What is best/light Internet Security software?

I've been using Kaspersky Internet Security since version 7.0 and now using 2010.. and I noticed it is the reason for lag/boot time on Windows 7.

I ran Soluto and it says Kaspersky takes up 30 sec of boot time.. so I went to Service to set it to Automatic(Set Delay) but it won't let me do that - saying some kind of error (does anyone know)? It won't let me disable them on msconfig/ccleaner too.

One thing I noticed in next few hours is the time it takes to search.. such as pressing Windows logo button on the bottom left and searching for a software.. It took quite awhile (perhaps as long as 5 seconds) with Kaspersky enabled... once disabled, search result appears right away.

I think it might be time to move to different software.

I haven't been looking up much into internet security ever since Kaspersky 7.0 days so I'm not too sure what's good and not..

Is Microsoft one any good? Only other software I can remember is Panda (not sure if it still exist) and Avira.

 

Panda still exists indeed, but it's based on cloud type of service.

Out of the 3 top free antivirus solutions, I would recommend the following:
Microsoft Security Essentials,
Avast 5,
Avira.

As of latest, MSE seems to have the highest detection rate, but truth be told either one of those will be just fine.

All 3 are light, and highly effective (on par with all paid solutions if you ask me - however, having NOT experienced problems with viruses and the programs catching various nasties speaks for itself).

I would have to say though that Avira has annoying pop-ups and ads (which can be disabled if I'm not mistaken).

MSE doesn't do anything of the sort on the other hand (you just install and forget about it) and Avast only notifies you it updated itself, although you can disable that notification.

Neither will slow your computer down.

I'm personally using MSE (Microsoft Security Essentialls) on all computers in the household, and I've introduced it to various other people who have since had 0 issues (with either viruses, speed and whatnot).

In short, paid solutions are not really needed.

Kapersky is indeed notorious for it's resource hogging and bogging down the system.
On the other hand, I think it's the best in terms of detection rates and protection on the market (as far as paid solutions go).

If you want a paid solution (although I seriously recommend against it because it's not necessary), then you might as well go with the latest Norton Internet Security suite (they cleaned up their act with the past 2 versions and is not bogging down the system like it used to).

 

I noticed Kaspersky released 2011 version so I'll try that first and see how much it has changed since I still have more than 150 days of license left.

 

Kaspersky is quite heavy on system resources (running it on one of my desktops, since I got it for free) - I would recommend looking at either Norton Antivirus 2010 (very lightweight, and nearly unbeatable performance/detection rates) or Microsoft Security Essentials.

 

I use moved from Avira, tested Avast! and now have moved to MSE. MSE is light, unobtrusive and, well, seems to do its job well. Also, as Deks (in his post above) mentioned, currently MSE seems to have the highest detection rates. That plus the Windows Firewall and safe surfing would appear to be a good combination.

 

Respectfully, I wouldn't.
Even their 2011 version is a resource hog.
If you want a paid solution that doesn't hog your system resources, then get Norton antivirus 2010.

If on the other hand you don't want to pay for anything and retain a fast system while having an equal level of protection with a paid solution (such as Norton), use MSE or Avast5 (Avira I'd rather avoid actually for now due to it's annoying popup ads and high false positive rates).

As I said earlier, paid antivirus solutions are not needed next to a variety of open source ones that are just as effective and do not slow the system down.

 

Comodo +Avast, then Avast alone, currently exclusive MSE and default Windows Firewall. It simply works.

cheers ...

 

According to the last AV-Comparatives false positives test, MSE had 3 and Avast and Avira both had 11. I can understand recommending MSE if having an extremely low number of false positives is important to you, but you criticize Avira for "high false positive rates" and then recommend Avast which had the exact same number of false positives. How can one FP score be acceptable (Avast), but the same exact FP score be unacceptable (Avira)?

 

I got to give a nod to the Norton 2010 version. I get it for free from Comcast and I'm quite impressed by it. Very low on system resources and good protection. Was worried at first before installing it because of my previous experiences with Norton. But they have really made their product much much better then previous versions.

 

Comodo AV on its own is weak, but Comodo Defense+ (HIPS) takes care of any problems that pop up, if you're willing to configure it properly. Bit of a pain, but it was absolutely solid when I was running the full suite (AV, FW, Defense+)

I'm presently using MSE and Win7 FW just to test out the load, seems to have no real background impact so far. When it's running scheduled scans, things bog down slightly, but what AV doesn't slow things down?

