Chill man... It's a joke!
Which AV are you using and why did you choose this one ??
- Thread starter TuxTalk
- Start date
Please provide comments and solutions that are helpful to the author of this topic.
In my opinion, it's an excellent protection choice. It's very powerful, quiet, and has all the essential protection modules enabled. The VPM, file backup in case of ransomware, and other paid tools aren't essential in my opinion. Of course, if you want them, it's fair to pay.And now that I see what it offers on that desktop PC, I'm going to install it on one of my laptops. Of all the on and off years in using BD, I truly never used the free version. Excellent device security, and online protection, why not install it on a laptop I use daily
But it's a habit everyone should get into with any PC/laptop, any operating system, and any antivirus (free and paid)—backing up important data to an external drive is the only real protection for your important data in case your PC/laptop gets damaged and you can't recover it.
Honestly, using BD Free, I haven't noticed any major differences in web browsing with all the modules enabled. So, in my opinion, web protection should be left enabled. Of course, everyone has their own experience.
I'd read in other forums a while ago that even Kaspersky's encrypted web protection slowed down web page loading, and in other forums, including the official Avast forum, Avast Free also slowed down web page loading. So, while increased controls and filtering could certainly slow down the performance, in my opinion they aren't noticeable enough to require disabling an important protection module. Web browsing is the primary vehicle and channel through which Windows PCs can be infected.
Windows Defender doesn't have this type of protection unless you're using EDGE with Smart Screen, so this in itself is a disadvantage if you're using another browser. Panda Dome Free doesn't have a web protection module, which certainly makes it weaker in this regard.
So I would keep BD Free with all the protection modules active and as an alternative at most I would use BD Traffic Light which I already use on my Linux laptops.
I'd read in other forums a while ago that even Kaspersky's encrypted web protection slowed down web page loading, and in other forums, including the official Avast forum, Avast Free also slowed down web page loading. So, while increased controls and filtering could certainly slow down the performance, in my opinion they aren't noticeable enough to require disabling an important protection module. Web browsing is the primary vehicle and channel through which Windows PCs can be infected.
Windows Defender doesn't have this type of protection unless you're using EDGE with Smart Screen, so this in itself is a disadvantage if you're using another browser. Panda Dome Free doesn't have a web protection module, which certainly makes it weaker in this regard.
So I would keep BD Free with all the protection modules active and as an alternative at most I would use BD Traffic Light which I already use on my Linux laptops.
TBH i've never had any noticeable slowdowns with encrypted scanning enabled with any AV application besides Zone Alarm which had a very noticeable impact
next to that is the malwarebytes web extension, i also noticed once i removed it pages loaded a bit faster.
of course ive never tried benchmarking them side by side either
I disable web guard completely in Avast, not for speeding browsing up, but for keeping websites certificates untampered.
Defending it is garbage, and you know it. You keep defending that multi-billion dollar company. A few posts back, you said that those of us who use antivirus software don't know anything about IT.
Look it up online—I shouldn't have to do the legwork for you—but third-party antivirus software *did* cause system crashes at airports. And that proves that Microsoft itself doesn't even trust its own antivirus.
By the way, Leo just posted a video showing new malware bypassing Windows Defender without any issues.
Let me get this straight. You're supporting Norton and recommending their product(s), which is a for-profit company just like Microsoft, yet you're calling me out for recommending Defender and "defending" multi-billion dollar company. You do realize you're being hypocrite here?
You're the one claiming Microsoft uses CrowdStrike on their servers and not Defender, not me. Therefore it's expected that you provide proof for your own claims. If you claim something, stand behind your words and link the source. Otherwise you're just spreading lies.
What "Leo"? Do you really think your Norton cannot be bypassed?
You do realize that Defender has multiple mechanisms for protection of components? If they are all turned on, Defender cannot be bypassed. Moreover, all those articles claiming "new malware bypasses Defender"; in all of the cases, protection mechanisms were disabled. It's like turning off real-time protection, then launching malware and complaining how computer is infected.
