Q&A No Antivirus =/= Automatic Higher Risk

Spawn

Administrator
Verified
Staff member
Jan 8, 2011
21,053
On Windows, I use an Antivirus that comes with the OS; Microsoft Defender. I have tried other third-party security but have never been comfortable with the additional intrusive features, or constant upgrade Ad prompts.

On macOS, it is a different situation. I don't actively run any Antivirus software. Apple don't provide an integrated Antivirus like Microsoft, except for Gatekeeper which isn't really an AV.

Both systems are running the latest stable versions of Software and Browsers. Browsers have their own security features for blocking dangerous sites and downloads, which could be considered as additional layer of protection against phishing and malware.

I don't believe that not having an Antivirus makes you automatically more vulnerable (aka a higher risk), than someone who does use an Antivirus. It is the users actions that determine how much the system is at risk. An antivirus user may be open to more harm, given the false sense of security where they feel they are invulnerable.


[My views shared here are different to those in another thread, but may be considered as an expansion of linked post.]
 
Last edited:

bribon77

Level 34
Verified
Jul 6, 2017
2,383
Well, yes and no, having an AV in Windows I see it necessary. Even if it is the WD operating system.
But if I agree that having an AV does not mean that you are already vaccinated against everything, you have to take precautions.
An AV is not the Batman layer nor does it make you Superman. :)
 

roger_m

Level 34
Verified
Content Creator
Dec 4, 2014
2,353
I agree. My antivirus does not keep my system free of malware, because I never encounter any. As a result, it has nothing to block. My system would remain free of malware even if I didn't use an antivirus.

That's not to say that I'll never encounter malware and I do believe it is worthwhile to use an antivirus. In my opinion a lot of less experienced Windows users don't educate themselves about steps to avoid malware, because they believe that having an antivirus installed is all they need to do to keep them safe. Of course that's not the case, but it's understandable why they may think that way. If they do get infected, they blame the antivirus and don't take responsibility for their own actions.
 

Back3

Level 9
Apr 14, 2019
420
Three days ago, I helped a friend with her computer. It was running so slow. After an hour or so, her computer got faster. I discovered that she had bought Bitedender Total Security...she had paid 250$ for a licence for 50 computers. She had been sold the idea that you have to pay a lot to be well protected. Wow!
 

TairikuOkami

Level 31
Verified
Content Creator
May 13, 2017
2,046
I would not mind running AV, but I have yet to find AV that would not interfere with my work or slow down overall performance, even 1 sec enrages me. My experiences:

Windows Defender - noticeable slow down even when opening windows explorer (icons load one by one), blocking files, breaking Windows by blocking my scripts, rofl
Fortinet - light as a feather, but it randomly blocks the internet and youtube in steam's browser, blocking and removing files
Panda - low detection and slowing down the browsing (sometimes like 20 secs loading a webpage, lol)

360, Adaware, Avast, AVG, Avira, Bitdfender, KAV - way too heavy or other annoyances.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 89360

I would not mind running AV, but I have yet to find AV that would not interfere with my work or slow down overall performance, even 1 sec enrages me. My experiences:

Windows Defender - noticeable slow down even when opening windows explorer (icons load one by one), blocking files, breaking Windows by blocking my scripts, rofl
Fortinet - light as a feather, but it randomly blocks the internet and youtube in steam's browser, blocking and removing files
Panda - low detection and slowing down the browsing (sometimes like 20 secs loading a webpage, lol)

360, Adaware, Avast, AVG, Avira, Bitdfender, KAV - way too heavy or other annoyances.
AVG and Avast aren’t really heavy, I’ve been testing them extensively and I keep posting everything I find in the thread “Avast Premium Security 20.9” under reviews.
You can make the product even lighter, by enabling McAfee-style scans (only on execution).
In addition, you might turn off HTTPS scanning to reduce the performance impact whilst browsing. Even if you don’t do anything, they are still very light and receive frequent updates, and performance improvements. AVG is far less annoying than Avast and has better UI/UX.
If they were really heavy, I’d be the first one to uninstall them 😀

As for the FortiClient, it’s awesome if you run new and paid version, but the free version is outdated and not that great. It’s also quite limited on features. This product is not the best for home use.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

ichito

Level 10
Verified
Content Creator
Dec 12, 2013
478
The lack of AV working in real-time is not equal with haigher risk - I mean system own AV also. There is a lot of examples of MT users which uses another technolgies/apps to protect their system...me too :) I don't want to propose/recommend any specific programm beacuse using of it depends of needs and prefences :)
 

Dhruv2193

Level 9
Verified
Nov 7, 2016
435
If one is using windows 8.1 with MD, then the only infection possibly that can break through is ransomware as I have seen PC's till Windows 8.1 with MD get infected with ransomware but if one has good browsing habits and common sense to know which emails are safe to open, then even MD is enough. However, if using WD in Windows 10, then I think it is enough.
 

