to mess it up.

 

[enorbet]

Malwarebytes is by far the best Anti-Malware software and exceptionally important since, given a proper 2-way firewall. script blocking in browsers and good net practice, true virus infection is fairly rare.

 

[phinds]

Just FYI, I found this on the internet. Symantec sponsored (paid for but had conducted by an independent lab

The Microsoft Security Essentials vs Norton study tested both applications for accuracy and protection. In both circumstances, Norton performed significantly better than Microsoft Security Essentials. Other reputable independent labs also find that Norton is the better product for optimal malware security.

 

[phinds]

Actually it is a good idea if setup right...

I am VERY dubious that you can "set up right". They do tend to fight each other and there are horror stories of such battles locking up a computer. I think it really is a bad idea. You MIGHT get lucky and find two that get along with each other but I would NOT count on it.

 

[Adjoint]

Though it has higher score in usability (because of being less sophisticated?), Microsoft Security Essential (aka Windows Defender) has low protection level. And getting lower day by day...
Source: Wikipedia

Also take a look how MS compares with other AV's:
(Tested by independent lab AV-TEST.ORG as of April 2014)

[First row shows Protection Level, second row shows Performance, third shows usability]

If you are having hard time locating the name of Microsoft, it is in the lowest rank

If you look around in the internet for some more you will see Microsoft currently is the lowest rated antivirus in almost all tests.

Maybe its just working fine today; but one bad day is enough.

NB: By the way I am not paid for anti-Microsoft advertising.

 

[enorbet]

I am VERY dubious that you can "set up right". They do tend to fight each other and there are horror stories of such battles locking up a computer. I think it really is a bad idea. You MIGHT get lucky and find two that get along with each other but I would NOT count on it.

I can concede that it may possibly be "VERY dubious" for you or average users in general but I have done this for years successfully. Granted it was a bit more difficult to get right w/ Win95/98 but it really isn't all that hard since Win2K. I assure you I am NOT lucky nor depend on luck. Although my main OpSys has been Slackware Linux for 12 years, I am in the business and have had to keep my hand in play on Windows (since they are the most in use and the most susceptible).

It was not my intent to recommend this to anyone but rather to make the point that it can work for those who are willing to put in the time and effort. It is simply wrong to say it can't be done just because Windows appeals to and engenders ignorant users as opposed to knowledgeable admins. Please note that "ignorance" used here applies similarly to the many good drivers of automobiles that don't wish to become mechanics. It's a perfectly valid way to drive in both cases, but not universal. Thankfully such drivers of cars don't routinely drive into trees and bridge abutments.

 

[PAllen]

Where I work, we use Sophos (no choice in the matter). Not on your list, but it is really expensive for private use.

 

[x BlueRobot]

I don't bother reading AV rankings, they're just marketing schemes and have no scienfic purpose at all. If you take a look at several different websites, then I guarantee you get different results, depending on what that company is attempting to market.

MSE is always going to be one of the lowest because its for free. There's a good presentation about Breaking AV Software, and how AV software can in some aspects make your system more vulnerable.

 

[phion]

I don't see the point, honestly.

 

[Adjoint]

MSE is always going to be one of the lowest because its for free.

I disagree. Many free antiviruses are rated quite good .

And though I understand AV ratings are not any ultimate judgment; I think a good product should not go low in most of the independent tests.

 

[x BlueRobot]

I disagree. Many free antiviruses are rated quite good .

And though I understand AV ratings are not any ultimate judgment; I think a good product should not go low in most of the independent tests.

Completely free or free version?

 

[AlephZero]

Many "free" products are just bait for paid-for products from the same company.

But nobody is going to make any money by recommending a genuinely free product from MS. (OK, MS Essentials isn't really free - you paid for it up front when you bought your Windows license, whether you use it or not).

I can't find where AV-TEST make their money (their website doesn't say), but it's a reasonable guess that they don't get the services of "30 IT specialists" for nothing.

 

[Adjoint]

Completely free or free version?

Some even completely free like http://www.360safe.com/internet-security.html has near perfect score.
And also -

MS Essentials isn't really free - you paid for it up front when you bought your Windows license, whether you use it or not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many "free" products are just bait for paid-for products from the same company.

Certainly. But in many cases, for example Comodo offers so much (antivirus + firewall + real time scan + anti spyware) in their free products that there is hardly any bait for regular home users.

By the way, this is not a very serious discussion, right? I have Microsoft's AV on my windows 8 and Comodo on my windows 7. And both are practically just fine for me.
I was just wondering why MS got so low scores... perhaps it's not that good.

 

[B0b-A]

Mr McAfee does not recommend the product which bears his name ... http://youtu.be/bKgf5PaBzyg?t=3s NSFW

 

[PhysicoRaj]

I use Avast. From my side, I think it's not upto it's name. It's becoming unreliable nowadays, but it is nice on the whole.

 

[adjacent]

I use Avast. From my side, I think it's not upto it's name. It's becoming unreliable nowadays, but it is nice on the whole.

I stopped using it when it made my computer go blank. I had to reinstall windows again :3

 

[PhysicoRaj]

I stopped using it when it made my computer go blank. I had to reinstall windows again :3

Ditto. Except that I am yet to discontinue it.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Always used MSSE until I tired of the endless error messages in Event Viewer. Although it is not very good, since I do not visit dubious sites and download only from proper sources, it was enough. Then I started sharing my PC with the missus...

BitDefender (free) is as lightweight as MSSE and allows for a much faster boot to desktop, apart from its excellent level of protection (usually ranked in top three). Recommended.

