How Much Does Security Software Slow Down Your PC?

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The sad part is that slowing down your PC isn't even the worst part about some of the security software on this list.

One of the main complaints that people express about security software is that it harms the performance of their PC. But how much of an effect does it really have? Independent testing organization AV-Comparatives has conducted a test of 20 leading security products for Windows to assess their impact. Tests were performed on a 64-bit Intel Core i5 machine with Windows 8.1.
Click to expand...
 
The problem is not that it slows down your system the problem is that trivial things as dns hacks or other mildly modified known virus hardly gets tracked.

That means that there is a false sense of security anyway. If you have a known backdoor on your computer or virus and rename it will sometimes just not register ....
 
I've got encryption on my laptop and it murders boot times and load times.
 
would be great of there was one AV software that used the fewest system resources while having the highest detection rate
 
Remember that Windows ROT where people would blame Windows for perpetual slowdowns over the course of a year? Yeah, all that was mostly BS beginning Windows XP -- it was really your anti-virus software. Uninstall AV, and bam, OS running like day #1 champ.
 
RAF_OldBuzzard said:
Notably absent was MSE.

Wonder why :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Page 3, footnote 1: "We used the latest product versions available at time of testing (May 2015). Additionally, Microsoft Windows Defender integrated in Windows 8.1 has also been evaluated."

Page 9, footnote 7: "The PC Mark score with active Windows Defender would be 96,9."

They even used Windows Defender as the dotted line on the last "System Impact Score" chart.
 
RAF_OldBuzzard said:
Notably absent was MSE.

Wonder why :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
To be fair, even MS downplays MSE and suggests additional protection software. Plus MSE gets murdered on virtually all AV comparison tests due to poor detection of zero day threats.

It's the only software I run and it works fine for my type of usage. For someone who gets infected all the time it's certainly not enough protection.
 
I gotta agree with one of the comments on that "press release" ,because that is what such a short thing was, a press release,

<<sgrandin &#8226; a day ago
Including the scale being used, so that readers can make sense of what you are reporting, is elementary journalism.>>
 
pxc said:
To be fair, even MS downplays MSE and suggests additional protection software. Plus MSE gets murdered on virtually all AV comparison tests due to poor detection of zero day threats.

It's the only software I run and it works fine for my type of usage. For someone who gets infected all the time it's certainly not enough protection.
Click to expand...
Not surprising that MSE gets murdered by 0-day threats it has little to no heuristics it's not actively looking for threats it's using large libraries to find known threats. Which is also why it's low impact low in false flags and why microsoft suggest additional security it's not much in the way of active security.
 
Definitely needs Webroot in that list. It's what I use and it seems to have a lot lower impact than some of the others I've tested over the years for my personal machine.
 
MSE was the baseline. The dashed line going across the graph represents MSE/Windows Defender.
 
ok, even just skimming the report you can see...

"Windows Defender on Microsoft Windows 8.1 scores is 18.1"

I'm surprised with Avast being the best rated. I find it has pretty high CPU usage when downloading.
 
I am wondering where Norton is... its much improved over the years prior to 2011 (Thats when I started using it again) and I notice absolutely no performance loss across all my PC's. Kind of wondered what it would have scored.
 
polonyc2 said:
would be great of there was one AV software that used the fewest system resources while having the highest detection rate
Click to expand...

ESET used to do that. Then it caught feature creep and went to shit.
 
Cerulean said:
Remember that Windows ROT where people would blame Windows for perpetual slowdowns over the course of a year? Yeah, all that was mostly BS beginning Windows XP -- it was really your anti-virus software. Uninstall AV, and bam, OS running like day #1 champ.
Click to expand...

I'd say beginning with Windows 7.

XP still had a good deal of windows rot to deal with, mainly due to leftover malware fragments.
 
TechLarry said:
I'd say beginning with Windows 7.

XP still had a good deal of windows rot to deal with, mainly due to leftover malware fragments.
Click to expand...
Perhaps there is some truth in ROT for XP -- but I don't know. I can't speak much on that to be honest. I only know from my own experience via a few years of experimenting that I discovered in my experimentation and successfully tested that all I had to do was uninstall AV and reinstall it from scratch. It allowed me to keep going with my XP installation for at least a few years. I've got that much personal confirmation.

