Products to compare
  • BitDetender
  • Trend Micro
  • Kaspersky IS
  • Sophos
  • CryptoPrevent
Compare
Computer protection (Antivirus engine, Heuristic engine)
Internet protection (Web Guard, Anti-Phishing, Antispam, Browser extension)
Proactive protection (Behavior blocker, HIPS, Sandbox)
Network protection (Firewall, Botnet protection)
Ransomware protection
Banking & Payments protection

camo7782

Level 4
So After all that said in previous post (Compare Protection - Security solution for prosumer? (2 PCs)) I have decided to give BitDefender a try. Currently it has 3 main problems:

  1. It doesn't allow me to download .exe files, including safe ones. The connection is so much slowed than will eventually drop, I suspect that BD is checking the file while it downloads which looks stupid. It could just check it once finished I suppose. Disabling modules will resolve this issue but would be annoying to do so every time I need to download an installer
  2. Similarly to previous point, it slows down some Prime Video streaming, some videos have sort of ads of other shows before the content. for those who are used to PV the ads can be skipped or the content can be added to the list for being watched later. When the main content has such pre-video or ads, the main content will not play. Again disabling all modules resolve.
  3. This is probably the bigger problem; the support! It like hitting a classic rubber wall, they have a protocol and follow it blindly, they doesnt read the tickets. I'm pretty much sure that these issues are well known to them, having me beta-test their product is not resolving my issue. I also noticed that their support tool is trying to send 1 GB of data at every ticket over HTTP, which obviously fail, for some reason it is making a timestamp of my system, including the Apps folder where I keep all the installers.
This said I'd be tempted to drop it and try the WD+VS+CF combo, I could also evaluate Kaspersky IS again, even tho would not have my data sent in Russia. Another name that popped quite some time while Googling is Trend Micro, but I do not know much about it, maybe it was renamed? Sophos also remain a possible alternative, maybe paired with CryptoPrevent, not sure how popular is this one respect other ransomware software.
 

alakazam

Level 5
Interesting review. Nice of you to share it. I recommend you also try the trial version of K7 Computing. It's one of the lesser known companies that have a proprietary engine. It would be nice to see a review of K7 Computing after you test it.
 

Threadripper

Level 6
My Bitdefender experience was far from great too:
I used Bitdefender recently for 30 days and my god, it was heavy, bloated, settings randomly reset themselves, waking from sleep froze my PC entirely and I recall needing to turn on and off my PC several times to get past the Windows login screen on one occasion.

This all happened when I was using Bitdefender, and stopped once it was gone. I did run sfc /scannow and it's a pretty powerful gaming PC with an M.2 - it really should be called Bugdefender. No issues before using it, and none after.
IMO, you're overthinking your security. Sophos Home alone would be fine, so would Kaspersky, so would most solutions. Pairing them with OSArmor or VoodooShield is the most you need, don't go overboard with an AV, anti-exe and Firewall w/ HIPS, overlapping web filtering, sandboxing and overlapping default-deny features.

This bit is down to my personal opinion:

If you want privacy, speed, elegance and a dark theme go with Emsisoft. Hands down best AV I've ever used: Emsisoft: Quite Possibly The Most Privacy Conscious Anti-Malware Around

It doesn't play with certs to filter traffic, the telemetry it sends is anonymous and actually helpful to Emsisoft to help fix bugs and errors, and of course you can turn that off with a click and the browser extension uses hashes which is faster, and it means Emsisoft don't know the websites you visit, checking is local.

If you want a free solution, I can vouch for Sophos Home and how dirt cheap it is for 10 Windows PCs and Macs. No BS, pure protection and like Emsisoft you can use the dashboard to configure settings across devices and remotely.
 

camo7782

Level 4
One thing about Bitdefender, i would never ever use it again.
See my posts about it.
link the post please.


My Bitdefender experience was far from great too.

If you want privacy, speed, elegance and a dark theme go with Emsisoft. Hands down best AV I've ever used: Emsisoft: Quite Possibly The Most Privacy Conscious Anti-Malware Around
does it also protect from phishing and have a firewall (HIPS) other than antivirus?

If you want a free solution, I can vouch for Sophos Home and how dirt cheap it is for 10 Windows PCs and Macs. No BS, pure protection and like Emsisoft you can use the dashboard to configure settings across devices and remotely.
could you compare it against the other names in the list?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bjm_ and bribon77

Threadripper

Level 6
@camo7782 Emsisoft uses DNS blocking for malicious and phishing hosts, as well as the Edge, Chromium and Firefox extensions. It also allows you to import a hosts file for custom blocking. The behaviour blocker prevents modification of Windows Firewall but it doesn't have a firewall or HIPS itself, this will explain it better than I could: Emsisoft and Windows Firewall: Your questions, answered.