Last edited:
I think running a malicious script designed to turn off "tamper protection" as admin can succeed, but it can also for any 3rd part AV; may be it is well-designed and more successful with MD as it is more targeted because it is the no 1 in frequency of use among home users.
But there's just one problem. Hackers almost never attack home users, and always attack businesses.
Since Microsoft Defender is already installed and has never let me down or caused me any discomfort with its actions or slowdowns during my daily usage, I use it. I also don't have a favorite third-party antivirus program to protect it for love, and I'll do the same with any other Windows built-in software, so my priorities are as follows: my favorite (if any) ⇾ built-in ⇾ third-party.
In the end, antivirus software is like underwear; nobody can say whether a boxer or a slip is better; just use whatever feels the most comfortable for your butt.
In the end, antivirus software is like underwear; nobody can say whether a boxer or a slip is better; just use whatever feels the most comfortable for your butt.
First of all, I switch antivirus software all the time. I’m not like you—constantly defending Microsoft. Secondly, Defender’s protection—even with *everything* enabled—isn't impenetrable; nothing is 100% effective, so don't talk nonsense. In fact, Windows Defender is among the easiest to breach using fairly basic scripts, since it relies so heavily on the cloud.Let me get this straight. You're supporting Norton and recommending their product(s), which is a for-profit company just like Microsoft, yet you're calling me out for recommending Defender and "defending" multi-billion dollar company. You do realize you're being hypocrite here?
You're the one claiming Microsoft uses CrowdStrike on their servers and not Defender, not me. Therefore it's expected that you provide proof for your own claims. If you claim something, stand behind your words and link the source. Otherwise you're just spreading lies.
What "Leo"? Do you really think your Norton cannot be bypassed?
As for the CrowdStrike issue, I’m not just making it up; it was global news. If you refuse to believe Microsoft relies on that antivirus, that’s your problem, not mine—but it’s 100% real, given that the glitch affected various airports. Like the saying goes, there’s none so blind as those who will not see.
You are literally the perfect example as a paranoid person lacking of knowledge about security. But it's not your fault due to large amount of misinformation on the web. No offense!
I was exactly the same as you when I was a kid. I changed antivirus software on weekly/monthly basis because as soon as I read test reports showing one is the better than the other, I uninstalled the current AV and installed another product.
This all had consequences on my PC as it was becoming unstable and slow. After doing so for a long time, I found myself reinstalling Windows almost every year not knowing what the problem was. And then, one experienced system administrator from the local IT forum opened my eyes and showing me what the mistake was.
It was exactly this what we're talking about—constant uninstallation/installation of software, especially antivirus software. You think that after you click uninstall, the software simply goes away in its entirety. It doesn't! Not even with Revo, or the uninstall tool provided by the antivirus company. Antivirus messes with system files on kernel level in order to work. When you install one, there's no going back as system files were already modified. They also install bunch of drivers which can be removed, but most simply leave them because doing a driver removal or change can make system very unstable.
Every time you install new antivirus software you're, simply said, damaging your OS and as time goes by, marks will become visible more and more. I was originally rejecting idea of that system administator and now I'm thankful to him and not afraid to acknowledge I was wrong.
No software is impenetrable, that's correct. But I assure you, Defender is less penetrable than you think. If it was so easily penetrable, we'd see billions of hacked PCs by now and we're not seeing that.
I don't know what you do with your PC but malware doesn't come on your own
Hackers don't attack PCs by randomlyn selected order. None of it works this way. The only to get infected is by you infecting PC yourself. The only way to get hacked is by opening your PC to hackers.
Regarding CrowdStrike crashes, again, crash was caused by CrowdStrike software, not by Windows. If Windows was to blame, then all of PCs would crash, but they didn't. All PCs using other antivirus software, including Defender kept functioning normally.