 

[Chronos]

Malwarebytes with ME AV works fine for me.

 

[B. Elliott]

Many "free" products are just bait for paid-for products from the same company.

But nobody is going to make any money by recommending a genuinely free product from MS. (OK, MS Essentials isn't really free - you paid for it up front when you bought your Windows license, whether you use it or not).

My thoughts exactly

 

[poper9435]

Bit Defender

 

[TrentNY]

I use Webroot! (not on poll).

 

[meBigGuy]

I'm surprised no one referenced this site:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

It makes it pretty clear which SW is the best (there is more than 1 "best"). For the "good" SW, there is generally a tradeoff between detection and false alarms and performance impacts.

They have charts on performance, detection rates, false positives, etc. and extensive descriptions on the nature of the tests.

BTW, microsoft's solution sucks (I have personal experiences I'd be happy to share) and AV comparative's real world tests say this:
Microsoft’s out-of-box protection: 83.3% (non-competitive)

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

BTW, microsoft's solution sucks (I have personal experiences I'd be happy to share) and AV comparative's real world tests say this:
Microsoft’s out-of-box protection: 83.3% (non-competitive)

hmmm well, I've used MS Defender for years with no viruses. I think these days you either get a virus by being careless or by doing questionable things. I haven't worried about viruses for many years.

 

[Dr.D]

I have been using a paid version of AVAST for several years with good results,

But ...

This past Friday night, I had a problem running a utility that I have used countless times previously. Avast said it was corrupted, so I called Avast support. To make a long story short,
-- I worked with them off and on through the night for a total of about 15 hours;
-- They said I needed their paid support package for Win XP and to let their tech control my machine;
In the end, their tech seems to have destroyed Win XP, so my machine is completely shot until I do a re-install. I cannot run anything at all right now, and I'm more than a little bit frosted with Avast!

No More Avast for Me!

 

[dlgoff]

I have been using a paid version of AVAST for several years with good results,

But ...

This past Friday night, I had a problem running a utility that I have used countless times previously. Avast said it was corrupted, so I called Avast support. To make a long story short,
-- I worked with them off and on through the night for a total of about 15 hours;
-- They said I needed their paid support package for Win XP and to let their tech control my machine;
In the end, their tech seems to have destroyed Win XP, so my machine is completely shot until I do a re-install. I cannot run anything at all right now, and I'm more than a little bit frosted with Avast!

No More Avast for Me!

Probably just as well you re-install XP. I too used Avast and found it very difficult to get all instances of it's "fingers" deleted. I switched to Microsoft Security Essentials about the same time as Greg did, I believe, and haven't had any problems with it. But agree that ...

I think these days you either get a virus by being careless or by doing questionable things.

 

[rcgldr]

Most of my system protection comes from frequent backups. I multi-boot (Win XP, Win XP x64, Win 7 x64), and have several partitions on several hard drives, plus an external drive. For anything that could be suspicious, I test with Win 7's virtual machine XP mode, since recovery just requires restoring a backup of the XP mode hard drive image file.

 

[meBigGuy]

hmmm well, I've used MS Defender for years with no viruses. I think these days you either get a virus by being careless or by doing questionable things. I haven't worried about viruses for many years.

That is an anecdotal, valueless, opinion espoused by many people who have simply been lucky.

I'll agree that many problems are caused by user stupidity, but don't think for a moment that they all are.

I have been infected by malware (with widows defender active and updated, BTW) on an unattended computer. Just parked on a website, and a compromised ad-server rooted my machine. Of course, Microsoft wasn't interested in the forensics, either.

You might say that "leaving a browser open is questionable", but I think not.

It is not a matter of "if" you will be compromised, it is a matter of when. With windows defender, the odds go WAY up. Did you even look at the AV comparatives reports? If you are aware of the 83% effectiveness (worse that all other solutions) and poor performance of windows defender, then that's your decision. But, if you are actually unaware of the quantitative differences between the many AV solutions, then I don't know what else to say.

It's only a matter of time before you accidently click on something you probably shouldn't have, and Microsoft let's you down.

 

[Medicol]

That is an anecdotal, valueless, opinion espoused by many people who have simply been lucky.

I'll agree that many problems are caused by user stupidity, but don't think for a moment that they all are.

You sound harsh. It's not really the stupidity when one is unaware of something dangerous but I suppose when he makes the same mistake several times.

I have been infected by malware (with widows defender active and updated, BTW) on an unattended computer. Just parked on a website, and a compromised ad-server rooted my machine. Of course, Microsoft wasn't interested in the forensics, either.

You might say that "leaving a browser open is questionable", but I think not.

It is not a matter of "if" you will be compromised, it is a matter of when. With windows defender, the odds go WAY up. Did you even look at the AV comparatives reports? If you are aware of the 83% effectiveness (worse that all other solutions) and poor performance of windows defender, then that's your decision. But, if you are actually unaware of the quantitative differences between the many AV solutions, then I don't know what else to say.

You think about only one engine. No single AV can detect all the latest viruses, because AV engines work based on their server databases of stored file signatures to identify the targets in question. You heard of Virus Total of Google :D. It offers scanning services for not only a particular file but also domains or sites all at once.

It's only a matter of time before you accidently click on something you probably shouldn't have, and Microsoft let's you down.

Viruses or malicious codes can be attached to whatever files, not only PE (portable executable) files.

I have a headache reading statistical data.

 

[meBigGuy]

I have a headache reading statistical data.

Then look at a picture:
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php

Pick what tests you want to see. File detection, Real Time Protection, and Performance are good choices.