Battle What would be a Lightweight Security Suite?

[tlacenka]

Hi, looking for security suite - have tried actually payed versions of:
Kaspersky internet security
Emsisoft antimalware
Bitdefender internet security
Norton security
The problem on this mashine is with performance (even with not default settings) od with updates (slowing down) - want to try anything other být dont know-how what to choose- please help mě decide

 

[Brie]

My system slowed down with Kaspersky Security Cloud, so I'm back to Bitdefender Free (the boot time problem has disappeared) coupled with Sphinxsoft Firewall Control Free. Anything else I put in the browser (like NoScript and uBlock Origin), and free versions of secondary scanners (MalwareBytes and Zemana).

i would have got hitman pro and emsisoft emergency kit as secondary scanners.

 

[tlacenka]

@Local Host , @blackice
i look at the rules for hips and called to eset support, they said, it uses sha1 hash, but u cannot make rule in hips for this change
what i want: hips ask me, if i allow/deny this exe. make rule from this decission. if the file change (update) ask me again.
maybe its stupid rule, but i think, thats the way it should work. - if i am wrong, correct me please.

 

[blackice]

@Local Host , @blackice
i look at the rules for hips and called to eset support, they said, it uses sha1 hash, but u cannot make rule in hips for this change
what i want: hips ask me, if i allow/deny this exe. make rule from this decission. if the file change (update) ask me again.
maybe its stupid rule, but i think, thats the way it should work. - if i am wrong, correct me please.

That’s beyond my knowledge of their HIPS. However this would still be a case where there was either a supply chain attack, or something got past the web filter and hijacked something (which can happen). For things like powershell it is best to deny access to all programs, if you allow anything to access it then you are risking having a hole in the rule that could be exploited. It’s the trade off between usability and security. Again I am not extremely knowledgeable about HIPS. I just got the basics of rule making down. Having the basic rules will give better than average security. For average use this will stop a lot of average malware. Most security solutions have holes against advanced threats and targeted attacks. In those cases default deny is advisable and even then there are risks.

 

[Wraith]

@Local Host , @blackice
i look at the rules for hips and called to eset support, they said, it uses sha1 hash, but u cannot make rule in hips for this change
what i want: hips ask me, if i allow/deny this exe. make rule from this decission. if the file change (update) ask me again.
maybe its stupid rule, but i think, thats the way it should work. - if i am wrong, correct me please.

Why don't you use a simple anti exe like NoVirusThanks Exe Radar Pro. Then you won't have to worry about configuring the HIPS. And if you're too paranoid, use OSArmor alongwith Exe Radar Pro. Using these two with ESET won't slow down your PC.

 

[thrillskr]

Lightest i treid by far is Cylance
Smart AV. (But i have a Gryphon Router).

Also intersting maybe for you: F-Secure Ultra Light Antivirus (is in Beta).

Eset also is light, Panda Dome, Heimdal Thor Premium and Bullgaurd IS and SecureAPlus and Symantec SEPC.

 

[tlacenka]

so...after some tests...and some windows updates:
i ended at kaspersky internet security - have changed some settings and its the lightweightest security i have test on this system
very satisfied )
thanks to everyponny here for kick in the right way - opinions and tips.

 

[motox781]

I'm going to go out on a limb here (don't hate, haha), but with 1903 and Windows Defender, I find it faster than any other AV I tested recently (Eset included).

^ KIS is very good IMO. More of a complete and polished package than others.

 

[permar4]

		AVC Score	PC Mark Score	Impact Score
1.	ESET	90	99.7	0.3
2.	K7	90	99.5	0.5
3.	VIPRE	90	99.4	0.6
4.	McAfee	90	99.2	0.8
5.	Tencent	90	98.7	1.3
6.	Total Defense	88	98.6	3.4
7.	Avast, AVG	85	98.8	6.2
8.	Symantec	85	98.6	6.4
9.	Panda	85	98.4	6.6
10.	Kaspersky Lab	83	99.1	7.9
11.	Bitdefender	83	98.7	8.3
12.	F-Secure	80	99.6	10.4
13.	Trend Micro	80	96.3	13.7
14.	Avira	75	98.9	16.1
15.	Microsoft	65	97.7	27.3

This is the 2019 results from AV comparatives site, I have Eset on one of my computers,and indeed it"s very light,you can find very affordable license on e-bay or if you want a free trial.Webroot is a known very light program,but not recommended by many except PC magazine,

in av comparative WD is very heavy, but in av-test WD is quite light, how can that be?

