The Best Antivirus for Windows 10 Revealed

[dimitri]

norton

[Holmes]

I didnt know what NSBU was and putting NSBU doesnt help norton security BU? I looked it up in google it means Norton Security with Backup (to not cause confusion saying norton security with backup is better norton security backup doesnt make sense) not everybody uses and is familiar with norton and its products and I know norton is getting better I doubt its going to pass the detection and performance of eset or kaspersky. I checked your site softwareoneeightytwo nice site. From reading virges post his post was fine why does he need to cheer up? he was simply saying hes know what this means what does this mean remember text doesnt portray tone of voice and yes this post is fine to Im simply correcting some posts and my own I feel good right now I dont need to cheer up lawls.

As for as what vibranium said windows defender is not good if you use the newest microsoft security essentials its microsoft security essentials and windows defender put together and it is better then regular windows defender and it is not good I honestly dont know why microsoft made windows defender. As for antiviruses against zero days thats why you dont use malwarebytes antimalware you use malwarebytes antimalware and malwarebytes anti-exploit free or premium thats what Im using that and rubotted keyscrambler comodo firewall and updated hosts file and in firefox I use ghostery noscript and adblock plus.

[steven36]

The Best Antivirus for Windows 10 Revealed

I thought Windows 10 suppose to be the most secure O/S yet? If this was true we would not need and Antivirus at All in fact the only time I use a Antivirus at All is when I'm on windows . :P

[Holmes]

No steven again inaccurate Most secure simply means its got better security then its predecessors doesnt mean its so secure you dont need a antivirus *facepalm*. Your inaccurate again linux has infections to and technically there is no operating system that is virus proof let alone linux where are you getting these conclusions from? I thinkk your making them up honestly.

[steven36]

No steven again inaccurate Most secure simply means its got better security then its predecessors doesnt mean its so secure you dont need a antivirus *facepalm*. Your inaccurate again linux has infections to and technically there is no operating system that is virus proof let alone linux where are you getting these conclusions from? I thinkk your making them up honestly.

If you run on Linux you risk very little chance of catching a virus if you follow what ever you’re Disrtos guidelines I use Linux Mints witch is based on ubuntu and installing Antivuius is not part of it.

The most basic set of rules

If you're a simple desktop user who only uses his computer for the most ordinary things, then this is the basic rule set:

1. immediately install security updates when you're notified;

2. do not install antivirus, as you *really* don't need it in Linux;unless you share files with Windows

3. enable the firewall (sudo ufw enable) without further tweaks;

4. stick to the official repo's as much as possible, and only deviate from them when strictly necessary and with much caution;

5. keep Java (both openJDK and Oracle Java) disabled by default in your browser, and only enable it when needed;

6. use Wine with caution;

7. and most important of all: use your common sense. The biggest security threat is generally found between keyboard and chair.

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/BasicSecurity

I don’t use no Linux Server I just use it for normal use . Any files I have for windows I test them On NOD32 and VirusTotal when i'm on windows and on VirusTotal when on Linux and these are my files i stopped sharing files in 2011 . Most all programs for Linux are open-source and don’t even call home an there's really no need for cracks. Its like Firefox For Linux Mint don’t even check for updates like windows version does .

On windows almost everything calls home . If you used only Windows Store apps Windows 10 could be more safe but everyone uses legacy apps on it as well so its just like any other windows O/S .

[vibranium]

As for as what vibranium said windows defender is not good if you use the newest microsoft security essentials its microsoft security essentials and windows defender put together and it is better then regular windows defender and it is not good I honestly dont know why microsoft made windows defender. As for antiviruses against zero days thats why you dont use malwarebytes antimalware you use malwarebytes antimalware and malwarebytes anti-exploit free or premium thats what Im using that and rubotted keyscrambler comodo firewall and updated hosts file and in firefox I use ghostery noscript and adblock plus.

Dude, this thread's about Windows 10. MSE is not available for Windows 10.

[Holmes]

If you use windows defender in windows ten it has the security essentials gui now:

http://www.intowindows.com/can-i-install-microsoft-security-essentials-in-windows-10/

They put windows defender and security essentials together doesnt make it good I would only use windows defender in windows ten if you couldnt get access to the web and you had to rely on built-in protection.

