A friend who has been using Bitdefender Total for some time has come to the conclusion he no longer wants to pay for it. He is on Windows 10 so I presume defender is active, would this alone be enough protection for a casual user - the likeliest risk of compromise would come from something like a drive-by, rather than dodgy downloads etc. This person is the type who didn't even know what the start menu was, so we're talking that level of "non-techy" user. I didn't really know where to even start with suggesting alternatives as I am out of the loop with all that stuff but it would have to be totally non-complex. (I would be able to install & set up but then he would be on his own) Any suggestions as to what he could do would be greatly received ! Thanks
If BitDefender is still installed and running, chances are, Microsoft Defender (formally Windows Defender) has probably stepped aside and disabled itself. And that's fine and what it was supposed to do. Typically, once the 3rd party solution is disabled, Defender "should" re-enable itself. But if it doesn't, it typically is simple to manually enable it, then it should stay enabled. Contrary to what many want us to believe, Defender is fully capable of protecting our systems AS LONG AS we keep Windows and Defender current and we are not "click-happy" on every unsolicited link we see - precautions that just happen to be required regardless our security solution of choice. Also regardless our primary solution, I recommend everyone have a second scanner on hand for occasional on-demand scanning just to make sure we (the user and ALWAYS weakest link in security) or our primary didn't let something slip by. I generally recommend Malwarebytes for that. And for the many years I've used Defender since W8, Malwarebytes has never, not once, found anything malicious on any of my systems.
Thanks Bill, that's made me feel a lot more confident in saying Defender will be sufficient alone, plus the lecture about clicking randomly on anything. (I wasn't even conscious of the fact they changed the name !) I will certainly organise to install a second opinion scanner as well as it's me that will be doing it.
I've familiaried myself with MBAM Free now so it should be fairly straightforward on the day (his BD license ends in ~2 weeks) he was paying £59/$79 PER YEAR for a local computer shop to license it ! (I got it down by half last year when I did it for him but he wants to move on from that now) so, thanks again for the assistance
I absolutely agree with @Bill_Bright. You may tell your friend to install ConfigureDefender and set it to High for problem free use (or do it for him) and make sure your friend uses a good adblocker like µBO, Adguard, Ghostery or Privacy Badger (choose only one!). Good internet hygiene is essential no matter the setup.
I disagree. But the only way I'll be proved right is if something bad happens. So I hope I'm wrong. Btw once or twice a year Bitdefender Total Security goes on sale for $9.99 1 year 5-user license. I know I jumped on the last sale a few months ago.
MBAM considered itself in the past as a "second opinion scanner". results are not that good https://www.av-comparatives.org/tests/summary-report-2021/ overview defender https://www.av-comparatives.org/vendors/microsoft/ what i miss is a different view to a pure malware scanner and some "internet security" suite.
MS Defender is enough. Just ask your friend to be careful when clicking on email attachments, links on webpages and make good use of Ctrl+W if he uses Firefox to close tabs or windows popping up with ads.
Thanks everyone for the thoughts and ideas, very much appreciated. He wouldn`t even know what Firefox was, just bumbles through on totally stock chrome and gmail, he didn`t even realise chrome was the browser - so I didn`t want to go down that rabbithole and being the one that gets "the call" so needed it to be idiotproof. The final straw was recently when BD blocked the camera when he was forced to do a non-personal Zoom call for the first time.
So did you "STOP" getting infected just by disabling Defender and moving on to something else? That's a rhetorical question, not looking for a reply. I am just noting that comment implies that BD or other solutions (other than Defender) are 100% perfect and infallible. That, of course, is totally wrong. No solution is perfect. BitDefender is a very good security solution. There is no argument there. So is Norton, McAfee and just about every other "paid" program out there. But so are most of the popular free programs too, including Defender. And that is the point. We don't need an Abrams Tank to drive around in to be safe. And we certainly don't need to pay through the nose, year after year after year for a security solution to remain safe. What we need is a fairly current car that, along with its safety features, is properly maintained. And we must drive defensively. What we need is a modern version of Windows (10/11) and a decent anti-malware solution. And we need to keep them current. And then we need to avoid being "click-happy" on unsolicited links, downloads, attachments and popups. Again, the exact same thing regardless our security solution of choice. Is Defender inadequate for some folks? Sure! Microsoft Defender is probably not for you if any of the following apply: If you don't keep Windows updated, If you don't keep your security solution updated, If you are "click-happy" on every unsolicited download, link, popup, and attachment you see, If you visit illegal pornography or gambling sites, If you participate in illegal filesharing via Torrents and P2P sites, If you connect to public "hotspots" with admin level accounts, If you let undisciplined, careless users use your computer with admin level accounts while unsupervised, If you leave your computer unsecured in public places where bad guys have unhindered physical access to it, If you believe everyone is out to get you. But if those scenarios don't apply to you, then Microsoft Defender is just fine. *** ConfigureDefender is not needed and IMO a waste of disk space. And frankly, I have found it outdated and disappointing. For starters, the default settings for Defender are the ideal settings for the vast majority of us. So why dink with them? There is no need. If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!! And then, as I noted, it is outdated. How? If you look in the "Admin: Smartscreen" section, it addresses "Edge (not Chromium)" and "Internet Explorer". Neither of those browsers even exist in W11 or W10 (assuming W10 is fully updated). The new Edge is Chromium based and superseded and supplanted both the old Edge and IE. And why not address the similar phishing and malware prevention features found in FireFox and Chrome and other popular browsers? It makes no sense. *** A couple more important observations. (1) If Defender was inadequate, or if it was a bad as some want us to believe, there would be 10s (100s?) of millions of infected machines out there. But there aren't. (2) Defender would be much more liked if it didn't have the Micrsoft brand on it! And (3) Contrary to what those testing labs claim, those are artificial, synthetic tests and do not represent day-to-day, real-world environments. But if artificial/synthetic lab results are your thing, then don't just look at one. Note, for example, how AV-Test certifies Microsoft Defender as "Top Product", scoring 6 out of 6 in all major categories, including the most important "Protection" category, THE SAME AS more than a dozen other solutions. Then note how it is certified higher than the popular Avast, AVG, and TrendMicro, among others. Does that make them inadequate. No! Defender even scored higher than BitDefender when it comes to "Usability". Does that make BT inadequate or insecure? Of course not. But it does suggest a steeper learning curve. *** One last thing to consider before I step out. Microsoft is the only security software developer for the home user that has a true financial incentive to rid the world of malware! If malware were totally defeated, it would save Microsoft from the relentless attacks they get from all the MS haters, bloggers and attention seekers in IT press - despite the fact it is the bad guys who put us in this scenario and 3rd party antimalware developers who failed to stop them! If malware were totally defeated, where would that leave all the 3rd party security solution providers? Out of business, that's where! So what financial incentive does ESET, Norton, McAfee, Avast/AVG, Avira, Kaspersky, Malwarebytes, BitDefender, etc have to rid the world of malware? None, nada, zilch. So I will put my money on the one product maker who truly benefits by thwarting the bad guys - especially when their offering is already in there, is free, and it works! Frankly, I don't care what folks use, as long as they use a decent security solution and practice safe computing.
