Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Defender + what = adequate protection?


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 shmu26

shmu26

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:58 AM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 01:21 AM

Windows 8.1

 

I am seeking adequate protection for my computer but with minimum impact on speed and responsiveness.

 

what about this : Defender + MBAM home premium + Bitdefender 60-second scan

 

I assume  that something heavier like Kaspersky will probably give me better protection on its own than all these three put together, but, as I mentioned, I am seeking minimum impact on speed and responsiveness.

 


BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


m

#2 noknojon

noknojon

  • Banned
  • 10,871 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Local time:08:58 AM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 02:28 AM

Hello and Welcome -

You will always get many versions of peoples personal set ups but ...

Defender + MBAM home premium + Bitdefender 60-second scan but basically The Premium MBAM should be enough with Defender - (not Bitdefender)

 

Use that or Emsisoft instead of MBAM

 

 

Just My Personal View  .......



#3 Andrei_V

Andrei_V

  • Members
  • 77 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:11:58 PM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 03:04 AM

MVPS Hosts Files , Avira Free ( or Panda Free AV )  and Windows Firewall with Advanced settings.( there are several tools you can use to control Windows firewall.)
 
Kaspersky is good but complicated, too many settings and there are free products with equal or better detection rates.
 
Win Defender is baseline protection at best, Microsoft tell you to find a 3rd party product.
 
 
I find the new Malwarebytes causes too much lag on both system and browser, I keep it as an on demand tool.
 
 
Edit because I managed to leave half the reply behind.
 
 
My son has Win7 desktop,  Win8.1 64Bit Laptop , I have Win 8.1 on 2 laptops and a desktop,  this is what is in place and works perfectly.
 
OpenDns , CryptoPrevent (set and forget settings),  Malwarebytes Anti Exploit, MVPS Hosts Files, Avira Free , McShield (free) for USB protection.
 
never see any real lag/delay and his systems remain clean and safe.
 
 
You don't give system specs or say what you use the system for......... 90% of security is common sense, if you are living dangerously visiting bad sites then you need more armour.
 

Edited by Andrei_V, 26 April 2015 - 04:38 AM.


#4 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 50,563 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:58 PM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 06:35 AM

I assume  that something heavier like Kaspersky will probably give me better protection on its own than all these three put together, but, as I mentioned, I am seeking minimum impact on speed and responsiveness.

Not necessarily. In simplistic terms, Anti-virus programs generally scan for infectious malware which includes viruses, worms, Trojans, rootkis and bots. Anti-virus software is inherently reactive...meaning it usually finds malware after a computer has been infected. Further, if you're dealing with zero-day malware it's unlikely the anti-virus is going to detect anything.

Anti-malware programs generally tend to focus more on adware, spyware, unwanted toolbars, browser hijackers, potentially unwanted programs and potentially unsafe applications. However, there can be some overlap in functionality and detection features depending on the program's scanning engine, how the vendor defines a specific threat and what Naming Standards are used.

Therefore, an anti-virus program alone does not provide comprehensive protection and cannot prevent, detect and remove all threats at any given time.

Bitdefender 60-Second Virus Scanner uses Cloud scanning technology and is more of a second opinion scanner. You can also use various Online Virus Scanners to do the same.


.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#5 shmu26

shmu26
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:58 AM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 07:34 AM

thanks quietman

so I guess I should change my approach.

if I want good protection I should get something like kaspersky+malarebytes, and be covered from pretty much all angles



#6 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 50,563 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:58 PM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 07:43 AM

Windows Defender on Windows 8 is an anti-virus that provides the same level of protection against malware as Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) provides on older operation systems.

If you are satisfied with Defender 8, then I see no problem to use it alongside Malwarebytes.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#7 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops


  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,193 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec, Canada
  • Local time:05:58 PM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 09:38 AM

Kaspersky is good but complicated, too many settings and there are free products with equal or better detection rates.


Kaspersky is one of these Antivirus products that you install and forget. You don't have to change any default settings in order to make it work. Also, every Antivirus have "too many settings" and you are free to change them or not. I also wouldn't say that any free Antivirus have better or equal detection ratios than Kaspersky. Kaspersky, ESET and Emsisoft are in my opinion the top 3 Antivirus, and you cannot really compare free products to paid products.

shmu26, you said that you want a setup with a minimum impact on speed and responsiveness, right? Well in that case, it would be good if you could give us your computer specs.

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#8 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 50,563 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:58 PM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 09:59 AM

The OP advised Windows 8.1.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#9 shmu26

shmu26
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:58 AM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:00 AM

windows 8.1 64 bit

primary browser: chrome

cpu: intel pentium dual core

4 gb ram ddr 3

mobo is a simple, old-style BIOS. SATA II.

SSD 120 gb samsung 840 



#10 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops


  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,193 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec, Canada
  • Local time:05:58 PM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:08 AM

Hopefully you are using Google Chrome 64-bits, it'll take less resources than Chrome 32-bits. And if you want an Anitivurs with the less impact on resources, I would go with ESET and Emsisoft products, assuming that you want paid products. They are the most light-weight I know and yes, Kaspersky is a bit more heavier than them, with these specs you will feel it if you install it. But it's still a very good program and if you want to go for it, you would still be making a good decision. quietman can tell you more about ESET and Emsisoft since he's running them on his computers and laptops and says that they leave a minimal footprint on them :)

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#11 shmu26

shmu26
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:58 AM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:11 AM

I thought that Google Chrome 64-bits was known to be a memory hog.



#12 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 50,563 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:58 PM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:14 AM


You can run any anti-virus and anti-malware you like on that system.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#13 Aura

Aura

    Bleepin' Special Ops


  • Malware Response Team
  • 19,193 posts
  • ONLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Quebec, Canada
  • Local time:05:58 PM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:15 AM

It's actually the opposite. If you run Google Chrome 32-bits on a 64-bits system, it'll be a memory hog since 32-bits applications takes more resources to run on 64-bits system than 64-bits applications. Seeing that Chrome already works with multiple processes, running it that way takes a lot of resources you could save using the 64-bits version of it. I've been using the 64-bits build since it was officially released, and this on all my computers and it doesn't have any memory hog problem.

unite_blue.png
Security Administrator | Sysnative Windows Update Senior Analyst | Malware Hunter | @SecurityAura
My timezone UTC-05:00 (East. Coast). If I didn't reply to you within 48 hours, please send me a PM.


#14 quietman7

quietman7

    Bleepin' Janitor


  • Global Moderator
  • 50,563 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA
  • Local time:05:58 PM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:22 AM

We are discussing anti-virus solutions in this topic.
.
.
Windows Insider MVP 2017-2018
Microsoft MVP Reconnect 2016
Microsoft MVP Consumer Security 2007-2015 kO7xOZh.gif
Member of UNITE, Unified Network of Instructors and Trusted Eliminators

If I have been helpful & you'd like to consider a donation, click 38WxTfO.gif

#15 shmu26

shmu26
  • Topic Starter

  • Members
  • 6 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Local time:12:58 AM

Posted 26 April 2015 - 10:23 AM

guys, thanks for input






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users