Advice Request Best Antivirus for my Family

[piquiteco]

Eset missed this sample:

Wow, posing as Intel graphics card drivers (Intel Graphics Updater) Malware disguised as an Intel driver updater? Or using a fake certificate? Check the image below to see if you recognise this sample, which you passed from any.run.

Spoiler

 

[Parkinsond]

McAfee achieved almost 100% pre-execution prevention

According to the included photo, MD scored better than McAfee; good job MS

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

So I am looking for a new antivirus suite for my Family. And when I mean family, I mean my parents. We are currently using Bitdefender, but recently, my mother has complained that it's slowing down her laptop. Which I can understand, it's not exactly light on my gaming desktop either. Also, when I check Bitdefender Central, I see about once a day it blocks PowerShell for no apparent reason. Guess they haven't fixed that bug yet.

So these are the devices I need to protect for them, 2 windows laptops, 1 iPhone, 1 iPad and 1 pixel phone.

I do have a few options on the shortlist, McAfee, Trend Micro and possibly Avira or AVG. But I am open to other recommendations too.

The main thing I am looking for is good web protection, especially against phishing and scams. Plus not too heavy on the system like Bitdefender. I won't be able to go with options like ESET, Gdata, Emsisoft because they have no iOS application. And I prefer not to use F-Secure either because it has no system-wide web protection in iOS, only in Safari. And not Kaspersky either because from first hand experience their web protection is not as strong as I'd like it to be.

Hopefully you guys can help make my decision.

Relying on software to correct your bad habits is a losing strategy. Eventually, every tool will fail, and when it does, your lack of good habits will be exposed. My recommendation is to first focus on (the core issue). From there, you can choose a security suite that aligns with your specific needs, usage patterns, and system resources.

 

[ForgottenSeer 94738]

Relying on software to correct your bad habits is a losing strategy. Eventually, every tool will fail, and when it does, your lack of good habits will be exposed. My recommendation is to first focus on (the core issue). From there, you can choose a security suite that aligns with your specific needs, usage patterns, and system resources.

I think it's easier to develop a good antivirus program than to break people's bad habits.

 

[Trident]

Wow, posing as Intel graphics card drivers (Intel Graphics Updater) Malware disguised as an Intel driver updater? Or using a fake certificate? Check the image below to see if you recognise this sample, which you passed from any.run.

Spoiler

View attachment 289978

The VT sample is not signed, it just poses as Intel Graphics updater but it obviously isn’t.

According to the included photo, MD scored better than McAfee; good job MS

That’s again the way you wanna see the test. On previous threads and posts, you claim “pre-execution prevention is better”.

Now suddenly, Defender that blocked >90% of malware post-execution became better.

That’s evidence that you take the tests, twist and turn the way you wanna present them and use them as you wanna use them.

In psychology, it’s called choice-supportive bias.

Further discussions are not needed.

Also, why did you shift focus from Eset, what happened?
I am still waiting for the tests that said Eset is the best with the highest pre-execution prevention.

Are the tests coming or will I wait till next year this time?

 

[Trident]

Relying on software to correct your bad habits is a losing strategy. Eventually, every tool will fail, and when it does, your lack of good habits will be exposed. My recommendation is to first focus on (the core issue). From there, you can choose a security suite that aligns with your specific needs, usage patterns, and system resources.

We are not talking about habits and general security practices. We are talking about statements, various statements which you historically have tried to fight on this forum.

Statements “this one is the best”, “the other one is heavy” and so on and so forth, which get passed around with no evidence.

It was repeated not once, but 5-6 times that Eset has highest pre-execution prevention, as proven by “my tests” (for “my tests” no hashes of further information is provided) and “third-party tests”. One third-party test was provided (where many solutions have been praised and BD has been product of the year few times) — this test contains 0 evidence that Eset pre-execution prevention is the best.

Eset was crowned “the best” because “others rely more on post-execution prevention. To verify whether it was said or not, go back to the previous posts.

Another test provided by me shows that Eset pre-execution prevention is average at best.

At this point, pre-execution prevention becomes “no longer important” (which an hour ago was the reason why Eset was the best) and suddenly, Defender (worst of all by this logic) is being praised.

So please tell me how I should interpret that????

 

[piquiteco]

Relying on software to correct your bad habits is a losing strategy. Eventually, every tool will fail, and when it does, your lack of good habits will be exposed. My recommendation is to first focus on (the core issue). From there, you can choose a security suite that aligns with your specific needs, usage patterns, and system resources.

BTW Welcome to MT! I saw you in the Introduction to New Members section and forgot to say hello. It was on 26/7, so it's a bit late, but I hope you enjoy the forum anyway. Yes, my friend, I don't trust software or AVs very much, but I know a lot of things just by looking at them, whatever the file type. I've always been curious. I infected my own machine just to see what would happen, as I had never been infected before, so I decided to infect myself to see what I would do. I believe that these malware programs catch many people who are inattentive and uninformed, or perhaps laymen.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

We are not talking about habits and general security practices. We are talking about statements, various statements which you historically have tried to fight on this forum.

Statements “this one is the best”, “the other one is heavy” and so on and so forth, which get passed around with no evidence.

It was repeated not once, but 5-6 times that Eset has highest pre-execution prevention, as proven by “my tests” (for “my tests” no hashes of further information is provided) and “third-party tests”. One third-party test was provided (where many solutions have been praised and BD has been product of the year few times) — this test contains 0 evidence that Eset pre-execution prevention is the best.