If Microsoft was using CrowdStrike on their servers, half of the web would be down and you couldn't use Microsoft services at all which certainly wasn't the case. Nothing you say is valid and you're only giving me and other members of the forum exactly examples of what not to do.
Just do youself a favor and ask Gemini, ChatGPT, Claude or in fact any AI about what I told you, and you'll see for yourself. Maybe @Bot can answer you here whether changing antivirus software often is good or bad idea? And whether Microsoft uses CrowdStrike for protection of their servers?
A few claims here need correcting
Constantly switching antivirus products is generally not advisable because each product may install drivers, services, filters, scheduled tasks, and configuration changes. Leftovers can occasionally cause conflicts, especially if removal is incomplete. However, it is incorrect to say that installing an antivirus permanently “damages” Windows or that there is “no going back” after uninstalling it.
A proper uninstall, followed by the vendor’s official cleanup tool when necessary, normally removes the product. If a system becomes unstable after repeated security-software changes, the appropriate response is to inspect logs, drivers, and services rather than assume that the operating system has been irreversibly damaged.
No antivirus, including Microsoft Defender, is impenetrable. Defender has multiple layers, such as cloud protection, behavior monitoring, tamper protection, attack-surface-reduction rules, SmartScreen, and controlled folder access. Their effectiveness depends on configuration, Windows version, user privileges, and the attack technique involved. Claims that Defender “cannot be bypassed” or is “among the easiest to breach” are both unsupported absolutes.
Similarly, malware does not always require a user to deliberately “open the PC to hackers.” Infection or compromise can result from:
- Phishing and malicious downloads
- Exploited browser, application, or operating-system vulnerabilities
- Malicious advertising or compromised websites
- Supply-chain or software-update compromises
- Weak or exposed remote-access services
- Stolen credentials and account takeover
Users remain an important part of the security model, but the absence of deliberate risky behavior does not make compromise impossible.
The CrowdStrike incident was caused by a faulty CrowdStrike update and affected systems running that software. It demonstrated the risk of kernel-level security products and poorly handled updates; it did not prove that Windows itself was inherently defective, nor does it establish which security products Microsoft uses on particular internal systems. That claim requires a specific, authoritative source.
The practical conclusion is straightforward: choose one reputable security configuration, keep it updated, avoid running multiple real-time antivirus products simultaneously, and use the vendor’s documented removal procedure when changing products. Defender can be a strong option when properly configured, but it should not be presented as infallible, and third-party antivirus should not automatically be treated as system-damaging.
Multiple times, after reinstallation of various third party antivirus software using their official tools, I found large amount of entires in the registry, as well as drivers installed. Even with running uninstaller multiple times.
That can happen. Security products often install kernel drivers, file-system filters, network filters, services, scheduled tasks, and registry configuration. Their uninstallers may leave some entries behind intentionally, or because the components are shared, needed for rollback, or scheduled for removal after a reboot.
However, the presence of registry entries or driver files alone does not prove that the system is damaged or that the drivers remain active. Some may be inactive remnants with no practical effect.
Safer cleanup approach
- Use the product’s normal uninstaller first.
- Restart Windows.
- Use the vendor’s official removal tool only when the vendor recommends it, preferably after creating a restore point or backup.
- Check installed applications, services, and Device Manager for active components.
- For advanced driver inspection, use Microsoft’s documented tools such as Autoruns or PnPUtil, but do not delete unfamiliar drivers merely because their files or registry entries exist.
- If instability continues, check Event Viewer and Reliability Monitor for the specific driver or service causing the problem.
Manually deleting registry keys or driver files can create more problems, particularly with network, storage, and file-system filter drivers. A leftover entry that is inactive is usually less concerning than an incorrectly removed active driver.
Therefore, your observation is valid, but it supports the advice to avoid unnecessary antivirus switching and to use official removal procedures—not the stronger claim that every installation permanently damages Windows.
