Battle Which Security Suite is the best for a PC with low specs?

[ameri9595]

Hello all..

The important specs to know are as following:

I use my laptop for Movies, Internet Browsing, Microsoft Office, Some Engineering Applications like Matlab and Simlink, Photoshop, and I'm constantly downloading..

I'm an advanced user, hence not fooled by spamming materials but I've been infected by Flashdrives, and sometimes by "well-made" infected internet files.





I'm willing to hear your opinions
Thank you.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

No way Emsisoft is better than Bitdefender
Bitdefender is matured powerful BB all round AV suite -internet Security**
Emsisoft is a power house AV which thoroughly focuses on keeping malware away. It lacks Spam Module and its one engine is Bitdefender. I think you got the answer.
Emsisoft is out of my system for the past > 1 yr..Over active BB..Flags each and every action as suspicious until a cloud query arrives. Lacks Disinfection and a spam Module.It doesnt satisfy for its COST
Use both and get along with 1
My choice Bit Defender

Personally I would pick Emsisoft over Bitdefender simply due to the fact its much more stable and has less bugs. I've tried Bitdefender multiple times in the past and every time I've tried it, it caused my system to boot very slowly and always caused major slow downs for me. I've tried all the workarounds, but it still caused me issues. I do agree that Emsisoft's BB can be a little overzealous at times though.

In regards to a spam filter, personally I don't think that's the end all be all feature to have. If that's a feature you want, that's fine, but I think the vast majority of people out there use webmail (Gmail, Outlook, etc...) nowadays.

 

[Deleted Member 3a5v73x]

@ameri9595 If I had PC with those specs, I would use only Webroot. It's still most possibly lightest of AV's and since you say you're an "Advanced" user, you should've been more careful while being online and downloading unknown programms. Maybe you don't need an AV, but a virtualization software like Shadow Defender or Sandboxie?

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

No av is free from bugs. Emsisoft releases new versions every month.That should answer your Q
Moreover i never trust an AV that detects other AV websites as a PHISHING..alarming BB Hyper active Phishing and no spam module makes not a recommended AV at present (Personal Opinion)

 

[gin]

eset ftw

 

[AlanOstaszewski]

Moreover i never trust an AV that detects other AV websites as a PHISHING..alarming BB Hyper active Phishing and no spam module makes not a recommended AV at present (Personal Opinion)

I've never seen anything like it.

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

Please speak to us in English. Sorry, but I can't understand your message. :/

Lol! Emsisoft detected Drweb ( Russian) website as a phished host for 3 months.
But when I updated them they soon removed it.
I got that link from a live phishing feed ..After confirmation from Dr WEB , Kaspersky , Norton , G DATA I decided to test it. Though F Secure detected but a week later it gave a green signal.
That concludes #

 

[ForgottenSeer 58943]

Hmm..K7 is good. I have a 20 yr (Gold License) of Ultimate Security
As far my tests goes.. its pro active is quite good against Trojans, Cryptolockers and ok against Ransomwares.
Its anti-phishing sucks..i can say almost Non-existent..But very accurate malicious URL blocking.
Regarding CYREN..i highly doubt this because i used him for more than a year . Confirm with K7 and let me know

K7 appears to have some new resources and has been rising in the charts lately, their introduction to AVC they did very well (besting Kaspersky) and have been scoring higher with each new one. I haven't tested the Anti-Phishing but found the malicious URL blocking very potent.

I've tested the firewall. Set your local network on 'Public' in K7 which enables enhanced rules. Tick off all of the extra IPS/Vuln rules in the firewall. Enable all of the extra rules under the AV such as cookie detection, etc. Then the product is actually quite solid and extremely lightweight.

I found Commtouch/Cyren enterprise resources inside K7, further research seems to indicate they source at least part of their protection from Commtouch/Cyren.

Commtouch Expands Into Fast-Growing Indian Market With 4 New OEM Partners

K7 appears to not send any telemetry and has checkboxes to turn off all logging. Which is another nice bonus for many people not interested in having their AV spy.

In terms of the OP's request. K7 fits the bill and nothing is lighter, not even Webroot.

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

How is its PUP detection and firewall? And how much does it cost? This is one antivirus product I'm curious about.