HIPS will annoy you more than anything, even on a mostly static system. Emsisoft's behaviour blocker could be compared to HIPS in the sense of it blocking firewall modifications, hosts file modifications, process injections, etc. Emsisoft used to make one of the most well knows and popular HIPS programms called Online Armor but development ceased a few years ago.
 

Back3

Level 2
For 3 years in a row, I used Kaspersky IS and didn't have a problem with it. And it was the only piece of software on my 2 PCs. For the last 2 years, I've been using a combo: WD and CF at CS settings plus HIPS. Instead of WD, I briefly used Kaspersky free but couldn't make system restore run with that combo.
With WD and CF, you'll be pretty much secure. If you want to add something to that combo, wait for a month, make an image then if something goes wrong, revert to that image. I added Zemana free on demand . And also added the firewall rules suggested by SysHardener. That's all.
 

Back3

Level 2
I dropped Kas IS just to try somethig different.
CF runs perfectlly with Windows Firewall. I think it is made to run with it at default settings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roger_m

Seyyed Akram

Level 5
I would not ever use Bitdefender even though it is offered for free from my ISP. It is heavy. I would go with Bullguard, F-Secure, Kaspersky or even SHP. I am currently using KTS and I am very pleased with it. Very light (depends on your system).
 

Slyguy

Level 41
Verified
So After all that said in previous post (Compare Protection - Security solution for prosumer? (2 PCs)) I have decided to give BitDefender a try. Currently it has 3 main problems:

  1. It doesn't allow me to download .exe files, including safe ones. The connection is so much slowed than will eventually drop, I suspect that BD is checking the file while it downloads which looks stupid. It could just check it once finished I suppose. Disabling modules will resolve this issue but would be annoying to do so every time I need to download an installer
  2. Similarly to previous point, it slows down some Prime Video streaming, some videos have sort of ads of other shows before the content. for those who are used to PV the ads can be skipped or the content can be added to the list for being watched later. When the main content has such pre-video or ads, the main content will not play. Again disabling all modules resolve.
  3. This is probably the bigger problem; the support! It like hitting a classic rubber wall, they have a protocol and follow it blindly, they doesnt read the tickets. I'm pretty much sure that these issues are well known to them, having me beta-test their product is not resolving my issue. I also noticed that their support tool is trying to send 1 GB of data at every ticket over HTTP, which obviously fail, for some reason it is making a timestamp of my system, including the Apps folder where I keep all the installers.
This said I'd be tempted to drop it and try the WD+VS+CF combo, I could also evaluate Kaspersky IS again, even tho would not have my data sent in Russia. Another name that popped quite some time while Googling is Trend Micro, but I do not know much about it, maybe it was renamed? Sophos also remain a possible alternative, maybe paired with CryptoPrevent, not sure how popular is this one respect other ransomware software.
These problems stem from the fact that Bit Defender has an unworkable, almost completely broken Firewall. It WILL throttle connections, disrupt activity and cause you grief in the end. I don't even know how Bit Defender still has a following with how buggy and at times utterly unusable it is.

GData or Bullguard are better Bit Defender engines IMO. Especially GData. Emsisoft is another option to consider. Bullguard is cheap as heck, so a lot of people go with that, and they are adding/improving the machine learning in it with each new version.
 

oldschool

Level 30
Verified
IMO, you're overthinking your security. Sophos Home alone would be fine, so would Kaspersky, so would most solutions. Pairing them with OSArmor or VoodooShield is the most you need, don't go overboard with an AV, anti-exe and Firewall w/ HIPS, overlapping web filtering, sandboxing and overlapping default-deny features.
Absolutely agree with this!

Stay safe, not paranoid.

do you have to turn off the firewall portion of WD to use CruelComodo?
There is absolutely no reason to use two firewalls.

... though it is offered for free from my ISP.
This is the first I've heard of it. I thought McAfee had that market wrapped up, at least in the U.S. BD maybe desperate?
 

Seyyed Akram

Level 5
There is absolutely no reason to use two firewalls.



This is the first I've heard of it. I thought McAfee had that market wrapped up, at least in the U.S. BD maybe desperate?
One of the marketing agents called me many times offering me Bitdefender license (1 year/ 3 devices) for free and after the first year I will end up paying 10 ILS / year which is less than $3 :) But No! I won't ever install BD again.
 

blackice

Level 7
My Bitdefender experience was far from great too:

IMO, you're overthinking your security. Sophos Home alone would be fine, so would Kaspersky, so would most solutions. Pairing them with OSArmor or VoodooShield is the most you need, don't go overboard
I agree with this as well. If you aren’t opening unknown attachments or downloading cracks or torrents and are a home user a lot of security software discussed here is overboard. There are definitely use cases for locking things down, but don’t drive yourself crazy looking for a perfect combo of multiple solutions.
 

