Serious Discussion Best Stand Alone AV's

[likeastar20]

Simple, Kaspersky

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

Just wondering what opinions are regarding any anti-virus that you can run alone with no secondary programs and get above average protection. I know Kaspersky is always mentioned, are there any others? I feel that no program is 100% effective 100% of the time and is the reason I run a secondary program such as Cyberlock or SWH. But for the sake of anyone wanting simplicity is there one AV you can run and be secure? Would any of you run an AV only and nothing else? Thanks.

Sure, any of them, with proper habits. What good is any of this security if one is lacking those habits.

I have a laptop here under the same roof with me that has nothing but default windows security and ublock origin in the browsers, been that way over a year now and it's used for all kinds of things, never a issue. Nothing is stored on it, everything backed up to an external drive, all updates system/app are kept current, anything downloaded is vetted first then after downloaded it is uploaded to verify at VT before executing and using, urls are observed before clicking. I taught them well.

I want to ask, how many replying to this thread get infected often. For the ones that do are you using only one solution and is it the same one everyone else is using. Do you spend more time worrying about malware than using your systems.

I used to run my windows machine with nothing but default security "have a Chromebook now", and sysinternals analysis application. I did not even rely on the AV as I could manually look through the system and see if I had an issue "besides being able to tell by symptoms", I used process explorer, auto runs and tcpview in a folder on the desktop to check from time to time, and you can bet I used my system for everything, and was fine with my habits.

 

[Jonny Quest]

Kaspersky would be my first choice then F-Secure, and occasionally run NPE, KVRT, etc scans. I don't run anything besides, alongside of those. I do use Glasswire free on the F-Secure PCs just to monitor the 1st outbound connections and the home network connections, which Kaspersky Plus has included (Smart Home Monitor).

 

[Nikola Milanovic]

Xcitium is the best What is Endpoint Detection Response? | EDR Solution | EDR

 

[v4npro]

I've been using F-Secure, no complaints.

 

[Jonny Quest]

I would also factor in glitches. Which standalone AV has the fewest glitches (stablility) while performing its job. And what about support? For some AVs, the users are the beta testers and have to deal with the issues through forum help or submitting log files etc. At least Kaspersky and F-Secure still believe in beta testing ( I'm not sure about other vendors) their versions before public release.

 

[Antimalware18]

Kasperky , Avast/AVG, MS Defender (with tweaks) any of those and your pretty good.

 

[Jengo]

Avast Premium all the way

 

[simmerskool]

Microsoft Defender is good enough when tweaked. Personally I would choose Kaspersky.

MS Defender was my first thought when properly tweaked, or ESET, or F-Secure

 

[SumTingWong]

F-secure install and forget, nothing to tweak

G-data, because it conflicts easily with the other software

G-Data uses more ram than Bitdefender in my case. One might as well go with Bitdefender or Emsisoft instead.

 

[BigWrench]

In no particular order…..
Avast
ESET
Norton
F Secure
Y’all

 

[Xeno1234]

Kaspersky is great. Light with great protection.

 

[Sunshine-boy]

but way better than Bitdefender.

How so? the second got ATC while FortiClient rely on signature no bb in place and for the sandbox which is free in other AVS you Must pay.

 

[RoboMan]

That's a good question, and a very smart one. Usually, users don't wanna deal with several security programs, and an all-in-one suite is always preferred. Understandable.

But, when it comes to it, which suites are there to offer covering all Windows' weak points?

In my opinion, and aforementioned by others, there's only one: Kaspersky.

Why Kaspersky? Because it offers:

• Solid web protection
• Top tier behaviour blocker (System Watcher)
• Outstanding and usable firewall
• Application Control (anti-executable-like module)

Usually, first generation antiviruses' weak point is they work as a blacklist, meaning everything is allowed to run unless it's hash exists on the company's database as malicious. But when you use an anti-executable, or in this case, Application Control, the security approach changes, and it starts working as a whitelist instead... Meaning nothing allowed to run unless it's in the database. A far more secure way of handling security.
If configured correctly, Kaspersky's Application Control will block the execution of any software that's either not signed or not signed by a Trusted Vendor (a trust list made by the russian company).

So, to sum up, with all these modules, Kaspersky's probably the only one complete enough as to be used as a standalone solution.

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

Why doesn't anyone choose Norton? Yes, it is an excellent antivirus and owner of 2 powerful engines - Avast and Avira. I have seen in several tests how Norton obtains superior results than the competition.

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

Why doesn't anyone choose Norton? Yes, it is an excellent antivirus and owner of 2 powerful engines - Avast and Avira. I have seen in several tests how Norton obtains superior results than the competition.

Because the whole thread is subjective. Pointless really.

 

[Jonny Quest]

Because the whole thread is subjective. Pointless really.

The first words of Digmor's post, "Just wondering what opinions are..." and that's what we're doing, no?

 

[SeriousHoax]

Most of the top products can be used as standalone AV.
So, Avast/AVG, Bitdefender, ESET, Kaspersky, Norton and maybe a couple others.
In the end it is a matter of personal preference like many other things because I can point out negative things about all of the mentioned products also. None of them is perfect.

 

[ForgottenSeer 103564]

The first words of Digmor's post, "Just wondering what opinions are..." and that's what we're doing, no?

Subjective meaning of others opinions not facts. If we place fact, there is no best, they all have good and bad days and can be bypassed, although, and it comes down to this, that's negated with habits not with piling on more.

Everytime one of these threads are created it turns into "this is my favorite." Which is as I stated "subjective"

Personally I find being attentive in our surroundings on the net with good habits is better any day then waiting until the product screams, you were infected, I cleaned it up, but broke the files it was associated with, now your system is unstable, oh and they took a bunch of your info before I shut it down, and the C&C server nows has your address.

More focus is placed in products than what needs to be, almost like a PR department. See my point.

 

[Shadowra]

Why doesn't anyone choose Norton? Yes, it is an excellent antivirus and owner of 2 powerful engines - Avast and Avira. I have seen in several tests how Norton obtains superior results than the competition.

Forced to give your CB for an evaluation, Norton Crypto and it fails against an infostealer on a bloated file.... I liked Norton, but I hate these practices...