Their engine is good ..Improved day by day.I heard K7 has threat labs in Japan and seems to have a well known AV even there long time before in some other name and is highly trusted and sailed across that region till date
Signatures and Pro active does their job automated.
Sucks against Phishing and Worms.
Enable all the settings under each tab for max protection.
K7 carnivore is what their HIPS and BB
I am lucky enough to grab a 20 YR lic at 1000/- few months ago.I think it's halted now.
K7 is a costly AV..Try it before you buy
As I said it's BB is very responsive and uses some Advanced disinfector in some cases as well.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

No av is free from bugs. Emsisoft releases new versions every month.That should answer your Q
Moreover i never trust an AV that detects other AV websites as a PHISHING..alarming BB Hyper active Phishing and no spam module makes not a recommended AV at present (Personal Opinion)

I never said that Emsisoft didn't have bugs, I just said they seem to have LESS bugs compared to Bitdefender. Anyways my comment was based on my experience when using both products. Also, Bitdefender doesn't have the best track record when it comes to fixing bugs and or customer support by comparision.

My reason for quoting you was to comment on your reasoning for choosing Bitdefender over Emsisoft was because it has a spam filter. Everyone can pick a product based on whatever features they feel like they need (I'm not here to tell/force them otherwise), but as I mentioned, nowadays having or not having a spam filter is not a necessary requirement IMO.

Lol! Emsisoft detected Drweb ( Russian) website as a phished host for 3 months.
But when I updated them they soon removed it.
I got that link from a live phishing feed ..After confirmation from Dr WEB , Kaspersky , Norton , G DATA I decided to test it. Though F Secure detected but a week later it gave a green signal.
That concludes #

Obviously they were false positives and happens to everyone. You make it sound like Emsisoft is some evil company that's trying to block their competitors some how. As I mentioned in another thread if you see a false positive and you know its a false positive, report it to the company so they can fix it. Sitting there and refreshing the page for 3 months isn't going to fix it. It seems like Emsisoft immediately corrected the issue once you reported it, which shows that sometimes unless you report it, it won't get fixed.

 

[roger_m]

I won't recommend Eset because it fails easily with flash drive virus.

Unless you got infected, just by plugging in the flash drive, then problem was that you manually launched an infected file. No antivirus will detect all threats and you should be very careful about what files you open.

 

[CMLew]

This ain't low specs IMHO.

In any case, my personal preference:

1) Install-N-Forget: Emsisoft Anti-Malware
2) Comprehensive: Kaspersky (mind you, it's a heavy software)
3) Non-Traditional: Voodooshield or NVT ERP

So far I only use 1) and 3) extensively, Others pretty redundant and waste of resources to my system.

 

[outlawxtorn]

I vote for SEPC.

 

[Deleted member 178]

No av is free from bugs. Emsisoft releases new versions every month.That should answer your Q

even if the current build has no bugs you would have a new one the following month, this is planned as such to reduce workloads.

 

[Deleted Member 3a5v73x]

Their engine is good ..Improved day by day.I heard K7 has threat labs in Japan and seems to have a well known AV even there long time before in some other name and is highly trusted and sailed across that region till date
Signatures and Pro active does their job automated.
Sucks against Phishing and Worms.
Enable all the settings under each tab for max protection.
K7 carnivore is what their HIPS and BB
I am lucky enough to grab a 20 YR lic at 1000/- few months ago.I think it's halted now.
K7 is a costly AV..Try it before you buy
As I said it's BB is very responsive and uses some Advanced disinfector in some cases as well.

Looks like K7 was "successfully" hit by Blank Ransom @ 3:02. What would happen with other Ransom variants? Although, I couldn't find myself one which would slip by. Still, some users of K7 wouldn't be happy of seeing it. Military UI doesn't make me feel more protected. For low/below average PC specs it might be good, but atleast protection wise from Indian AV vendors, K7 seems better/more pro-active and lighter than Quick Heal, that's what I've seen in VM. Still might be a good AV choice for @ameri9595 to consider.

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

I never said that Emsisoft didn't have bugs, I just said they seem to have LESS bugs compared to Bitdefender. Anyways my comment was based on my experience when using both products. Also, Bitdefender doesn't have the best track record when it comes to fixing bugs and or customer support by comparision.

My reason for quoting you was to comment on your reasoning for choosing Bitdefender over Emsisoft was because it has a spam filter. Everyone can pick a product based on whatever features they feel like they need (I'm not here to tell/force them otherwise), but as I mentioned, nowadays having or not having a spam filter is not a necessary requirement IMO.



Obviously they were false positives and happens to everyone. You make it sound like Emsisoft is some evil company that's trying to block their competitors some how. As I mentioned in another thread if you see a false positive and you know its a false positive, report it to the company so they can fix it. Sitting there and refreshing the page for 3 months isn't going to fix it. It seems like Emsisoft immediately corrected the issue once you reported it, which shows that sometimes unless you report it, it won't get fixed.

