Question Which AV are you using and why did you choose this one ??

[Marko :)]

what's strange about that? what does it have to do with the fact that I have the old Kaspersky logo?
I haven't used Kaspersky for about a year now, so what does it have to do with my configuration?
I use what is good for my system and it does not cause me any problems.

Chill man... It's a joke!

 

[Nunzio_77]

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

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.
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.

 

[Nunzio_77]

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.

 

[Antimalware18]

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.

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

 

[Parkinsond]

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 disable web guard completely in Avast, not for speeding browsing up, but for keeping websites certificates untampered.

 

[RansomwareRemediation]

I'm not changing the narrative at all. Everyone can read my posts from beginning and can clearly see that.

You believe that 3rd party antivirus software provides better protection than the antivirus software developed by the company that also developed the OS. Defender is deeply integrated into Windows on a level that no 3rd party antivirus software can match. And because it's core part of the Windows OS, it has guaranteed compatibility with the OS itself. Hence I really do believe Defender can provide the best protection if configured properly. Though, even with default settings, it's more than enough for average user.

Your information is based on 2010 era when Windows was coming without any protection whatsoever. That was 16 years ago. Things changed and for the better. And it's not me claiming that, companies testing antivirus software say that too. All software tests are public and you can clearly see Microsoft stepping up their game in security from 2010 to today.

I'm still waiting for the source claiming Microsoft uses CrowdStrike on their servers for protection. Do you have proof for that or not?

You were right to point that CrowdStrike that caused PCs to crash, and not Microsoft or Windows Update. CrowdStrike themselves confirmed they released bad update and apologized. Then, Microsoft worked together with them to help bring PCs to functional state and it took them weeks to do so.

All of this only proves my point—PCs using Defender never crash. PCs using 3rd party antivirus software crash and in fact, very often.

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.

 

[Marko :)]

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.

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?

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.

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.

By the way, Leo just posted a video showing new malware bypassing Windows Defender without any issues.

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.

 

[Parkinsond]

You do realize that Defender has multiple mechanisms for protection of components?

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.

 

[Marko :)]

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.

 

[lokamoka820]

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.