13 mistakes to avoid when choosing antivirus software in 2018

Exactly! They are NOT making money from WD. That's a good thing because it means they don't have to code WD to score well on simulated lab tests! They don't need the glory and bragging rights for their advertising/marketing hype like all the other products do to make them stand apart from each other so consumers will buy their products instead of their competitors.

Microsoft is not in it for the money. They are in it so Microsoft bashers stop blaming Microsoft for actions of the badguys.

Only Microsoft benefits if malware goes away! All the other antimalware solution providers depend on the bad guys and malware to survive and thrive. If malware goes away, where will that put Avast, Avira, Norton or your favorite security program? Out of business, that's where. So what incentive do they really have in the end to beat malware? None!

I ask again, if WD is so bad, where are all the infected users? Why aren't any of my 6 systems or the dozens I am responsible for infected?

Are all the other users of this forum who use WD just stupid - like you think I am? Why are their systems not infected?

Could it be that WD actually works in "real-world" scenarios? I say, yes!

What propaganda? Show us all the ads Microsoft is pushing on us promoting WD.

The only propaganda being believed is that by you claiming WD is so bad, users need God's help to survive!

This is what I am talking about. It is all the people who immediately take every opportunity to denounce WD who are doing the preaching. This thread is not about WD but you and Emsisoft have made it so.

Testing any solution against fresh malware is not a realistic, real-world test. That's the problem with all those lab tests. They throw 1000s of malware against an antimalware product when that is not how malware attacks the typical computer in the real world!

Why are all of you ignoring the fact that the vast majority of WD users are NOT getting infected? That's the problem. You guys keep claiming that WD is so bad, but real world evidence does not support that. Where are all those infected WD users you imply must be out there?

Are you really going to pretend that 100% of the users of your preferred product are not infected?

I am NOT saying (and never have - for the record) that WD is the best there is. I am just says that it is more than adequate for the vast majority of users. And I have always said that, regardless your primary of scanner of choice, we all still need a secondary scanner just to be sure our primary or we (the user and always weakest link in security) didn't let something slip by.

You don't have to drive around in an Abrams tank to be safe. You just need to drive around in a relative modern car that is properly maintained, and most importantly, you MUST drive defensively. Funny enough that is the same need regardless the antimalware solution of choice.

 

FWIW I ran MSE for years without any hint of an infection. I thought WD was more or less the same thing.

 

NO! You show us where users of WD are getting infected at significantly greater percentage rates than users of of other solutions!

You can't do it! Prove me wrong!

It is based on same core as MSE, but is much improved over MSE. If you liked MSE, you should really like WD.

 

@Bill_Bright

Do you consider pup(potentially unwanted pogram) as an infection? I would guess many users that only use WD would suffer from them considering the user is require to go to the registry to enable pup detection. Common users most likely won't bother to do that.

 

Probably. It won't run on Win 7 though. I never had a single false positive with MSE either.

 

Bill...you make good sense to me.....

 

Yes, he does make sense, to me, also.

P.S. I was a long time user of XP, and never used MSE the forerunner of Windows Defender. But, having gone to a new laptop about 20 months with Windows 10 Pro, I am sold on Windows Defender. It's getting better all the time.

 

Sound arguments Bill! There are two reasons I'm not with WD yet, I have Avira Pro until 2020 which was ridiculously cheap, and speed on my two IC i7 laptops, WD noticeably slows them down compared to Avira. I also completely agree about the FUD associated with the threat potential of malware, absolutely over the top...

 

It seems that lately, detection of PUPs by WD is getting a lot better, without enabling PUP detection. Aside from that, PUP detection is limited for most antiviruses. A good example is Bitdefender, which is one of the worst at detecting PUPs. There are some exceptions such as ESET and in particular Dr Web (which detects around 2,500 different PUPs). But most antivirus don't do very well at protecting you from PUPs, which is why it's always a good idea to use a second opinion scanner such as Malwarebytes, Zemana or HitmanPro.

 

NO. Neither does Malwarebytes or other anti-malware solutions. That is why they are called "potentially" and "unwanted", not "definitely" and "malicious".

A PUP, often, is just a program the security program cannot identify. For a long time, Malwarebytes identified UltraMon as a PUP. This is a multi-monitor utility I have been using since Windows 98 days. It is definitely wanted and not malicious.

So while a PUP could indeed be an "infection" and must be checked out, it is wrong to classify PUPs as an entire class of malware (like viruses, worms, rootkits, spyware, etc.). Just because something is suspicious or unknown, that does not make it malicious or unwanted. It could be, and these days probably is, but might not be.

So I agree with Roger and proper PUP detection is getting better and better with fewer and fewer "false positives".

I also agree with Roger, and as I noted above, it is always good (regardless your primary scanner of choice) to have a secondary scanner for a second opinion.

Right. WD is not designed to run on W7, only W8 and W10. And since W7 is already pushing 9 years old and mainstream support for W7 ended over 2 years ago, there is no reason to expect Microsoft will make it run on W7.

