Is free anti-virus software good enough?

@Zbob750 - it appears we have a disagreement care to explain why?

No, not particularly. I think that for the average user it works fine, the best protection is a well educated user, I ran XP for years without an AV and didn't have a problem.

That and Norton isn't my first choice, though there's really no one perfect answer.

Wait what? Windows Defender is like MSSE for Windows 8. I completely trust it. Windows Firewall is pretty good I haven't had any trouble with it.

Essentially, it has a worse detection rate then other AVs. It is lighter than a lot of them though.

Granted the best AV is and will always be a well informed and well educated user.

We can cite things like this all day, none of them really mean all that much to the end user.

http://www.informationweek.com/security/antivirus/microsoft-security-essentials-loses-av-c/240142986

Microsoft Security Essentials have lost thew AV-Test certificate after only catching 69% of zero day threats. (http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-security-essentials-loses-av-test-certificate)

He was also talking about Windows Defender, not MSE

http://anti-virus-software-review.toptenreviews.com/ ranks Norton antivirus (same system that is in 360) 3rd followed by bitdefender and kaspersky. of which it was tied in protection, repair and usability scores and had all the same features.

Last: Windows firewall is only half a firewall, it will block applications from accessing the web, and block ports from the outside.

All GOOD firewalls will use intelligence and look at the traffic and what it is doing to look for anything that looks like an attack and block it.

I agree McAfee is crap, we wont get into that

I have never known 360 to be a resource hog, it has always ran smoothly in the background with little intervention on my part. I acknowledged that you may not always be able to say the same about previous packages from Symantec.

it is important to note that a GOOD firewall and antivirus will be intrusive, that is what makes them good. If you find an antivirus that uses little to no resources, then you do not have a good antivirus.

We will have to agree to disagree...

Its far from the best AV, I know that, you know that, however its still perfectly adequate for people that know how to use the internet sensibly!

None of my clients experience any trouble with this solution, and I still find it perfectly adequate for most users. And often its older people learning to use a computer that contact my small business, and my experience of Norton and Mcafee, is that they are far too intrusive, especially for people that do not know so much about computers! Instead I make sure that I teach them sensible surfing, how to make sure Windows is updating, using Chrome instead of IE...

All have systems that are clean, lean and most of all usable...

"Microsoft's Security Essentials and the built in Windows Firewall is PLENTY for 90% of users!" and "...its still perfectly adequate for people that know how to use the internet sensibly!"

In my experience 90% of uses don't know how to use the internet sensibly. They do not apply updates, and thus they are susceptible to zero days, the exact thing MSE got lost the certification for.

An antivirus is not just there to protect you from the internet. Back in the day the only way to get a virus was via floppy disks. Today it would be flash drives.

How do you determine if a system is clean? Do you use MSE, if so you are creating a circular argument. Do you say well the machine is not acting strange, so it must be clean? In fact, even a fresh install of windows from a genuine CD direct from Microsoft with no internet access can not claim the machine is 100% virus free, because there has been many times viruses where passed from CDs from genuine dealers.

to claim that a machine is clean is an invalid argument, no one, not even Norton, kasparsky, can claim that a machine is clean. to do so means you (they) have all knowledge of ALL viruses ever made (not just ones discovered) and that you have the ability to search though all aspects of a system (files, memory, bios, etc) to which, no one cannot.

Another thing I don't like the idea of MSE is you are relying on Microsoft, to protect Microsoft (once again circular argument). If they are capable of doing that in the first place, they would not need to release MSE.

One can only conclude that they are NOT clean. If you do not understand that then you should not be teaching others how to be secure.

You are as bad as the mac fan boys, even most of them are realizing you still need virus protection... Linux (or mac) is not immune to viruses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_malware#Threats

Infact, if you got a virus on linux, it could be even worst because of how much damage Linux will allow you to do to your system.

but as far as free antiviruses avast is pretty good...

I never said you couldn't get a virus. Never once. What I did say is you have better odds than using Windows to avoid them. Yes, viruses for Linux exist, most of them however just as proof of concept. Now, allow me to explain how difficult it would be to get a virus in Linux. First off, if you only install software from the package maintainers repository, you will never get one, never once. The only way to get a virus in Linux is to compile from outside sources, which means downloading it, running ./configure, make, checkinstall. And then, the only way it would be able to affect the entire system is if you entered your password for it to access the entire system, otherwise it is only going to affect your profile, which is as simple as creating another one to avoid it. Now, allow me to inform you as to how to get rid of it. apt-get remove <package>. Now, your telling me that Windows is better protection of viruses than Linux? That is simply a crazy statement.

"What I did say is you have better odds than using Windows to avoid them." See actually you didn't.

The issue that I'm assuming @trueb has with it is that it really isn't relevant. The question asked for antivirus software that works with windows. The average user isn't going to be installing linux in a dual-boot or a VM just to stay safe.

As far as virus protection Windows vs Linux, that question isn't specific enough. As you're more than aware, Linux is not a singular OS. Which Distro? Are we just comparing the NT Kernel to the Linux Kernel? etc etc.

You are assuming the user has to install it like a normal program:

ok lets go down this line for a second. I install something from a repository right? What if that repository has been compromised? so that argument is out the window right there, sorry.

next, have you heard of zero day browser exploits? getting attacked though a web browser is very common, most of them are platform independent why? because the browser acts as an abstraction layer.

Java is cross platform, that is another way to get infected by just running a java exe or going to a website that has a java object

How about flash? yep you can get infected though that.

I have seldom had to install something though the make command. yes you do need to use a password to install something, but what if nothing is being installed? What if it is able to bypass that?

Yes you are required to enter in a password, where are the passwords stored? on the computer in the form of hashes, which can be reversed via brute force... so you loose that security aspect.

I'm sorry that you feel my statement is "crazy" but I feel your statement is ignorant, but don't worry, many people are in the same camp as you.

as i stated in a comment, you can never claim that you have a 0% infection rate, you can only claim that you have been infected...

it is also not valid to say "MSE is good because MSE never told me i had a virus." so unless you went in on a regular basis with a known good antivirus your argument is poor.