As for linux I wouldnt use linux without antivirus protection you do that at your own risk:

Linux Vulnerabilities

The majority of new users are coming from Windows environments, where security focuses mostly on anti-virus software. To understand security on Ubuntu, you must shift your thinking from this point of view. In the following bullets, we're going to analyze what threats actually effect you as a Ubuntu user.

• Myth: If I install an anti-virus program I'll be fine.

• Reality: At the time of writing, there are no known viruses on the big bad web designed to target Linux. A few targeting Windows can execute in a manner that could allow compromise of a Linux system via an interpreter layer like Wine. Very few people recommend existing anti-virus software for Linux machines, in part because there are few decent free anti-malware solutions available. Enterprise class solutions are good, but the consumer-grade products aren't on par with their Windows counterparts enough to warrant their use. Moreover, if you focus entirely on viruses then you are ignoring the vast majority of real threats to your Ubuntu machine.

• Myth: Security through obscurity keeps me safe.

• Reality: It's a favoured argument from Linux supporters, but Linux/Ubuntu is not that obscure to “crackers”. They may be obscure to you or your friends, however, there are many who know how to exploit Linux vulnerabilities just as easy as Windows, Mac OSX, Solaris, AIX, or any other operating system's vulnerabilities. The best defence is knowledge and preparation. Relying on an “obscure” operating system to hide behind is NOT a good strategy.

• Myth: I can browse however I want to because malware on the web is mostly designed for Windows.

• Reality: While the majority of malware does target Windows, this statement overlooks the fact that an entire spectrum of web based attack vectors exist that work on any operating system. Cross Site Scripting, Cross Site Request Forgery, Click-Jacking, Session Riding, and many other methods can be used to exploit weaknesses in a relationship of trust between you and a website, or a website and you, regardless of your operating system. For things like this we have browser add-ons which will be discussed in the browser security section.

• Myth: I don't need to use fancy browser add-ons when using public access wifi because I use Ubuntu.

• Reality: An absurd statement. Most attacks carried out on public wifi include several varieties of man in the middle attacks. If you want to utilize public wifi, it is highly discouraged to do anything more than trivial in nature with it unless you are an advanced user and you know how to set up a virtual private network (VPN), a VPN via Secure Shell (SSH), or use Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) in conjunction with SSLstrip.

• Myth: I don't need a firewall because Ubuntu has no open ports by default.

• Reality: This is a matter of risk tolerance. Added protection, particularly that which takes only a few minutes to set up, is always worth it. Firewalls are discussed in more depth later in this document.

• Myth: Windows malware can not compromise Ubuntu.

• Reality: Ubuntu CAN be compromised by Windows malware if you're using Wine. This is not to say that Windows malware can infect a Linux system directly, however it CAN, if targeted properly, utilize the Wine interpreter to send system calls to the Linux kernel. This is a very rare case, and it is highly unlikely that it would occur as it would be a very targeted attack. But for completeness sake we should mention that it CAN happen.

• Myth: Ubuntu is harder to exploit than Windows, Mac OSX, whatever else - and it's targeted less than those other operating systems as well.

• Reality: The process of discovering a vulnerability and exploiting it is pretty much the same across the board, regardless of operating system.

These are just some common myths associated with Ubuntu and security. This list is not comprehensive, but it covers the largest misconceptions held by new users. This does not mean that Ubuntu is inherently insecure, or is less secure than previous versions, or is more/less secure than any other operating system. It is just an effort to dispel common myths and get the reader (you) thinking in a positive direction toward improving their system's security posture. If you follow the steps in this Wiki, you will have a decent defense built to protect your machine from viruses as well as the other more pressing threats out there.

And of course, we'd be remiss not to mention social engineering. What information you're putting into public view? Do you know who you're giving valuable information to? Social engineering is important to understand but beyond the scope of this Wiki.

Linux can be easily as hacked as windows if every user on the planet swtiched to linux and made linux as popular linux would be doomed vulnerabilities are the same across the board doesnt matter what operating system (the last line in that myth and reality section).

[Petrovic]

:yes:

[steven36]

Linux can be easily as hacked as windows if every user on the planet swtiched to linux and made linux as popular linux would be doomed vulnerabilities are the same across the board doesnt matter what operating system (the last line in that myth and reality section).

Its most likely a Myth that the majority of the PC industry would use Linux and would ever become as poplar as windows.. because windows is even dyeing out and switching its code over to phones .