 

Statistically, perhaps ... but, it has been my personal experience that Avast was not the same in terms of fp's like Avira ... plus the primary reason why I recommended Avast instead was because it's much less annoying right after install.
Granted, Avira can be modified to be less annoying, but most users don't want to mess around with that.

Finally, I've been using MSE from when it was first released for public use, and I haven't had a problem with viruses or infections ... so I can only speak from personal experience (while taking into account official records).

At least the 'bogging down aspect' happens only during active scanning (but this is classical for most AV's).
To tell you the truth I haven't really noticed the slowdown too much (probably because MSE does it at times when I'm not doing anything intensive), but also, the most important thing is that MSE is among the lowest resource consumption programs as far as active background protection goes and doesn't slow the system down (while getting the job done).

I think people need to take into account the fact that any quality type of software will be written in such a capacity where it's effective and has lowest requirements for active protection.

I doubt you will actively run an antivirus scan of your entire HDD while for example rendering a highly complex scene in a 3d program (maybe during Internet surfing and youtube watching ... but those would hardly be affected).

 

MSE uses 50-90% CPU when updating its malware definitions. This can have a significant slowdown in any system. For example, Firefox shows signs of lagging during the update. Also MSE is not the least resource using among the free AV software. I think you are not taking into account the "MSMpEng.exe" process which uses the most resource.

But I am still using MSE because of its good detection rates, and also it is not as intrusive as Avast or Avira.

 

MSE might eat more CPU time when it's updating, but I've yet to see the update fail. I've had updates fail within the first month on just about every major free AV provider. I only get updates before scans, and those only happen on Sundays in the middle of the night, so I never notice.

Worth noting - MSE can update definitions through Windows Update, so it's hard to miss a cycle.

 

I'm actually taking into account MSMpEng.exe process.
Fact remains is that more system RAM you have available, the local A/V will use as much as it can (whereas, if you have lower amount of RAM, it will use less ... pretty consistent when I tested it on various systems - but it still didn't slow things down during general use)
I noticed that MSE tops out at about 60MB in x64 OS while active in the background, jumping to roughly twice as much (I think) when updating or if you are conducting an active scan.
True ... your video playback might become sluggish or stop responding for a bit (but that's the HDD fault for the most part because it's thrashing a lot ... and while video playback requires CPU power, the leftover if MSE is updating itself should be enough for most videos - which is probably why I haven't experienced issues).

 

I am not worried about the MSE's RAM usage. None of the free AV's use as much high CPU as MSE when updating their malware definitions. Also when MSE is updating its definitions, it minimizes the full screen video playing in WMP, which is annoying. But still, MSE is true 64-bit and has a clean (minimal) interface, unlike Avast and Avira.

 

Indeed.
Besides, you will have Avast hogging your cpu as well during Internet browsing (as much, if not a bit higher than MSE while it's updating itself).
It's a bit of a tradeoff between the programs to be honest.
If it's not one thing, it's something else.

Besides, daily quick scans/updates don't seem to affect my laptops performance (but it's also likely that MSE keeps updating itself when I'm not doing anything critical).

Bottom line is, it works, it's unobtrusive, light and effective at what it does.
I agree that perhaps MS should look into the cpu hogging aspect though in order to optimize it further.

 

For a free solution, I recommend MSE (which is what I use now).

But if you want a paid solution, I'm a strong advocat for Norton Internet Security 2010.

 

No love for ESET NOD32 Antivirus or Smart Security?

They are great and not resource hogs.

 

2nd that on MSE..that is what I am using now!! : )


Cin...

 

I used Nod32 Smart Security for a while.
It's a great program, but truth be told, I switched to MSE because it's just as light, slightly more effective, and most of all, FREE.

 

I've been running Avira Free for the last two years, but I've also tried many other AV's in this time: NIS 2010, Panda , Kaspersky, NOD32, MSE.

Being MSE and Avira the only free choices I've tried I have to say that the only three things that bugged me about MSE were the exaggerated CPU loads, the exaggerated HDD activity and the 5 seconds that added to the start up time of my system. The rest was perfectly fine.

We are facing good days in security software, there are a lot of good & free AV's out there.

 

free - MSE (super light)
paid - KIS (slightly resource intensive, but feature rich)

 

Avast, MSE, and Private Firewall is what I use. No slowdown.

 

Don't recommend using more than one security software simultaneously, to anyone.

 

http://forum.notebookreview.com/security-anti-virus-software/190538-best-free-security-software.html

 

Prevx is by far the lightest antivirus I've used, completely cloud based. its my favorite at the moment. second would be avira. I always find MSE to make my system sluggish.

 

i am using using Avira as my anti virus software, it does not consume many system resoures when running.