I don't know how much it holds true still for Windows 7 but with what I have seen it is still true that Windows slows down terribly due to AV. Fortunately, all you have to do is completely uninstall and reinstall it, and should seriously consider getting an SSD (this reduces the negative performance impact of AV significantly).
 
Semantics said:
Not surprising that MSE gets murdered by 0-day threats it has little to no heuristics it's not actively looking for threats it's using large libraries to find known threats. Which is also why it's low impact low in false flags and why microsoft suggest additional security it's not much in the way of active security.
Click to expand...

It also trades detection for low false positives. I don't know if I've ever seen a test where MSE had a false positive... but the other side of that is very low detection rate.

I think in terms of an included solution it isn't a bad way of doing things. You want something people aren't going to get mad about being on there by default and it is better than nothing. However, something better really is a good idea.

Also MS doesn't want to make it too good or they'll risk the AV market getting all whiny and maybe lawsuity over it. IF their free solution is only ok, then the other companies can't really complain. If it was top notch they would probably cry foul.
 
Trusting Trust

Pandora Box

Forsaken Left hand rots while the Right Slashes and burns.

Popcorn time and a copy of Brave new world.

We did it all for the nuggy, wha? the nuggy.

TROLOLOLOLOL.
 
Anti virus software and basically all other security software is the reason why I use Linux. Though admittedly I use Windows for gaming still and have to deal with it. It's not just the slow down but the pestering. I had AVG and it would constantly want me to restart my PC to apply an update. Which takes the time to change my homepage on my browser and install add-ons as well as default search. Uninstalled it.

And yea Linux can get a virus but it's much harder. In Linux the main method of getting software is through repositories, and getting crap through it is hard to do. In fact I never got more than what I wanted in the program I was downloading through Linux. No spyware or viruses. Android and iOS does this fairly well already, and Windows 8 does this but from what I hear it's a huge mess.

We shouldn't need anti virus software on Windows if Microsoft did a better job with cleaning up their store as well as getting more people to adopt Windows 8. More people will switch over to 10 but not everyone. Once the free Windows 10 program is over in a year you'll still have more Windows 7 users over Windows 10. That's going to be a problem.
 
Sycraft said:
Also MS doesn't want to make it too good or they'll risk the AV market getting all whiny and maybe lawsuity over it.
Click to expand...

Lawsuits? Its their own damn product. IMO, its ridiculous that we have all these anti-malware products when Microsoft ought to be securing their products themselves. Money is changing hands somewhere.
 
DeathFromBelow said:
Lawsuits? Its their own damn product. IMO, its ridiculous that we have all these anti-malware products when Microsoft ought to be securing their products themselves. Money is changing hands somewhere.
Click to expand...

AV Vendors purchase access to windows API that is hidden from normal developers, this API allows the AV Vendors to shim into the OS in such a way to allow the AV to function, those function call can be traced with tools like Ida pro, its weak protection, with the plugins Ida has assembler hasent been easer to trace.
 
Ashbringer said:
Anti virus software and basically all other security software is the reason why I use Linux. Though admittedly I use Windows for gaming still and have to deal with it. It's not just the slow down but the pestering. I had AVG and it would constantly want me to restart my PC to apply an update. Which takes the time to change my homepage on my browser and install add-ons as well as default search. Uninstalled it.

And yea Linux can get a virus but it's much harder. In Linux the main method of getting software is through repositories, and getting crap through it is hard to do. In fact I never got more than what I wanted in the program I was downloading through Linux. No spyware or viruses. Android and iOS does this fairly well already, and Windows 8 does this but from what I hear it's a huge mess.

We shouldn't need anti virus software on Windows if Microsoft did a better job with cleaning up their store as well as getting more people to adopt Windows 8. More people will switch over to 10 but not everyone. Once the free Windows 10 program is over in a year you'll still have more Windows 7 users over Windows 10. That's going to be a problem.
Click to expand...
Linux is no more or less susceptible. However, the route you have chosen is really called security through obscurity, which isn't a bad practice either. :)

I'm not sure I agree with "we shouldn't need anti virus software". I would wager that a large part of the existence of anti-virus has also to do with trying to make up for user stupidity -- er, there's $$$ to be made where there is stupidity. :)
 
Semantics said:
Not surprising that MSE gets murdered by 0-day threats it has little to no heuristics it's not actively looking for threats it's using large libraries to find known threats. Which is also why it's low impact low in false flags and why microsoft suggest additional security it's not much in the way of active security.
Click to expand...

pxc said:
To be fair, even MS downplays MSE and suggests additional protection software. Plus MSE gets murdered on virtually all AV comparison tests due to poor detection of zero day threats.

