Battle AVG Free vs Avira Free Security vs Microsoft Defender (Default Settings)

[Shadowra]

Is the free version of Bitdefender better than Microsoft Defender?

It offers less protection (e.g. no anti-ransomware remediation, no e-mail analysis, etc.), but it's more than enough.

In terms of detection, I'd say the 2 antivirus programs are pretty equal. With Bitdefender, you won't need to add any additional software. (and AV-C is very good on Bitdefender)
In terms of RAM, I'd give the medal to Bitdefender (MD can be a bit of an analysis consumer).

 

[RoboMan]

What must be mentioned for Windows Defender, is that despite it's been getting better and better over the years, it's (and will always be) the most targeted antivirus by cybercriminals. Most people just use WD and they use it at default, so many cybercriminals' job is to actually find ways to bypass this standard protection (it makes sense to target the most used antivirus in Windows). So I'd always recommend using tools like ConfigureDefender or similar to harden the default protection.

 

[Practical Response]

What must be mentioned for Windows Defender, is that despite it's been getting better and better over the years, it's (and will always be) the most targeted antivirus by cybercriminals. Most people just use WD and they use it at default, so many cybercriminals' job is to actually find ways to bypass this standard protection (it makes sense to target the most used antivirus in Windows). So I'd always recommend using tools like ConfigureDefender or similar to harden the default protection.

I wouldn't call it a targeted anti virus as much as it comes default with the operating system and many windows users would be using it. Creating malware to try and bypass windows security as whole, yes this certainly happens. Although attention needs redirected to the method or route, if you will, which is initiated most of the time by social engineering. A good deal of today's problems rely heavily on poor habits and the uninformed. Even above in the example I posted asking Gemini, it is stated "if you surf HIGH RISK websites, or go to platforms that are targeted like gaming, you may want to consider something more then default security. This again is on the user and their habits. Of course this applies to any security you use, as it will mostly likely fail if you think it will save you from yourself and you act invincible with it.

 

[Slerion]

What features Avast have over Bitdefender? I know it have more shields, but if you install the minimum protection, which is (File, behavior and web shields) will there be any difference?

Hardened mode being one , i think web protection email protection , and a few more things like ransomware protection , cybercapture and more ( talking about the Avast "FREE" version not the "one" Version

Can you please link a reference for a credible real world testing "testing full route of infection accurately" , done with, in the wild samples that show case this "slow reaction and questionable decisions" you speak of.

Submit a file for malware analysis - Microsoft Security Intelligence

Submit suspected malware or incorrectly detected files for analysis. Submitted files will be added to or removed from antimalware definitions based on the analysis results.

www.microsoft.com

You can upload your samples at the provided link and test for yourself; the best real-world example is you. Technically, this tool is rated "Malicious" because, after direct user input (meaning the user chooses to use certain features), it could deactivate certain features. There is no malicious behavior, no virus, rootkit, ransomware, nothing, not even adware. At most, you could categorize this as "potentially unwanted program" in Microsoft's interest (for removing data gathering features, etc.), but that's about it. It's not just a "General" or "Heuristic" false positive; it's incorrectly labeled as a Trojan, which is completely inaccurate. They also took about two weeks to provide this answer. Similar sample uploads also take a while. But don't take my word for it; try it yourself.

Hot Take - Windows Defender and their "Biased" detections.

So , i tested in a VM this tool W10Privacy - Privacy made easy its known , safe ( as for its no malware but please be aware you COULD break stuff ) Windows defender recognized this as Malware ( not as pup or anything straight malware ) so i uploaded this to WD as false positive after roughly 1...

malwaretips.com

Microsoft not only misclassified a piece of software, but they also reinforced a false positive by attributing "features" (such as being a Trojan) to it. This was done slowly, and one could even argue, rather dramatically, that now any software that enables a user to perform certain "actions" could be labeled a Trojan according to Microsoft's rating system. This could apply to any program, whether it's CCleaner, most programming tools, or others, as they could all potentially perform similar functions with ease.

their Description of a Trojan

• Trojan: A type of malware that attempts to appear harmless. Unlike a virus or a worm, a trojan doesn't spread by itself. Instead, it tries to look legitimate to tricks users into downloading and installing it. Once installed, trojans perform various malicious activities such as stealing personal information, downloading other malware, or giving attackers access to your device."

Source How Microsoft identifies malware and potentially unwanted applications - Microsoft Defender XDR


I'm not suggesting that Microsoft Defender is inadequate; it's actually a pretty good antivirus. However, I'm dissatisfied with the time they take to process samples and their incorrect categorization of certain software/samples.