Another test provided by me shows that Eset pre-execution prevention is average at best.

At this point, pre-execution prevention becomes “no longer important” and suddenly, Defender (worst of all by this logic” is being praised.

So please tell me how I should interpret that????

Just replying to the original post to keep the conversation on topic.

 

[Trident]

Just replying to the original post to keep the conversation on topic.

The conversation is on topic, user asked for recommendations and recommendations were issued, along with statements. The proof of these statements is lacking and or shaky…? Prove to the user now and explain why and how Eset is the best, and why they should spend their money on Eset.

We are talking about software here, not about lipstick and tan cream where opinions are subjective and based on “love and hate”. Or am I wrong?

 

[piquiteco]

The sample is corrupted nevertheless.

I was reviewing this again, so just because of this Fail, McAfee did not reach the rate of 100%?

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

The conversation is on topic, user asked for recommendations and recommendations were issued, along with statements. The proof of these statements is lacking and or shaky…? Prove to the user now and explain why and how Eset is the best, and why they should spend their money on Eset.

We are talking about software here, not about lipstick and tan cream where opinions are subjective and based on “love and hate”. Or am I wrong?

Let's focus on direct recommendations for the original poster "OP". There are a lot of threads that debate which is better, but the OP needs specific suggestions without having to read through 10 pages of discussion. Can we help them out?

 

[Trident]

I was reviewing this again, so just because of this Fail, McAfee did not reach the rate of 100%?

Yeah, it is the only fail, as per the table. And the pre-execution prevention was highest of everyone. But also, this test was conducted before the intro of TLSH.

Let's focus on direct recommendations for the original poster "OP". There are a lot of threads that debate which is better, but the OP needs specific suggestions without having to read through 10 pages of discussion. Can we help them out?

I did provide recommendations in early posts.
My recommendation are provided. But they got buried beneath many other posts. What should I do now, write everything again and again (and then yet again)?
And even in favour of the OP a test video was uploaded.
It’s always the same with every topic.

The OP is saying that they don’t want Eset, they don’t want Kaspersky and they don’t want Defender. Not sure why tens of recommendations include these three?

 

[anirbandutta01]

Respect to all MT members. I'm a blind fan of ESET & it's my 1st used paid Antivirus ( in the year of 2010 )
BUT
Last month I found some malware after scan with KVRT & MD. ( Uninstalled ESET then scan with MD ) Sadly ESET detected very few.

So now I'm decided to install Kaspersky Standard ( I've 2 year's licence ). ESET became expensive day by day. I agree that it's super lightweight but now a days it's detection is getting worse.
So I think K is best for me as I've used it previously with detection rate.

Apologies for the off topic comment.

 

[piquiteco]

This occured 23 years ago, unless you declares Avira is better than Kaspersky.

That's right, my friend, good times. 23 years have passed, but it feels like yesterday.

 

[Parkinsond]

That's right, my friend, good times. 23 years have passed, but it feels like yesterday.

Avira was the King long time ago, but no single AV stays on the throne all the time; every few years, there is a new king.

 

[ErzCrz]

Just skimming through here but presumably the Eset result is from @Shadowra 's comparative test finale: Shadowra's Big Comparative Episode 4. All these tests are to be taken with a grain of salt and what works best for you. Eset is light on the system and pretty effective but so are the other AVs mentioned. No solution is 100% and it's often user error falling for phishing,smishing,vishing social scams that seem to be forefront of people getting infected in the first place these days. I know someone who only a few months back clicked a dropbox link in an email only for them to fall for a fake Microsoft page resulting in full access to all of their data including work remote access.
Anyway Microsoft Defender is pretty good and having 365 adds more security if you have it, which I don't so using @danb 's tools like I do or @Andy Ful 's fills any gaps. Stay vigilant and careful what you click.

 

[piquiteco]

Yeah, it is the only fail, as per the table. And the pre-execution prevention was highest of everyone. But also, this test was conducted before the intro of TLSH.

I understand, it's already McAfee that we use and many people are using? How can I say, improved and redesigned. I've talked a lot here in this thread, although you recommended an AV at the beginning of the thread, now leave your recommendation for @KnownStormChaser (The best antivirus for my family) from your final words so he can analyse and test it.

 

[Trident]

I understand, it's already McAfee that we use and many people are using? How can I say, improved and redesigned. I've talked a lot here in this thread, although you recommended an AV at the beginning of the thread, now leave your recommendation for @KnownStormChaser (The best antivirus for my family) from your final words so he can analyse and test it.

Well, it performs, it’s stable, it’s actively developed with monthly updates (1.32 should be out in the next few days) and it’s easy to use. There are no tweaks, doohickeys and ancient systems like HIPS that require poking (which parents can’t do).

Just efficient web, internet and file protection.

The TLSH that allows safe files and malware similarity to be determined through a hash where small changes only change portion of the hash, was released last month with 1.31. This should improve detection and reduce false positives.

 

[superleeds27]

Well, it performs, it’s stable, it’s actively developed with monthly updates (1.32 should be out in the next few days) and it’s easy to use. There are no tweaks, doohickeys and ancient systems like HIPS that require poking (which parents can’t do).

Just efficient web, internet and file protection.

The TLSH that allows safe files and malware similarity to be determined through a hash where small changes only change portion of the hash, was released last month with 1.31. This should improve detection and reduce false positives.

Do they provide changelogs at all, Mcafee?

 

[KnownStormChaser]

Do they provide changelogs at all, Mcafee?

I would love to see change logs, haven't had any luck in finding them, though.