It's the only software I run and it works fine for my type of usage. For someone who gets infected all the time it's certainly not enough protection.
Click to expand...

Which the flip side of the coin is that IE11 is actually the best browser for 0 day threats. If you turn on the smartscreen filter that checks the web links against an online database, they can detect malicious sites within minutes of them going online.

Figure 3 reveals that Internet Explorer requires an average of less than 5 minutes to block new SEM. At over 3 hours and 45 minutes, Chrome has the next best average time to block. Only Firefox and Safari take longer than one day on average to block malware. Opera, which requires less than a day to add SEM protection, outperforms browsers using Google’s Safe Browsing API.
Click to expand...

https://www.nsslabs.com/sites/defau...ve Analysis - Socially Engineered Malware.pdf

If you were using the two in tandem Defender is there for long term threats from downloaded software and IE11 should block you from trying to download it in the first place. Even using Chrome might be quick enough for you to be relatively safe. These days I think the main job of antivirus it just to find stuff that is already on the machine. You need other measures to block it from getting there in the first place. (Which is why a lot of AV solutions offer web browsing components.)
 
Looking at the report there's a distinct lack of absolute data. Each operation is just classed as slow / fast / etc. Give me the raw numbers!
 
Well for what it's worth, as much as MSE is maligned, I've used it exclusively since it was first released, and I have yet to be infected by any 'nansties".

Of course, now that I've said that, the next time I visit my favorite "East Outer Slabovian dwarf transvestite porn site", I 'll get a dozen of them :mad:
 
Ashbringer said:
We shouldn't need anti virus software on Windows if Microsoft did a better job with cleaning up their store as well as getting more people to adopt Windows 8. More people will switch over to 10 but not everyone. Once the free Windows 10 program is over in a year you'll still have more Windows 7 users over Windows 10. That's going to be a problem.
Click to expand...

Don't install Java and you eliminate something like 80% of infections... Seriously Flash and Java are by far the largest entry points followed by drive by/phishing/social eng like attacks (you have a virus click here!).

While yes you are right, software stores do help with security, MS's BIGGEST advantage has been its compatibility and user base. MS now probably wants (or will want) 30% just like everyone else.

So you are selling software.. I can keep selling it like I am now and keep 30% or pay MS... Tough sell, not to mention x86 support in the store is still a bit "iffy", they were pretty dodgy on how it would work at the ignite conf. Otherwise the app will have to be "universal" aka metro which while beneficial has some limitations as well.

It will be years before a MS store on desktop OS will catch on as you would expect.
 
Cerulean said:
Linux is no more or less susceptible. However, the route you have chosen is really called security through obscurity, which isn't a bad practice either. :)
Click to expand...
It's debatable if Linux is less susceptible than Windows, but Linux has a few undeniable advantages over Windows.

#1 Windows update sucks ass. Part of the problem is that nearly every piece of software needs it's own update program to maintain itself, and this is where a lot of spyware and viruses comes from. But in linux you can add a repository to update Flash and Java without having to run into toolbars or default web page changes.

#2 Majority of software comes from repositories. You can compile or download a .deb from another source but for the most part software comes from repositories.

#3 Linux gets patched fast. If there's a security hole in the kernel it's fixed very quickly. In Windows if there's a security hole Microsoft could ignore it for years before an outbreak occurs and everyone is scrambling for a patch. It's one of the benefits of open source in that the devs are listening and responding.
I'm not sure I agree with "we shouldn't need anti virus software". I would wager that a large part of the existence of anti-virus has also to do with trying to make up for user stupidity -- er, there's $$$ to be made where there is stupidity. :)
Click to expand...
In Windows Anti-virus is about legacy. Majority of programs are from websites. The moment you go to a web browser and it becomes the wild west for software. Which Windows does have a Windows app store but only in Windows 8. They didn't even bother to bring it over to Windows 7. Even Android will update your Market icon to the Play Store icon if you have an older device.

dandirk said:
Don't install Java and you eliminate something like 80% of infections... Seriously Flash and Java are by far the largest entry points followed by drive by/phishing/social eng like attacks (you have a virus click here!).
Click to expand...
That has a lot to do with web browsers and their security policy. Java is insecure as hell but web browsers need to give users more control. FireFox just recently got smart about unauthorized add-ons being installed and are automatically blocked unless you enable them. Which is smart. Chrome though doesn't give a shit. But FireFox and Chrome still doesn't prevent unauthorized changes to proxy, or default homepage, or default search provider.

