.Keys: I remember your topic and for some reason I think you have not seem my detailed post there about Kaspersky and BitDefender being the best free antivirus right now.
timppu: I meant to try, I think it was Comodo, that someone mentioned. I even downloaded it already but didn't yet install it.
.Keys: Since there's an international situation happening, Kaspersky became 'software-non-grata' in US, if you understand what I mean, so its up to you to use it or not, depending on your analysis of the current situation, In my opinion its a very good antivirus still, but because of the explained above, its power to find viruses will probably diminish because US is a huge source of cybersecurity material and research...
timppu: Well, yeah, unfortunately at this point if feels a bit like using antivirus made in China or North Korea. Can I really trust it? AV gets so many privileges in the computer.
Technically we know we can't trust any software that connects online unless we have access to their source code and are able to actually read it and understand it. So as we know, even if they're not trustworthy, we wouldn't know with 100% certainty.
Wasn't Avast collecting users data around without them necessarily knowing and selling their data to third parties or something like that?
Researched a bit, yes, around that - here are four sources explaining the situation:
"Avast fined $16.5 million for ‘privacy’ software that actually sold users’ browsing data / For years, the antivirus software company harvested information from users’ web browsers without their consent." https://www.theverge.com/2024/2/22/24080135/avast-security-privacy-software-ftc-fine-data-harvesting Avast sold privacy software, then sold users' web browsing data, FTC alleges https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ftc-avast-browsing-data-privacy/
FTC Cracks Down on Mass Data Collectors: A Closer Look at Avast, X-Mode, and InMarket https://www.ftc.gov/policy/advocacy-research/tech-at-ftc/2024/03/ftc-cracks-down-mass-data-collectors-closer-look-avast-x-mode-inmarket FTC Bans Antivirus Provider Avast From Selling Users' Browsing Data https://www.pcmag.com/news/ftc-bans-antivirus-provider-avast-from-selling-users-browsing-data So how can we trust BitDefender, Malwarebytes and Kaspersky aren't doing something like this?
(We know that Microsoft collects more data than all of them together, unless you use a completely offline Windows machine and update Windows Defender offline using this address to download their updates manually:
https://www.microsoft.com/en-US/wdsi/defenderupdates) > That's what I do by the way currently.
Well, we trust that they will comply with their Privacy Policy, but, as we should always question - what if they don't?
What real consequences are there for the companies that do not comply? Based on those consequences we should trust or not on said company. At least that's how I guide myself when using closed source software most of the time.
.Keys: If you don't want to use Windows Defender because of false positives like this against unsigned softwares, use Bitdefender.
timppu: I am actually unsure if the non-MS antivirus are any better in not making false positives. I used Avira before MS, and at least it had much of the same problems with false positives.
My main motivation to find a replacement was to find one that is easy to disable when needed, does not turn itself back on at least either I reboot the computer, or enable it myself, and if possible, does nothing behind my back but if it detects something, it ASKS what it should do with the file.
I recall in the old days that is what antivirus did, they asked every time what to do with detected files, but nowadays it seems none of them do. I am unsure if that is because the malware could then answer itself and tell the antivirus not to mind the malware...
It may be that no such AV exists anymore because I got an impression that MS decides which third-party AVs are allowed to replace (= disable) Defender, and there probably are some requirements for the 3rd party antivitus, like "you must automatically enable yourself 10 minutes after disabling" and "you can't be disabled permanently" and "you will not ask the user what to do with the detected files, but always move them away to some obscure place that the user can't find them".
Personally I never heard about Windows Defender not allowing other antivirus work on the system. That didn't happened here when I tested it. Though I have not updated to Win 11, so can't really say.
About disabling Windows Defender and other antivirus:
As far as I know, all antivirus software allow you to disable them, even Windows Defender.
I was actually doing some security tests with some viruses these days and disabled Defender purposefully, and it actually allowed me to infect the system and right after it remove the virus re-enabling Defender. It was a simple to remove virus, so no real damage were done, also, on an offline box. So yes, you can disable Defender anytime you want.
About Bitdefender: If I remember correctly from last year when I used it, you can also disable it.
About Kaspersky: Same thing, based on experiences from last year.
Malwarebytes is the one that I don't use for the longest, so I can't say how it is today.
But I'd recommend those three for you if you are not satisfied with Windows Defender - although defender is ok for a normal user.
Here's a channel I also recommend if you want casual and intermediate recommendations about cybersecurity:
"The PC Security Channel"
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKGe7fZ_S788Jaspxg-_5Sg And here's a good comparison between Bitdefender and Kaspersky with real 2000 malware samples. A good vs battle in real time that he did to compare how both antivirus dealt with the 2000 malwares running:
Kaspersky vs Bitdefender Test vs 2000 Malware
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_DzLml1jZw Anyway, I hope these informations may help you decide what is best for your use case and personal preference.