If there was a 3º that indicated the performance I could believe more one of the two "laboratories" but they are so disparate results...

Looking for YT if I have found that WD is something heavy but in the end is 100% integrated with windows, kaspersky recently updated it and indicated that it had better compatibility with windows 1903 that means that before I used kaspersky without being fully optimized for the OS version with what it means.

I love to test antivirus, experiment with new technologies, but also after so many years I would like something that was install and forget, WD is not the best option on the market, like the defragmented windows series, but both do their job.

At the end of which it is useful to save % of processor load using a light antivirus if you do not optimize the windows startup or there are lots of programs in the background or another heavy program in the background.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

in av comparative WD is very heavy, but in av-test WD is quite light, how can that be?

AV-test is a bit more unreliable than AV-C because everyone admits that WD slows down file copying a lot
while in AV-test, copying has only 0-3% decrease in speed -> suspicious! (Slower copying of files (locally and in a network))
in AV-C, they clear demonstrate the decrease in copying speed (1/3 bar)

at least av-test does show that WD decreases app installation/uninstallation speed substantially

I do feel the real impact in those 2 on my SSD

WD can be light for some people who only do web browsing because WD does not have a proper web filter like other third-party AVs, unless you manually enable it

 

[uduoix]

Slows down file copying from PC to external hard drives and vice versa? In that case i have no slow downs at all. Speed of transfer is same with or without WD. (SSD and HDD)

 

[SeriousHoax]

everyone admits that WD slows down file copying a lot

WD & Kaspersky slows down my copying speed (HDD). So, I agree with this statement while with Eset everything is always fast for me. Nothing slows down at all. I prefer AVs that scan files on access like WD, Kaspersky, Eset, Avira, Bitdefender and some others not the likes of Avast, AVG, Emsisoft, McAfee who does only on execution by default. I wanna instantly know when my PC comes in contact with a malware. So, I prefer this. As you can see from the AV-Comparative result, even after having on access scan enabled, Eset still outperforming every other AV. Now that says a lot about the performance. My personal experience is exactly the same too. The ram usage is very minimum too. Currently my task manager is showing that EIS is using only 39.7 mb of ram. I mean, what the hell?? Don't know how do they it. I heard AVs can hide real ram usage if they want. I don't know if Eset does that or not but anyway, performance wise Eset is one of the best if not the best and great at protection too.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

I prefer AVs that scan files on access like WD, Kaspersky, Eset, Avira, Bitdefender and some others not the likes of Avast, AVG, Emsisoft, McAfee who does only on execution

all these AVs scan file on-access + on-execution. They optimize their scan so it's hardly noticeable
but when you copy some malware, you will see a huge pause in copying speed which the AV intercept to detect and remove the malware
almost all AVs slow down our speed to a certain degree but some of them are very noticeable in some tasks like kaspersky and WD because they have slow scanning speed -> impact copying speed

Cylance uses a different method when it waits for the files to be fully copied and then it will scan them a few seconds after -> user feels it's fast

AVs tend to hide their memory usage inside virtual memory/pagefile which can be monitored by process explorer (committed memory, working set or private bytes)
Kaspersky, according to task manager only consumes 100-150MB but in process explorer, it consumes ~350-500MB in total. Emsisoft and BD are even more
the more virtual memory used = the more swapping of memory in and out of our disk -> the shorter the lifespan of HDD/SSD

 

[amico81]

Another interesting arcticle with passive system impact test

Which Antivirus Software Has the Least System Impact

 

[SeriousHoax]

all these AVs scan file on-access + on-execution

Actually, I was talking about for example, there's a folder with some exe malwares, Eset, Kaspersky, WD will detect them as soon as you enter the folder. Also same result if you extract a zip file which contains malwares. But Avast, Emsisoft, etc won't detect anything unless you execute those.
Btw, I tested G-Data for a while few days ago. I was copying a zip file containing malwares from one drive to another and G-Data wasn't letting me copy and deleting the file. Which was pretty strange as I haven't seen any other AV does that before. Don't know how much performance impact it does have for that.