Also wondering why a default adblocker or noscript function isn't installed by default. Not saying it should block all ads or being as extreme as noscript, but block known scripts or ads that are harmful.
While yes you are right, software stores do help with security, MS's BIGGEST advantage has been its compatibility and user base. MS now probably wants (or will want) 30% just like everyone else.

So you are selling software.. I can keep selling it like I am now and keep 30% or pay MS... Tough sell, not to mention x86 support in the store is still a bit "iffy", they were pretty dodgy on how it would work at the ignite conf. Otherwise the app will have to be "universal" aka metro which while beneficial has some limitations as well.
Click to expand...
That's why you have services like Steam and Origin on PC. But Microsoft will have to suck it up and offer something to developers. If developers don't want to give 30% to Microsoft, then MS should offer them a way to host their application on their own server without MS taking a penny, so long as the server is using their software to host it. On the other hand if MS hosts it then 30% is taken but MS is host it forever without you having to worry about it. Unlike right now which you give up the 30% and sit in the corner and shutup lie the good like peon that you are.
 
I use Avast!, Malwarebytes and MSE. The only times I have noticed a slowdown are when malicious websites attempt to invade my computer. The slowdown isn't the computer itself, only internet access.
 
polonyc2 said:
would be great of there was one AV software that used the fewest system resources while having the highest detection rate
Click to expand...

I checked out the performance results and the real-world protection results...Bitdefender was near the top in both. Gave it the 30 day trial, then tossed them a few bucks for the 3 computer/2 year subscription...been very happy with it. Very much set and forget, no annoying popups everytime you do something.
 
dandirk said:
Don't install Java and you eliminate something like 80% of infections... Seriously Flash and Java are by far the largest entry points followed by drive by/phishing/social eng like attacks (you have a virus click here!).
Click to expand...

This. If it wasn't for Java, Flash, and PEBKAC there would be virtually no viruses.

If you absolutely have to use Java/Flash at least keep them up to date, and block them with a browser add-on/plug-in by default. Flash/Java/script blockers should really be standard in all web browsers IMO. Maybe they'd get complaints about "this sketchy porn site isn't working" though.

Flash is such a performance hog too, in addition to the security problems. It's also a battery killer for laptops because it often doesn't allow Intel Speedstep to underclock/undervolt. There are sites where if I leave the tab with flash open it will make the PC in my sig feel slow...just browsing the web.

This is what a SINGLE flash ad can do:
Flash Enabled CPU
Flash Disabled CPU
Flash Enabled RAM
Flash Disabled RAM
 
Oh and the link takes you to a site that talks about the report which some other site MAKES YOU DOWNLOAD.

Screw you guys, I'm going home.
 
dandirk said:
Don't install Java and you eliminate something like 80% of infections... Seriously Flash and Java are by far the largest entry points followed by drive by/phishing/social eng like attacks (you have a virus click here!)
Click to expand...

I agree. Now if we could just get companies to STOP USING JAVA for products I need to use every day, that would be great. I'm looking at YOU, Cisco, VMware, etc etc
 
Sadly java is needed in many programs so they function plus streaming video, news stories, etc in browsers.

Been using Avast for over a decade and don't notice any slowdown even on my old core2duo computer.

It runs silently in the background just as a good AV should.
 
travbrad said:
This. If it wasn't for Java, Flash, and PEBKAC there would be virtually no viruses.

If you absolutely have to use Java/Flash at least keep them up to date, and block them with a browser add-on/plug-in by default. Flash/Java/script blockers should really be standard in all web browsers IMO. Maybe they'd get complaints about "this sketchy porn site isn't working" though.

Flash is such a performance hog too, in addition to the security problems. It's also a battery killer for laptops because it often doesn't allow Intel Speedstep to underclock/undervolt. There are sites where if I leave the tab with flash open it will make the PC in my sig feel slow...just browsing the web.

This is what a SINGLE flash ad can do:
Flash Enabled CPU
Flash Disabled CPU
Flash Enabled RAM
Flash Disabled RAM
Click to expand...

latest version of firefox disables flash by default and prompts, and recent versions of java generally ask to run the first time for any webapps..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top