Battle Kaspersky free vs Windows Defender

A

Aktiffiso

Level 9
Thread author
Verified
Aug 24, 2013
413
722
768
41
Hi i thinking in configure one of my pc whith free programs. I am thinking to use WD or KFA . I think both are good softwares . I am cuestioning me about what of this offer better protection and speed performance. I hope your contributions of objetive compare. Thanks
 
  • Like
Reactions: GonzitoVir, Syafiq, bribon77 and 1 other person
Sort by date Sort by votes
Kaspersky wasn't an option to the poll so I selected other. I can't imagine anyone using windows defender... Ever. It is one of if not the worst there is. All WD offers is signature protection, and its signatures are absolutely usless. You are better off guessing whats malicious or not than trusting WD. Any other free alternative is better.
IMO the best free set up is Sophos Home + Comodo Firewall. Comodo is arguably the best free security solution out there. The only area Comodo fails is in signatures, but thats where Sophos comes in. Sophos has some of the best signatures, so this will make up for Comodo's terrible signatures. Comodo is known for its firewall, auto-sandboxing, and HIPS. IMO every free configuration should have Comodo, assuming it doesn't interfere with anything they are doing.

Conclusion: Sophos Homes + Comodo Firewall is the best free configuration you can have. (At least from what I've seen)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Syafiq, bribon77 and Fritz
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hi i am entered WD has now cloud protection. I decide to compare KFA and WD because they does not have BB because i have a alternative who cover this área, Before i think to include Emsisoft but i think tisis a diferent product because it have BB

KFA Signature and Cloud

WD Signature and Cloud

KFA super signatures and super cloud
WD In theory better every day and core sistema security.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hamo and Syafiq
Upvote 0 Downvote
Aktiffiso said:
I am cuestioning me about what of this offer better protection and speed performance.
Click to expand...
As for protection, WD might stand a chance against KFA, but as for performance, KFA is the obvious choice then.
MS makes software, which works, as for optimization and polishing, that is something, they do not pay much attention to.

Aktiffiso said:
WD In theory better every day
Click to expand...
Exactly, in theory. WD features might seem cool, but it is something, that other AVs have had for years. WD is always just catching up.
WD has got "Block at First Sight" since CU and it will get an exploit and somewhat anti-ransomware protection since Fall Update.

To maximize WD's protection, you can use this:

Code: 
reg add "HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\MpEngine" /v "MpEnablePus" /t REG_DWORD /d "1" /f
reg add "HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\SpyNet" /v "DisableBlockAtFirstSeen" /t REG_DWORD /d "0" /f
reg add "HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\SpyNet" /v "SpynetReporting" /t REG_DWORD /d "2" /f
reg add "HKLM\Software\Policies\Microsoft\Windows Defender\SpyNet" /v "SubmitSamplesConsent" /t REG_DWORD /d "3" /f
 
  • Like
Reactions: GonzitoVir, monsterturckpa, Syafiq and 4 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
Aktiffiso said:
Hi i am entered WD has now cloud protection. I decide to compare KFA and WD because they does not have BB because i have a alternative who cover this área, Before i think to include Emsisoft but i think tisis a diferent product because it have BB
Click to expand...
LukeLovesSecurity said:
Kaspersky wasn't an option to the poll so I selected other. I can't imagine anyone using windows defender... Ever. It is one of if not the worst there is. All WD offers is signature protection, and its signatures are absolutely usless. You are better off guessing whats malicious or not than trusting WD. Any other free alternative is better.
Click to expand...

Some people should be better informed before they make any statements, i am not a fan of WD but it already has BB for quite some time, read more here :

Windows Defender Antivirus cloud protection service: Advanced real-time defense against never-before-seen malware

I prefer avast or BD free.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: tonibalas, Winter Soldier, Kuttz and 2 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think Emsi is a great software WAR is very cool. I think WD has BB but it is paid versión. KFA likes me but i dont know how really are superior tan WD because WD recives info from "Microsfot Windows 10 Spyware" and have too much data to be a better protection software. Sometimes for me is bad because uses too much HDD
 
  • Like
Reactions: Syafiq
Upvote 0 Downvote
Kaspersky of all kinds and flavors is prone to conflicts with other software. If that doesn't bother you, then it is a better choice than WD.

If you run other security software, WD is the best option, because it will not conflict, and will allow your other security softs to perform at their best.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Andy Ful, VecchioScarpone, Winter Soldier and 1 other person
Upvote 0 Downvote
LukeLovesSecurity said:
Kaspersky wasn't an option to the poll so I selected other. I can't imagine anyone using windows defender... Ever. It is one of if not the worst there is. All WD offers is signature protection, and its signatures are absolutely usless. You are better off guessing whats malicious or not than trusting WD. Any other free alternative is better.
IMO the best free set up is Sophos Home + Comodo Firewall. Comodo is arguably the best free security solution out there. The only area Comodo fails is in signatures, but thats where Sophos comes in. Sophos has some of the best signatures, so this will make up for Comodo's terrible signatures. Comodo is known for its firewall, auto-sandboxing, and HIPS. IMO every free configuration should have Comodo, assuming it doesn't interfere with anything they are doing.

Conclusion: Sophos Homes + Comodo Firewall is the best free configuration you can have. (At least from what I've seen)
Click to expand...

WD far from worst. WD in recent times especially after creators update is a pretty good performer and can compete with other free AVs just fine. WD offering only signature protection is also wrong. WD offer behavioral detection, cloud protection, tightly integrated with Win 10 OS offers adequate protection to those who are not careless. One can also enable optional PUP protection in WD through powershell which will help protect the system from fake softwares. Still there are good alternative to WD like Avast, BitDefender which have solid web protection capabilities. Kaspersky Free has one major weakness is its lack of behavioral detection capability which is a must have feature to deal with current day security threat scenario.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ZeroDay, CodaPG, Winter Soldier and 2 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
The actual differences between KFA and WD aren't that many, considering KFA does not have any type of behaviour blocker, just like WD. This means that both programs rely only on signaturers+cloud, and even though Kaspersky ones are a bit better, I believe it does not make much difference in a real world scenario.
If we were comparing WD to Bitdefender Free (which has a very good behaviour blocker) then the differences would be a bit bigger.
Anyway, please do not forget to pack a default-deny solution aside your AV (Voodooshield, Comodo Firewall, SecureAPlus, etc).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In my personal opinion, Kaspersky Free lacks of the modules that make it a great software, those you only have on the paid suite. So i would stand and fight along Windows Defender on this one, since it is less intrusive with software and browser and gives a decent protection level.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GonzitoVir, Andy Ful, monsterturckpa and 3 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

You may also like...