Behold Eck

Level 13
Verified
Jun 22, 2014
648
I think running an av or some sort of protection, simply reduces the risk of an infection. Likewise not running anything increases the chances of something getting in.

Anybody that thinks that they`re "too smart" to install anything malicious on they`re system are kidding themselves imo.

(Edit I am talking about anyone running zero protection not just no av.)

Remember the ccleaner debacle where it was one update that was compromised and got installed on many systems ?

Anyway as mentioned above it can be down to what runs lightest on you`re pc when you get a bit more knowledgeable. That`s why I`m super happy with my K7 Total Security, so light that it`s like it`s not even there.:cool:

Yes I agree that messing about with av`s is a blast!(y)

Regards Eck:)
 
Last edited:

MrSecure007

New Member
Nov 15, 2020
6
I haven't run AV on my WIn10 PC for years (and it is used LOADS daily) but do login with a SUA, run AppGuard in "Locked Down" mode, have AdGuard iinstalled and use a third party firewall (Sphinx) and the system is super smooth for an 8yr old machine. I have also disabled the built in Defender/firewall. Once a month or so I run an offline AV scan using "Emsisoft Emergency Kit" and I also check that anything I install is digitally signed before running. If it isn't digitally signed I use VirusTotal to scan it before running.

Couldn't be any happier with this setup and have yet to find anything infected from the Emisoft AV scan when I run it. I also keep Windows patched monthly and install the latest Feature Updates when they are released. Lots of common sense goes a long way too :cool:
 

shmu26

Level 85
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
Jul 3, 2015
8,081
On Windows, I use an Antivirus that comes with the OS; Microsoft Defender. I have tried other third-party security but have never been comfortable with the additional intrusive features, or constant upgrade Ad prompts.

On macOS, it is a different situation. I don't actively run any Antivirus software. Apple don't provide an integrated Antivirus like Microsoft, except for Gatekeeper which isn't really an AV.

Both systems are running the latest stable versions of Software and Browsers. Browsers have their own security features for blocking dangerous sites and downloads, which could be considered as additional layer of protection against phishing and malware.

I don't believe that not having an Antivirus makes you automatically more vulnerable (aka a higher risk), than someone who does use an Antivirus. It is the users actions that determine how much the system is at risk. An antivirus user may be open to more harm, given the false sense of security where they feel they are invulnerable.


[My views shared here are different to those in another thread, but may be considered as an expansion of linked post.]
It's a good conversation piece...
The consensus is that any OS targeted by malware should have security mechanisms in place. I think that applies to Mac as well.
 

LDogg

Level 33
Verified
May 4, 2018
2,193
I think opinion vs bias would have be a factored option as well. As can be factored from within "I have tried other third-party security but have never been comfortable with the additional intrusive features, or constant upgrade Ad prompts." However I do think you make a legitimate point about AV vs having no AV.

Above context out the way, I fully believe in what you would say regarding an AV specially for those of humanity are not fully educated on the basic of computing and IT, so I quote: "An antivirus user may be open to more harm, given the false sense of security where they feel they are invulnerable." This can also apply to experience individuals but in the very rare case of that happening.

I would say for certain if one can use a suite, or the advanced options of WD (used properly) it's better than the default on Windows.

~LDogg
 

geminis3

Level 18
Verified
Sep 10, 2015
859
Btw I'm using Arch Linux without any AV but on Windows by design there's always the possibility of clicking on a malicious executable by mistake and compromising your system. In theory if MIcrosoft some day implemented a built-in package manager/software repository and removed the ability to directly execute files on explorer.exe and forcing people to use Powershell to manually give a file the execution attribute and then running the file malware will stop being a common thing on Windows systems but everybody will complain about that.
 

WhiteMouse

Level 3
Verified
Apr 19, 2017
110
Btw I'm using Arch Linux without any AV but on Windows by design there's always the possibility of clicking on a malicious executable by mistake and compromising your system. In theory if MIcrosoft some day implemented a built-in package manager/software repository and removed the ability to directly execute files on explorer.exe and forcing people to use Powershell to manually give a file the execution attribute and then running the file malware will stop being a common thing on Windows systems but everybody will complain about that.
They did. It's Microsoft Store.
 
Top