It's funny. I have heard this argument over the last 20 years in every variation you can think of.

Norton noticeably slows them down compared to McAfee.
Avast! noticeably slows them down compared to MSE.
Kaspersky noticeably slows them down compared to BitDefender.
AVG noticeably slows them down compared to Kaspersky.
McAfee noticeably slows them down compared to F-Secure.
Eset noticeably slows them down compared to Windows Defender.
And on and on and on.​

And I have seen it happen every which way too. Many years ago, that is why I dumped Norton for McAfee. Then I dumped McAfee for AVG. Then W7 came around and I dumped AVG for MSE. Not because I got infected, but because they were hogging my system resources. Plus, I see no reason to pay for security solutions when capable free ones are available - but that's a different issue.

So users need to figure out which works best for them. But I will say this, regardless your solution of choice, don't assume the way it performed on your last system is how it will perform on your next (good or bad). And don't assume how it ran on your system last year is how it will perform on your system this year (good or bad). All the contenders strive to improve performance and decrease resource footprint.

FTR, I have had no performance problems with WD. Yes, manual scans can take a long time. But since WD runs in real-time, I rarely ever run manual scans - there just is no need. I might manually scan an individual file I download, but that is not the same thing. That said, WD is much faster than Malwarebytes when it comes to manually scanning individual files! I'm just saying... .

I really don't care which product you use. I only care that the truth, base on established "real world" facts, be told. IF the truth was that Windows Defender could not protect us, the malware removal forums would be inundated every day with dozens (100s!) of users reporting, I have "Windows Defender and I got infected". But that is not happening. Everyone needs to ask themselves, "why?"

Check it out for yourselves! Wilders recommends users visit Bleeping Computer if they suspect they are infected. Okay, do that and look at yesterday's new posts. I count just 24. Are they all Windows Defender? Nope! I see people running MBAM, Comodo, Panda, Trend Micro, SAS, ESET, SpyBot, Norton, Avast - and that was just on the first 10 or so threads for yesterday - and not all ended up being infections!

If WD is so bad as suggested by some of those in this thread, where are all the infected computers? Why are users running MBAM, Comodo, Panda, ESET, Avast, etc. getting infected too?

 

I don't know how this thread has become about WD again. It's only mentioned once in blogpost and there was nothing bad said about WD and yet, here we have another thread hijacked by discussion about WD.

 

I have Panda AV on Win 7 now, although that's no reflection on the efficacy of MSE, which did a fine job. When all support is ended for 7 I will switch the desktop to Ubuntu.

 

https://www.malwarebytes.com/remediationmap/

 

But why was it (and it alone) mentioned in the blog post at all - if not to persuade readers from using it? And while "nothing bad" may be technically accurate, it sure was implied when the article said about Free products,

That was clearly an opportunistic bash at WD. Why not include the other very popular free programs if the topic was really about all free offerings? Why mention WD at all?

If the article is about 13 mistakes to avoid, why is Emsisoft (and only Emsisoft) mentioned no less than 5 times, if it is not an advertisement for Emsisoft?

 

I have seen that map before. Understand, it only shows raw numbers, not percentages.

And it is important to read the text and explanations that go with that map.

Of interest to me is the one condition that says,

 

Sorry Bill but I don't see it that way. WD was mentioned in section called Price, where they explained that even if a user pays no money for protection, vendor will still get something in return. User can decide if they want paid or "free" protection. And if they decide to go for free, they already have WD installed.
So really, "nothing bad" from my point of view.

 

Evidence? Which evidence. You can build bing/google search links evidence with almost any company

 

Did you look at the link? Do you really think the UK, US, Lithuania and other governments would ban their products if there were no evidence? Do you really think Russia wouldn't stoop so low? Do you really think Trump, who seems to have some buddy buddy relationship with Putin would sign a bill banning Kaspersky if there wasn't overwhelming evidence that even he couldn't ignore. I mean, come on!

Then do it. Find us some evidence showing the CIA is working with Microsoft to include spyware in Windows Defender. Show us where Norton and McAfee include government sponsored spyware.

Show us where the Romanian government inserted spyware in BitDefender. Show us where New Zealand has operatives working for Emsisoft. Show us where the German government is using GDATA Internet Security to spy on their customers.

Do you seriously think there is some conspiracy that has created a Bing Google search attack on Kaspersky? Then use your own search engine and see for yourself.

I already said it was not technically bad. But if the point was about all free programs, why single out just WD?

And just what is it you think Microsoft is "getting in return" with WD? There are no ads in the program. There are no attempts to foist unwanted tool bars or other programs when you download the program. There are not attempts to get you upgrade to some paid premium version.

But, let's just assume you are right and the article was not an innuendo or suggestive dig at Windows Defender. It was still a clear, albeit cleverly written advertisement for their product, and not really a tutorial or guide for avoiding mistakes.