For your information ..detecting an other AV vendor website as phished host is a non sense to me. A blind copy and blunder in my opinion which i can never forgive and forget.Since correction wasn't done till i posted it here.
If it seems like a FP to you its ok..but never to me. Anyone who has sense will never see it like a Fp..worst than that.
Instances like these are enough to show how reliable any AV vendor is ..it may be G data or Eset
Dr web is a well known company since 1992.. so my point is how an AV vendor detects their HOME website
vms.drweb.com.. as a dangerous host
For your information i received that through OPENPHISH AND TESTMYAV..I am no way criticising any AV..but just showed the truth i came across.
If any AV detects other AV website as DANGEROUS.. Probably i will never ever look at it..

 

[Local Host]

Kaspersky can be extremely light contrary to popular believe, although it goes case by case. Try testing it and see how it goes, on my system has no performance hit whasoever.

I can't recommend ESET due to depending on tweaking to be optimal, and it's not that light compared to the competition nowadays.

 

[roger_m]

I can't recommend ESET due to depending on tweaking to be optimal, and it's not that light compared to the competition nowadays.

That's not what I've found. In my testing, I found that v11 ESET products are extremely light. Much lighter than previous versions, as well as just about every other antivirus, at the moment.

Of course, as with any antivirus, results will vary from one computer to the next.

 

[Ink]

If any AV detects other AV website as DANGEROUS.. Probably i will never ever look at it..

So what you're saying is, Antivirus companies should white-list other AV companies' websites because they are NEVER dangerous?

Doesn't matter if it belongs to the Gov, Security company, or a Blogger. A website is always vulnerable to attack, to spread malicious files or be malvertised.

False positives occur all the time.

 

[ForgottenSeer 72227]

For your information ..detecting an other AV vendor website as phished host is a non sense to me. A blind copy and blunder in my opinion which i can never forgive and forget.Since correction wasn't done till i posted it here.
If it seems like a FP to you its ok..but never to me. Anyone who has sense will never see it like a Fp..worst than that.
Instances like these are enough to show how reliable any AV vendor is ..it may be G data or Eset
Dr web is a well known company since 1992.. so my point is how an AV vendor detects their HOME website
vms.drweb.com.. as a dangerous host
For your information i received that through OPENPHISH AND TESTMYAV..I am no way criticising any AV..but just showed the truth i came across.
If any AV detects other AV website as DANGEROUS.. Probably i will never ever look at it..

Mahesh Sudula,

Unfortunately we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I am not going to get into a long drawn out debate on this, so this will be my last post on the subject, but its very evident that you are thinking this is way more serious than it actually is. You make it seem like they harmed you significantly in some way shape or form. It's very evident that your not a fan of Emsisoft and that's totally fine. Everyone has software they like and dislike and I'm not here to force you to change your mind. I do think you are making this issue WAY bigger than it needs to be. If they didn't correct it till you posted it here, there's a very good chance that no one has reported it to them before hand and only realized the issue once they saw your comment. Again, false positives sometimes don't just disappear unless you report it. If you don't report it, expect it to continue to be flagged.

I agree with Spawn! You cannot assume a website hasn't been compromised in some form just because it belongs to a reputable company. Sites get compromised all the time, if it wasn't compromised, then it was a false positive, it's as simple as that.

 

[Mahesh Sudula]

So what you're saying is, Antivirus companies should white-list other AV companies' websites because they are NEVER dangerous?

Doesn't matter if it belongs to the Gov, Security company, or a Blogger. A website is always vulnerable to attack, to spread malicious files or be malvertised.

False positives occur all the time.

False positives do occur..i agree
but detecting Dr WEB and Kaspersky websites as phished is nonsense
When i asked them about the analyzed report ..they simply left it
Know the reason simple..Few vendors don't even check whether a website is really duped or not
What about the situation if i haven't posted this issue. I waited nearly 3 months for the re check
Then i posted along with proofs
Believe me or not 3/4 of the vendors don't even check the websites for phished/ malicious part before adding to database
Honestly Drweb, Kaspersky, Norton, Avast, Eset, Bitdefender, Trend, G DATA...tHESE ARE THE VENDORS who care to check a website is phished or not before flagging in.
Its not about fp firstly how did they even detect legitimate AV vendor website as malicious..Have they checked it ??
Do they have any form of Analyzed report??
Personally i dont ever take that as a Fp..issue is somewhat deep and off-topic
But as i said ..reliability of any AV comes in during these instances.