Report False Negative
In this instance, Avast is significantly ahead of the curve. Typically, when you submit a sample through their website at the provided link, you receive a response via email (not allways) either the same day or within one day, informing you whether the false positive or unidentified malicious file has been whitelisted or detected.

 

[Practical Response]

Hardened mode being one , i think web protection email protection , and a few more things like ransomware protection , cybercapture and more ( talking about the Avast "FREE" version not the "one" Version

Submit a file for malware analysis - Microsoft Security Intelligence

Submit suspected malware or incorrectly detected files for analysis. Submitted files will be added to or removed from antimalware definitions based on the analysis results.

www.microsoft.com

You can upload your samples at the provided link and test for yourself; the best real-world example is you. Technically, this tool is rated "Malicious" because, after direct user input (meaning the user chooses to use certain features), it could deactivate certain features. There is no malicious behavior, no virus, rootkit, ransomware, nothing, not even adware. At most, you could categorize this as "potentially unwanted program" in Microsoft's interest (for removing data gathering features, etc.), but that's about it. It's not just a "General" or "Heuristic" false positive; it's incorrectly labeled as a Trojan, which is completely inaccurate. They also took about two weeks to provide this answer. Similar sample uploads also take a while. But don't take my word for it; try it yourself.

Hot Take - Windows Defender and their "Biased" detections.

So , i tested in a VM this tool W10Privacy - Privacy made easy its known , safe ( as for its no malware but please be aware you COULD break stuff ) Windows defender recognized this as Malware ( not as pup or anything straight malware ) so i uploaded this to WD as false positive after roughly 1...

malwaretips.com

Microsoft not only misclassified a piece of software, but they also reinforced a false positive by attributing "features" (such as being a Trojan) to it. This was done slowly, and one could even argue, rather dramatically, that now any software that enables a user to perform certain "actions" could be labeled a Trojan according to Microsoft's rating system. This could apply to any program, whether it's CCleaner, most programming tools, or others, as they could all potentially perform similar functions with ease.

their Description of a Trojan

• Trojan: A type of malware that attempts to appear harmless. Unlike a virus or a worm, a trojan doesn't spread by itself. Instead, it tries to look legitimate to tricks users into downloading and installing it. Once installed, trojans perform various malicious activities such as stealing personal information, downloading other malware, or giving attackers access to your device."

Source How Microsoft identifies malware and potentially unwanted applications - Microsoft Defender XDR


I'm not suggesting that Microsoft Defender is inadequate; it's actually a pretty good antivirus. However, I'm dissatisfied with the time they take to process samples and their incorrect categorization of certain software/samples.

Report False Negative
In this instance, Avast is significantly ahead of the curve. Typically, when you submit a sample through their website at the provided link, you receive a response via email (not allways) either the same day or within one day, informing you whether the false positive or unidentified malicious file has been whitelisted or detected.

Are you serious right now. You are comparing actual malware analysis to Microsofts Defender application in Windows? Actual Malware Analysis can take weeks for any analyst to do. Please look up the difference.

 

[Slerion]

Are you serious right now. You are comparing actual malware analysis to Microsofts Defender application in Windows? Actual Malware Analysis can take weeks for any analyst to do. Please look up the difference.

Iam not , i just said that uploading samples to Microsoft for defender takes weeks for a Verdict , and this verdict even can come out false.

 

[Practical Response]

Iam not , i just said that uploading samples to Microsoft for defender takes weeks for a Verdict , and this verdict even can come out false.

This was your initial post and it is misleading .

Microsoft defender works fine if you are fine with the slow reaction and questionable decisions on samples.

Maybe you should state you are not happy with the time allocation of malware analysis by MS as opposed to starting defender is just fine if you don't mind slow reaction and questions decisions based off what appears to be one sample you are not happy about.

 

[blackice]

Last sample I submitted to F-Secure took over a month for a response. Microsoft ahead of the curve with a couple weeks.

 

[RRlight]

I would vote for AVG. Most importantly because its icon looks great. For me, it's the best icon among current popular AVs. I once thought about extracting its .ico file and using it on other AV softwares. In terms of performance, it's also good. But you will never know when Avast or Norton will stop supporting this product. (in essence AVG=Avast, just different icon/browser plugin)

 

[lokamoka820]

For me, it's the best icon among current popular AVs.

For me, it's the strangest concept to vote for a security product.

 

[Behold Eck]

For me, it's the strangest concept to vote for a security product.

Not necessarily as I for one would like to see the return of nice thick progress bar when scanning as opposed to the swirly, crumbly graphic effect so much favoured these days.

Regards Eck