Something we don’t have to ever worry about can't hurt us now can it ? Good luck with changing the mindset of inventor of the kernel the security industry has been trying sell him protection for years .

Security of any system can never be perfect. So it always must be weighed against other priorities — such as speed, flexibility and ease of use — in a series of inherently nuanced trade-offs.

“The people who care most about this stuff are completely crazy. They are very black and white,” “Security in itself is useless. . . . The upside is always somewhere else. The security is never the thing that you really care about.”

Linus Torvalds

[Holmes]

Linux can easily be hacked a myth no its not you have been fed false beliefs. Windows is not dying out again your being fed false beliefs. Thats like saying ignorance is bliss if someone has cancer and they dont find out about it the cancer is just going to go away on its own no. Im not trying to change the mindset of linus torvalds Im trying to tell you that anything can be hacked exploited a friend of mind could hack the most secure linux system its security researchers (google's project zero hackers) that see code in there head that are securities worst enemy and linux to. As long as these people are around no one is safe if they end up on these hackers radar.

[vibranium]

If you use windows defender in windows ten it has the security essentials gui now:

http://www.intowindows.com/can-i-install-microsoft-security-essentials-in-windows-10/

They put windows defender and security essentials together doesnt make it good I would only use windows defender in windows ten if you couldnt get access to the web and you had to rely on built-in protection.

Suit yourself. You're missing my point obviously.

[Holmes]

You say Im missing your point obviously and not showing what your point is nice. Your point is windows defender is fine as long as you use common sense and set windows defender correctly its a basic line of defense and fails in all three website independant virus tests microsoft recommends oonly using it if the person doesnt kknoow of a thirty party product to use. Zeroo days can be covered with anti-exploit programs use malwarebytes-anti-exploit premium (or hitman pro alertand there is a different anti-explooit program I am missing) with a antivirus and your set with zero days.

[steven36]

You say Im missing your point obviously and not showing what your point is nice.

You’re point is not nothing most people that use Linux don’t know already know, but anything can be hacked even ant-virus software itself . There many in the Linux community will tell you installing and ant-virus itself in Linux there’s is a risk of being hacked trough it. I know people who been using Linux 20 years and never installed an anti-virus.

[Holmes]

That wasnt aimed at you steven that was for vibranium not everything is about you.

[steven36]

That wasnt aimed at you steven not everything is about you.

Not everything is about you ether and you’re very pro windows point of view . If you’re going use windows use it but stop making up stuff about stuff you don’t even use . I use both windows and Linux . I still need windows for some things every now and then.

[Holmes]

Im not making stuff up dont put words in my mouth like your pro windows pov (that stands for point-of-view)? lawls I know noot everything is about me Im not that one that answered a statement aimed for someone else. As a veteran of this forum you should not be adding fuel to a fire you should be the one to extinguish it and your not nice fail.

[steven36]

Im noot making stuff up dont put words in my mouth like your pro windows pov? lawls I knoow noot everything is about me Im not that one that answered a statement aimed for someone else. As a veteran of this forum you should not be adding fuel to a fire you should be the one to distinguish it and your not nice fail.

You the one started it not me , am I not allowed to have a point of view too? A lot times I start a post or just make a comment and you harass me i fell like you’re trolling me.

[Holmes]

Im not trolling and I shouldnt have said that not everything is aboout you that was me being a a-hole I apologize I am just saying antiviruses exist for a reason and most importantly If you wish to go without a antivirus then you do so at your own risk I dont want new users in this forum to think ooh its ok I dont need a antivirus nice and putting users at risk noot everyone uses common sense and not everyone is computer literate and there is a limited amount of users that use common sense and are computer literate at the same time. Im going to start learning and using linux in two thousand sixteen and I am going to use a antivirus its better to have insurance and not need it then to not have insurance and need it.

[steven36]

Im not trolling and I shouldnt have said that not everything is aboout you that was me being a a-hole I apologize I am just saying antiviruses exist for a reason and most importantly If you wish to go without a antivirus then you do so at your own risk I dont want new users in this forum to think ooh its ok I dont need a antivirus nice and putting users at risk noot everyone uses common sense and not everyone is computer literate and there is a limited amount of people that use common sense and are computer literate at the same time.