 

[Evjl's Rain]

Actually, I was talking about for example, there's a folder with some exe malwares, Eset, Kaspersky, WD will detect them as soon as you enter the folder. Also same result if you extract a zip file which contains malwares. But Avast, Emsisoft, etc won't detect anything unless you execute those.
Btw, I tested G-Data for a while few days ago. I was copying a zip file containing malwares from one drive to another and G-Data wasn't letting me copy and deleting the file. Which was pretty strange as I haven't seen any other AV does that before. Don't know how much performance impact it does have for that.

each of them has different ways of treating files. With my experience of avast, it never fails me in mentioned situations
I guarantee that emsisoft and avast have on-access scanning. You may not see them scan the folder because all files in that folder were cached to be safe and would not be scanned again until the next signature update or a reboot
avast has permanent cache and transient cache
permanent: a file fits certain criteria with valid signature (strict), it will never ever be scanned again
transient: scanned again after signature update or reboot

the transient cache is what avast's users are frequently complaining about performance -> simply have it disabled

 

[oldschool]

the transient cache is what avast's users are frequently complaining about performance -> simply have it disabled

And with so many settings options, individual features like this can be easily overlooked. That's why we have the forum.

 

[permar4]

Another interesting arcticle with passive system impact test

Which Antivirus Software Has the Least System Impact

View attachment 216598

Does WD have N/A because it has no impact or because it is difficult to analyze?

I didn't know that kasperskpy (like others) hides so much use of ram... it's hard to find a light antivirus with so much different information. Eset for me is very light, but has one of the worst protections according to several tests like AV-C.

It is also enough for most users, but it is not free and WD if it is, I find the UI is somewhat overloaded on the subject of settings, although that's fine because it allows you to adjust everything more to your needs....

But I think that for a long time there have been good alternatives to AV for free and that it is better to invest that money in a good VPN such as nord for example.

 

[SeriousHoax]

I guarantee that emsisoft and avast have on-access scanning. You may not see them scan the folder because all files in that folder were cached to be safe and would not be scanned again until the next signature update or a reboot

No no it's not that. What I'm talking about is not cache. WD, Kaspersky, Eset has similar cache too. For Emsisoft to have on access scanning you have change real time protection method from Default to Through. But that makes copying speed terribly slow for me. For example, if my average copying speed is 80 mbps then Emsisoft's through scanning turns that into 20 so I won't recommend enabling that.
It's also not about one method is right or wrong it's about the vendors optimizing their product for better performance. You would see McAfee's system impact has improved a lot since they disabled on access scanning by default. It won't scan a folder full of exe files. I was praising Eset because they achieve greater performance without sacrificing anything.

 

[cătălin]

BitDefender runs very well on my system. It is very light. Even if it has some problems, I think the next version will solve a part of it.
Kaspersky has a lot to suffer because it's a Russian company. Even if they promote the idea of neutrality, it's not like that.
"The dictator usually dictates in the house" and as long as they are under Russian influence, they will have to follow the rules of the house. And these rules of the house, flagrantly violate moral, freedom, citizenship norms.

Kaspersky says they "listen to the laws of the countries where they are present". Obeying such rules, which flagrantly violate moral, freedom, and citizenship norms, they do nothing but show that the "security" and "freedom" they promote are actually beautiful stories.

I do not want the most prized, the best antivirus in the world (even if it's Kaspersky), I want a correct software that also has principles not only respecting some laws.

Memorize this.

 

[F 4 E]

I do not want the most prized, the best antivirus in the world (even if it's Kaspersky), I want a correct software that also has principles not only respecting some laws.

I agree, which is why I stopped using Norton and Kaspersky and now use F Secure who are not answerable to the government, unlike the others.