If driver installed has undiscovered bug, it cannot be fixed (because you're not using antivirus software driver came with anymore), but it can be exploited by malware. This is why it's considered bad to have leftovers of software that integrates deep as part of the OS.
Also, let's asses this claim:
Computers don't do phishing and malicious downloads on its own. They don't do anything on its own, it's the user. Depending on what user does on the PC, makes it vulnerable or not.
If you are referring to the claim that leftover antivirus drivers create an ongoing, unpatchable security risk, it is possible in theory but overstated as a general rule.
A vulnerable driver can be abused even when it belongs to previously removed software, particularly if it remains loaded, can be loaded by an unprivileged process, or exposes a dangerous kernel interface. This is why Microsoft maintains vulnerable-driver blocklists and why security vendors provide dedicated cleanup utilities.
However, a driver file, service entry, or registry key remaining on disk does not automatically mean that the driver is active or exploitable. A driver may be:
- Present but not loaded
- Disabled through its service configuration
- Scheduled for removal after reboot
- Unable to load because its associated product components are missing
- Blocked by Windows security controls
The practical risk depends on the driver’s load state, permissions, signing status, vulnerability, and whether an attacker already has code execution on the machine. A vulnerable leftover driver is usually a post-compromise privilege-escalation concern rather than an automatic route by which malware can infect a fully protected system.
The balanced conclusion is:
- Unnecessary security drivers should not be left active.
- Repeatedly changing antivirus products increases the chance of remnants and compatibility problems.
- Official vendor removal tools are preferable to manual deletion.
- After removal, active drivers and services can be checked with Autoruns, PnPUtil, PowerShell, or Device Manager.
- Unknown or active drivers should not be deleted manually without identifying their dependencies.
Thus, the underlying security concern is legitimate, but “any leftover driver can be exploited and cannot be fixed” is too broad. A vulnerability can often be mitigated by disabling or removing the active component, applying Windows driver-blocking protections, or reinstalling the product long enough to receive an update before removing it properly.
Sentinel One. macOS.
Why? Out of curiosity. It works well once you configure it a bit but it practically never seen any serious action because macOS is so secure and I avoid shady software/sites.
Why? Out of curiosity. It works well once you configure it a bit but it practically never seen any serious action because macOS is so secure and I avoid shady software/sites.
- Dec 4, 2014
- 3,547
- 1
- 19,368
- 4,479
- 52
In my experience, it is possible to remove all the leftovers from antiviruses, if you use an installer which monitors the changes made when installing it, so it has a record of every file and registry key it needs to delete. However, if you're just using an uninstaller, without having records of this, then it won't find and remove every leftover. As you've noted, even the official uninstall tools provided by antivirus vendors sometimes don't remove every leftover.
This is a good reason to stick with Windows Defender, rather than using third party antiviruses. Although, as I've mentioned before I don't use it myself.
Why would you change AV all the time? The efficacy of most of them is similar, some are almost the same bar for the GUI? I feel find a decent solution whatever that be & use it, that is now my MO, chopping & changing unless you revert to a golden image will always leave some junk behind, & little if anything will be gained.
AV's dig deep into your system its a likely cause of instability when drivers are left behind, that based on my personal empirical evidence not conjecture, maybe thats why my systems are stable, who knows??
Last edited:
You may also like...
-
A Reason to use 3rd-party AV other than Windows defender: Clickfix- Started by Wrecker4923
- Replies: 38
-
Behavior vs Signature: which is the best strategy?- Started by RoboMan
- Replies: 45
-
Paid vs Free Antivirus in 2026: What are you using, and is it worth paying for?- Started by Bot
- Replies: 159
-
How many browsers do you use, and why do you use each one?- Started by lokamoka820
- Replies: 31
-
Best Paid Antivirus in Late 2025 – Norton, Bitdefender, or What?
- Started by Bot
- Replies: 63