I use and anti virus when on windows . I didn’t say not use anti-virus on Windows I been using them since 2001 . But not hardly no one uses and antivirus on Linux the ones that do share windows files . anti-virus are for windows malware not Linux malware . The signatures are wrote for windows because no one uses and anti-virus in Linux much.

[Holmes]

Antiviruses are not just for windows malware:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware

Sophos and eset and symantec have linux versions and the viruses in that link affect linux and thats not a full list of malware:

http://www.symantec.com/connect/articles/do-we-really-need-antivirus-linux

There is a antivirus not on that list the one you told me about clamav which I knew about before you mentioned it I just didnt know it worked for linux (I F*CKING HATE MY KEYBOARD ITS REPEATING CHARACTERS).

[steven36]

Antiviruses are not just for windows malware:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware

Sophos and eset have linux versions and the viruses in that link affect linux and thats not a full list of malware. There is a antivirus not on that list the one you told me about clamav which I knew about before you mentioned it I just didnt know it worked for linux (I F*CKING HATE MY KEYBOARD ITS REPEATING CHARACTERS).

I know they do but if use go ask over on a Linux Forum they will tell you not to install it because it can be dangerous on a Linux system . Just because they make something don’t mean it will help you . Those antiviuis or for people who uses Linux server or uploads and shares files with windows users . uploading them to virus total can tell you about the same thing without putting yourself in danger .

by karlchen on Fri May 08, 2015 8:14 pm

robgoss wrote:I was wondering if anyone here would confirm if Linux users should have some soft of Malware install on their system.

The final answer to this question is and will very likely always be: No, for goodness sake, we strongly discourage people from installing any malware on their systems. Why would you want to do so?

In case the question actually was whether Linux users should have some kind of anti malware product installed on their Linux system, then the answer to this question will be: It all depends. It depends on which kind of anti-malware product you have in mind. And which system do you want to protect from which malware?

Products like Sophos or ClamAV search for Windows malware, not for Linux malware. Running such an anti-malware product on Linux will only make sense in case you download Windows software on your Linux Mint machine and pass this Windows software on to Windows machines and want to make sure you do not pass on infected Windows software.

Such products will not protect your Linux system from being infected by Linux malware.

Now there is the hypothesis there were no Linux malware. If this were true then there would be no product like rkhunter (available from the normal software repositories) It may be true that Linux malware is not as widely spread as Windows malware, but it is a bit naive to assume that Linux machines were no target for malware, though its nature may be different from Windows malware.

The best way of protecting Linux Mint from catching malware is by installing software from the official software repositories only and staying away from software coming from dubious sources. Moreover it is a wise idea to install available software updates, in particular security updates regularly and in a timely fashion.

http://forum.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?t=195750&p=1017777

[Holmes]

It can be dangerous doesnt mean its going to be dangerous there playing what ifs. The antiviruses you speak of are from linux malware link and thats not a complete list. There may not be alot of malware for linux that doesnt mean linux is immune the threat landscape on linux is going to get larger. My point is if you choose to not use a antivirus on linux fine the threat of linux malware is growing and I dont want to be a sitting duck when that happens.

[steven36]

It can be dangerous doesnt mean its going to be dangerous there playing what ifs. The antiviruses you speak of are from linux malware link and thats not a complete list. There may not be alot of malware for linux that doesnt mean linux is immune the threat landscape on linux is going to get larger. My point is if you choose to not use a antivirus on linux fine the threat of linux malware is growing and I dont want to be a sitting duck when that happens.

Installing anti-virus software to protect against malware that targets Linux, is both impossible and pointless. This is because all Linux anti-virus software is designed to detect Windows viruses only.

So how will this help me with Linux Malware ? The biggest threat on Linux is not malware no way . Its you could be hacked so you need to use a Firewall and extra security addons and pick a very strong password . Linux is not like windows to do anything much you mist give a password to be root.

[Holmes]

There is linux versions of antiviruses for a reason so they made a linux version of a antivirus that detects windows malware only that makes no sense why make a linux version then to give users a false sense of security? OK no.

[steven36]

There is linux versions of antiviruses for a reason so they made a linux version of a antivirus that detects windows malware only that makes no sense why make a linux version then to give users a false sense of security? OK no.

It makes a lot of sense alot of websites use Linux server to share files with billions of windows users . They use them to benefit the billions of windows users not to benefit the everyday Linux user .