Serious Discussion What modules should a free antivirus offer as the bare minimum in 2026?

[RoboMan]

It's 2026. We're at the peak of infostealers, fileless malware, RATs and ransomware. The scenario has changed a lot compared to ten/fifteen years ago. What used to protect us back then may be entirely obsolete technology nowadays.

True fact: more than 60% of Windows users use a free antivirus solution.

2026 Antivirus Trends, Statistics, and Market Report

121M Americans use third-party antivirus; Norton leads paid, McAfee tops free. 17M plan adoption soon, despite built-in OS protections like Microsoft Defender.

www.security.org

Trend of Antivirus Software Windows: 2025 Insights

Explore the 2025 trend of antivirus software for Windows. Discover top choices like Microsoft Defender, Norton, and Bitdefender. Click to learn how AI-driven protection and free tools are shaping security. Stay ahead with expert insights.

www.accio.com

Taking into account this data, and despite the antivirus industry stays alive due to either their premium subscriptions or data selling, a basic decent protection level should be used on their free tier products, in order for a home user to be "pretty safe" and for them to choose this product in the first place.

Having said this, here's my question:

Which modules do you think are a basic must-have for a free AV? Which types of protection and configurations should be available on free security, as the bare minimum in 2026?

For example, some AVs offer an anti-ransomware module that comes separate from their behavior blocker. Some AVs do not offer advanced web protection on their free tier. Some of them block the configuration of their real time protection. Some of them even offer firewall capabilities on their free version.
Should a malware actions rollback module be available on a free product?

Thanks for reading.

 

[Khushal]

It's 2026. We're at the peak of infostealers, fileless malware, RATs and ransomware. The scenario has changed a lot compared to ten/fifteen years ago. What used to protect us back then may be entirely obsolete technology nowadays.

True fact: more than 60% of Windows users use a free antivirus solution.

2026 Antivirus Trends, Statistics, and Market Report

121M Americans use third-party antivirus; Norton leads paid, McAfee tops free. 17M plan adoption soon, despite built-in OS protections like Microsoft Defender.

www.security.org

Trend of Antivirus Software Windows: 2025 Insights

Explore the 2025 trend of antivirus software for Windows. Discover top choices like Microsoft Defender, Norton, and Bitdefender. Click to learn how AI-driven protection and free tools are shaping security. Stay ahead with expert insights.

www.accio.com

Taking into account this data, and despite the antivirus industry stays alive due to either their premium subscriptions or data selling, a basic decent protection level should be used on their free tier products, in order for a home user to be "pretty safe" and for them to choose this product in the first place.

Having said this, here's my question:

For example, some AVs offer an anti-ransomware module that comes separate from their behavior blocker. Some AVs do not offer advanced web protection on their free tier. Some of them block the configuration of their real time protection. Some of them even offer firewall capabilities on their free version.
Should a malware actions rollback module be available on a free product?

Thanks for reading.

A free AV in 2026 must include:

Real-time scanning (file + memory + scripts)

Behavioral monitoring / EDR-lite

Anti-ransomware detection

Limited rollback

Advanced web + phishing protection

Exploit mitigation

Cloud reputation

Tamper protection

Infostealer protections

If even two of these are missing, it is not “pretty safe.”

 

[Parkinsond]

What is left for paid AV?

 

[Jonny Quest]

What is left for paid AV?

I agree, if they gave all that away in the free version, our Christmas wish list, what's the use of having a paid version apart from bloatware options, or including a VPN/PM?
Depending on our online habits, what do we personally need (free version options), for our device security, and go from there?

 

[Parkinsond]

I agree, if they gave all that away in the free version, our Christmas wish list, what's the use of having a paid version apart from bloatware options, or including a VPN?
Depending on our online habits, what do we personally need (free version options), for our device security, and go from there?

Free version must be missing something I need to make me think about buying the paid version.
What I need depends on what I do online.

If I estimate my bank account could be breached and I may lose millions or hunderds of thousands of dollars, then paying few dallars annually to prevent such a sorry incidence is a very good deal.
If not, then the deal is not feasible.

For my pattern of use, I may dispense using AV entirely, as @TairikuOkami is doing.
I'm using MD because it is already there; why not using.

 

[lokamoka820]

The answer can be found by looking at what Microsoft Defender offers; in my opinion, it will always provide the bare minimum of security and lightweight features for a security product.

 

[Parkinsond]

The answer can be found by looking at what Microsoft Defender offers; in my opinion, it will always provide the bare minimum of security and lightweight features for a security product.

But you skipped extra features, free to use, just need to be enabled.
Combining MD with SAC and ASR rules moves the protection to a whole new level.