Raiden

Level 12
Verified
Content Creator
IMO, you're overthinking your security. Sophos Home alone would be fine, so would Kaspersky, so would most solutions. Pairing them with OSArmor or VoodooShield is the most you need, don't go overboard with an AV, anti-exe and Firewall w/ HIPS, overlapping web filtering, sandboxing and overlapping default-deny features.
I agree with this.(y)

There's always a tendency to think that more is better when it comes to security, when it's actually the opposite.

If you want a free solution, I can vouch for Sophos Home and how dirt cheap it is for 10 Windows PCs and Macs. No BS, pure protection and like Emsisoft you can use the dashboard to configure settings across devices and remotely.
I agree!

Sophos Home/Premiums is an excellent product IMO. One area that it is weak in is scripts (so are many other programs), but if you pair it with something like OSA, Syshardener, H_C, or Voodooshield, you will pretty much have that covered. What I've come to hate about most 3rd party AV's/Suites is that I find they are too in your face, as they are always trying to prove themselves IMO. Whether it be AD's, "security reports," constant pop ups for this and that, saying that you are vulnerable if you don't renew, etc..., it's too much IMO. It's the reason as to why I've moved away from using most 3rd parties and switched to WD as it just works, it's protection has improved significantly and it's not in your face. Like you, when it comes to 3rd parties, if I had to choose it would be either Sophos, or Emsisoft, as they are also no nonsense, just work type of products. I don't need all they extra useless modules to make me feel safe, I just want something that works and only notifies me if something is wrong.(y)

I agree with this as well. If you aren’t opening unknown attachments or downloading cracks or torrents and are a home user a lot of security software discussed here is overboard. There are definitely use cases for locking things down, but don’t drive yourself crazy looking for a perfect combo of multiple solutions.
Your habits are everything IMO.

We like to talk about and test various security programs/setups, which is totally fine, but I find there is too much emphasis put on security programs and not enough on educating proper security habits. If you have poor habits, no matter which security product/setup you use, it will fail at some point. I am not a huge fan of when people are asking for which program they should use and you have replies like: "well if you practice safe habits than you are ok to use x, however if you don't practice safe habits then you should use y." For the record I'm not saying anyone in this thread said that, it just a common reply I seen on various forums/websites on the internet. Using y product when practicing unsafe habits isn't going to make you invincible. If you don't change your habits, y product will fail you are some point.

I really don't like the excuse "oh average people don't want to learn, or don't care." In my honest experience, I have seen that to be quite the opposite. Every time I tell someone that they shouldn't do something on the internet, they don't do it. Sometimes I think what happens is that an assumption is made (average people don't want to learn), but no one really tries to teach them, they just assume they don't want to learn. Don't get me wrong there are people that no matter what you say, or do, they won't change what they do, but I don't agree with a blanket statement that is made to essentially say "all average users don't want to learn," that's far from the truth, all you have to do is try.

A proper security setup isn't just about which programs you like to use, it's also about ensuring you are practicing safe habits along side those security programs to keep yourself safe.(y);)
 
Last edited:

roger_m

Level 22
Verified
Content Creator
I really don't like the excuse "oh average people don't want to learn, or don't care." In my honest experience, I have seen that to be quite the opposite. Every time I tell someone that they shouldn't do something on the internet, they don't do it.
I believe that the problem is, that average user doesn't think they need to know anything about security. They believe that installing antivirus software is all they need to do to be protected.
 

Raiden

Level 12
Verified
Content Creator
I believe that the problem is, that average user doesn't think they need to know anything about security. They believe that installing antivirus software is all they need to do to be protected.
That is very true!

Playing devils advocate, one could also argue that security geeks do the same thing, just with more overlapping/overkill setups.:p

While you are absolutely correct in your statement, as it is true, I just take issue when a blanket statement that no average user wants to learn. I just don't agree with labeling all average users as not willing to learn. Sure, there some who fall into this category, but I would hazard to guess most are very willing to learn, especially if something happened to them. All it take is someone willing to teach/educate them.;)
 
Last edited:

roger_m

Level 22
Verified
Content Creator
@Raiden Sure, some are willing to learn, but a lot aren't, even if they get infected. If they get infected, they don't consider that they need to be more careful and educate themselves about security, they think that the antivirus they are using is garbage and they need a better antivirus. Part of the problem is that a lot of money is spent on advertising antivirus software, but not so much on education about safe computing practices.

The following is a good example of people's attitude towards security. A number of years ago, a friend of mine was sent a virus on MSN Messenger. He opened the infected file and of course, the result was that his computer got infected. His response was that surely there must be a better antivirus he could use, that would protect against all viruses. He didn't consider that if he had not opened the file, sent from some random person who was not one of contacts on Messenger, he would not have got infected.
 
Last edited: