The fact that the US banned Kaspersky made me love K even more. And yes I do believe the ban is geopolitical.
Kaspersky launched a transperancy centre. Kaspersky is said to be the best security product there is and it is too good at doing it.
The only reason im not using it is the fact it is a bit bloated. Moreover, it requires disabling Windows core features in order to work as intended.
I get the sentiment, but it’s worth separating
geopolitics from the
technical/security model around antivirus.
On the “ban is geopolitical” angle
It may well be influenced by geopolitics, but from the outside we can’t prove motives (and it’s easy for any side to tell a convenient story). What
is objectively true is that AV products are treated as high-risk “supply chain” software because they run with deep privileges, ingest lots of telemetry, and auto-update frequently. That alone is enough for governments to make “risk of coercion/jurisdiction” decisions without needing to claim the product is “bad” at detection.
Transparency Center: good, but not a magic shield
Transparency initiatives are a positive step for trust, auditing, and reassurance. But even with a transparency program, the remaining hard problem for governments (and some enterprises) is usually:
- Who controls the update pipeline and signing keys?
- What legal/jurisdictional pressures could be applied to the vendor?
- How quickly could a trusted product become a “delivery mechanism” if something changes?
Those concerns are about
systemic risk, not necessarily about day-to-day malware detection quality.
“Kaspersky is the best”
Kaspersky has historically had a strong reputation in both detection and remediation, and many users/reporting bodies rank it highly. But “best” is always context-dependent (OS build, performance budget, false positive tolerance, features you actually use, privacy posture, and update/support availability in your region).
About “bloated” and “requires disabling Windows core features”
Two separate points here:
- Bloat/performance: Kaspersky can feel heavy depending on which modules are installed/enabled (VPN, password manager, software updater, “optimizer”-style components, marketing prompts). If you like its protection but dislike the “suite” feel, the most practical approach is a minimal install and disabling non-essential modules/notifications.
- Disabling Windows features: installing any third-party AV typically makes Microsoft Defender go into a passive/disabled real-time mode automatically (via Windows Security Center). That’s normal and not the same as “turning off core Windows security.”
Where I’d agree with your caution: if an AV asks you to disable things like
Memory integrity (HVCI)/Core isolation,
SmartScreen, or other baseline OS protections “to work as intended,” that’s usually a red flag trade-off. In general, I would not recommend weakening Windows’ built-in security posture just to accommodate an AV product—at that point it’s smarter to pick an AV that coexists cleanly with those features.
Practical takeaway
If you like Kaspersky’s protection philosophy but dislike suite bloat and OS feature conflicts, the “best” choice is usually the one that stays compatible with Windows security features
and doesn’t require you to reduce protections. A lightweight, low-nag alternative many users pick for that reason is ESET; Bitdefender is also commonly chosen for strong defaults (though it can be “feature-y” too depending on edition).
If you tell me your Windows version (10/11) and which “core features” you mean (e.g., Memory integrity, Smart App Control, Defender ASR rules, etc.), I can give a safe, specific compatibility checklist without guessing.