 

[RoboMan]

The answer can be found by looking at what Microsoft Defender offers; in my opinion, it will always provide the bare minimum of security and lightweight features for a security product.

Do you think Microsoft should also develop and charge for a premium version of Defender, with more sohpisticated modules?

 

[Jonny Quest]

Do you think Microsoft should also develop and charge for a premium version of Defender, with more sohpisticated modules?

Where a basic user would have the additional settings in the UI (that would be more easily "understandable" for them), apart from using a 3rd party hardening tool, even though those are free.

 

[ForgottenSeer 123960]

Threat actors are bypassing traditional and next-gen antivirus modules by relying heavily on social engineering, phishing, and fake browser prompts. Because the vast majority of modern initial access vectors rely on a user executing an action (clicking a link, entering credentials, or approving an MFA prompt), empirical data supports the consumer sentiment that informed user habits are an equally, if not more, critical defensive layer than the antivirus software itself.

 

[lokamoka820]

But you skipped extra features, free to use, just need to be enabled.
Combining MD with SAC and ASR rules moves the protection to a whole new level.

Because Microsoft prioritizes usability over additional security, I think these features are turned off by default to prevent users from complaining about false positives or other problems. Customers would rather criticize the product than their ignorance of how to use it.

 

[LinuxFan58]

My wish list as a Linux (no AV) user

1. A blacklist - to block all known bad everywhere
2. A whitelist - to allow only known good in user folders
3. A behavioral component - to guard (or block for standard users) all LoLBins and scripts in user folders
2. Anti-ransomware protection - preferable only whitelisted programs are allowed mass edit/delete/encryption of files

Oh wait Microsoft Defender plus Configure Defender and Simple Widows Hardening all provide that

 

[Jonny Quest]

Threat actors are bypassing traditional and next-gen antivirus modules by relying heavily on social engineering, phishing, and fake browser prompts. Because the vast majority of modern initial access vectors rely on a user executing an action (clicking a link, entering credentials, or approving an MFA prompt), empirical data supports the consumer sentiment that informed user habits are an equally, if not more, critical defensive layer than the antivirus software itself.

That's why my main concern for a long time has been at the browser level, let alone my, our informed user habits. But, we love talking about settings, apps, exclusions etc., it's more exciting to chat about than what we're doing, our online habits But, most of us here get it, so those settings, exclusions, etc. become a topic of conversation

 

[LinuxFan58]

But you skipped extra features, free to use, just need to be enabled.
Combining MD with SAC and ASR rules moves the protection to a whole new level.

Add Simple Windows Hardening (or WHHL) to block scripts riunning in user space and you have like @Parkinsond posts a very strong protection (ask AI)!

 

[Parkinsond]

Do you think Microsoft should also develop and charge for a premium version of Defender, with more sohpisticated modules?

There is already a paid version of MD bundled with MS 365 package.

 

[lokamoka820]

Do you think Microsoft should also develop and charge for a premium version of Defender, with more sohpisticated modules?

Microsoft already offers a paid version for Office 365 subscribers, which serves as a central dashboard for managing security across all of your devices from a single location.

Personally, I don't think they need to add more modules because doing so will impact usability and performance, and attacks will always occur in one form or another.

 

[Parkinsond]

Where a basic user would have the additional settings in the UI (that would be more easily "understandable" for them), apart from using a 3rd party hardening tool, even though those are free.

I think MS intentionally avoid adding sophisticated security configuration to home MD (not the enterprise one) to spare the nagging of users after misconfiguring and breaking things; the same concept of adding notifications only for inbound connections in their FW, while they can simply do the same for outbound traffic.

 

[cartaphilus]

Personally I fully support PAID versions of AV/AM as long as PAID versions stick to their promise of not data mining and selling my data to others because well they are being supported by my $$$$. I have no issues paying for antivirus as long as that antivrus keeps their mouth shut on what's on my system. People have to eat and company has to stay afloat so if you don't pay for the antivirus via currency of $$$ or what have you then you are paying it with your information, your data, your browsing habits. I find $$$$ to be more easily distributed than my privacy.

So please continue charging me for AV subscriptions and I will continue paying you for it as long as we understand each other why I am paying for it vs using it for free.


Those of you who don't care about what you sell about yourself have an option to free solutions; Afterall prostitution has been the oldest profession for a reason; it comes standard with life.

 

[Parkinsond]

Because Microsoft prioritizes usability over additional security

Agree; MS concept: you like palying with cracks, then you deserve it.

 

[Digmor Crusher]

A free AV will always have less modules then their paid counterpart, some paid AV's are full of bloat. IMO all anyone needs is a free AV and a secondary program such as Cyberlock, Osarmour or one of Andy's tools.