[POLL] What is the best PAID antivirus software for 2024?

[goretsky Supervisor]

Hello, 
  
This is the 2024 poll for best paid anti-virus (aka anti-malware aka internet security aka endpoint protection and so forth) security software.

The poll for free products is located here.  The poll for last year's best paid antivirus is located here.

If your choice is not listed, please choose "other" and reply below with its name.

This poll is multiple choice, so you can select two (or more) choices.  Feel free to leave a comment sharing what you chose and why.  
  
Regards, 
  
Aryeh Goretsky 

Edited January 1 by goretsky
fixed line spacing issue

[Peter Alexander London]

Can you make a poll  for adblockers

My favorite: Adguard

Best wishes for 2024

[Good Bot, Bad Bot]

There is no reason to pay for a 3rd-party anti-virus program IMO and I haven't in many years since before Windows 10. They are a rather invasive piece of software that tend to cause more problems than solve even being known to often be incompatible with new versions of Windows or features. The paid versions have a lot of unneeded bloat while free scanners are usually the same as the one in the paid version anyway.

Windows Defender is just fine (along with prompt security updates and an ad-blocker) so not sure why one would add the complexly to their system with a 3rd-party AV.

Edited January 1 by Good Bot, Bad Bot

[SnoopZ]

On 01/01/2024 at 16:32, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

There is no reason to pay for a 3rd-party anti-virus program IMO and I haven't in many years since before Windows 10. They are a rather invasive piece of software that tend to cause more problems than solve even being known to often be incompatible with new versions of Windows or features. The paid versions have a lot of unneeded bloat while free scanners are usually the same as the one in the paid version anyway.

Windows Defender is just fine (along with prompt security updates and an ad-blocker) so not sure why one would add the complexly to their system with a 3rd-party AV.

Very true, I've been using the Bitdefender Total Security free trials for donkeys years as there is no limit how often you can use them.

[Good Bot, Bad Bot]

On 01/01/2024 at 12:05, SnoopZ said:

Very true, I've been using the Bitdefender Total Security free trials for donkeys years as there is no limit how often you can use them.

I am confused... My argument was a full 3rd-party anti-virus solution wasn't really needed and you replied with "very true" and went on to say how you are using a full 3rd-party AV suite. LOL None of my criticism was about paying for said product.

[SnoopZ]

On 01/01/2024 at 17:30, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

I am confused... My argument was a full 3rd-party anti-virus solution wasn't really needed and you replied with "very true" and went on to say how you are using a full 3rd-party AV suite. LOL None of my criticism was about paying for said product.

Yer my mistake I just skimmed your post and only read the first 14 words. 

[goretsky Supervisor]

On 01/01/2024 at 09:16, Peter Alexander London said:

Can you make a poll  for adblockers

My favorite: Adguard

Best wishes for 2024

Hello,

Per Neowin's Community Rules, discussions of advertisement blocking is not allowed.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
 

[goretsky Supervisor]

On 01/01/2024 at 09:32, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

There is no reason to pay for a 3rd-party anti-virus program IMO and I haven't in many years since before Windows 10. They are a rather invasive piece of software that tend to cause more problems than solve even being known to often be incompatible with new versions of Windows or features. The paid versions have a lot of unneeded bloat while free scanners are usually the same as the one in the paid version anyway.

Windows Defender is just fine (along with prompt security updates and an ad-blocker) so not sure why one would add the complexly to their system with a 3rd-party AV.

Hello,

Windows Defender, Microsoft's free security offering, is listed in the poll for free antivirus solutions here.  There are numerous reasons individuals and businesses use third-party security software, including higher detection rates, better system performance, integration with other security tools (SIEM, SOAR) and services (MDR) and so forth.  If you look at some of Neowin's previous coverage of independent third-party tests, you will see that Windows Defender has repeatedly shown less-than-stellar performance.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
 

[Peter Alexander London]

On 01/01/2024 at 17:32, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

There is no reason to pay for a 3rd-party anti-virus program IMO and I haven't in many years since before Windows 10. They are a rather invasive piece of software that tend to cause more problems than solve even being known to often be incompatible with new versions of Windows or features. The paid versions have a lot of unneeded bloat while free scanners are usually the same as the one in the paid version anyway.

Windows Defender is just fine (along with prompt security updates and an ad-blocker) so not sure why one would add the complexly to their system with a 3rd-party AV.

Without 3rd party software windows would not be thist great

Yeah there was a lot of rubbish the first years but the system evolved

look at the trash playstore Apple store and Microsoft store 99 % rubish

[Good Bot, Bad Bot]

On 02/01/2024 at 09:36, Peter Alexander London said:

Without 3rd party software windows would not be thist great

Yeah there was a lot of rubbish the first years but the system evolved

look at the trash playstore Apple store and Microsoft store 99 % rubish

My comments were very specifically about 3rd-party anti-virus software which runs at the freaking kernel level and is very invasive crap. I didn't say anything about 3rd-party software in general.  No idea why you are taking about app stores.

[jamietn]

ESET is working great here on Windows, Android & Amazon Cubes (when you sideload com.google.android.gms & com.google.android.gsf.login)

 

Edited January 2 by jamietn

[DramaInc]

Tests - AMTSO

Check out tests that are performed by various sources.  Defender is mediocre (and as someone who does Cyber sec for a living, the easiest to bypass and pentesters often dont notice it, it's no security person's first choice but its bundled with E5 so we often get stuck with it).  I've also stopped using it personally because those tests did show a larger performance hit than the others so I dabbled with the "free" solutions that had better detection and performance.  Because it's there by default, finding ways to bypass it is a higher priority. 

AVG and Avast (basically the same) win on both.  Free is fine imo.  I noticed a little performance boost on IO and load screens in games from switching as well.  Should be fine for personal use.   Paid features don't seem useful to me with free/better alternatives out there in their product categories.

Should be noticed that ALL of these tools will fall over against a targeted attacker and there are bypass tools and techniques for all of them (even enterprise). 

Edited January 4 by DramaInc

[goretsky Supervisor]

On 02/01/2024 at 07:46, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

My comments were very specifically about 3rd-party anti-virus software which runs at the freaking kernel level and is very invasive crap. I didn't say anything about 3rd-party software in general.  No idea why you are taking about app stores.

Hello,

Windows Defender has kernel level components, it is no different than third-party security solutions in that regard.  There is a good write-up on them at https://n4r1b.com/posts/2020/01/dissecting-the-windows-defender-driver-wdfilter-part-1/.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
 

[xrobwx71]

I used to be in the "Defender is the best" camp because it's integrated blah blah blah. this has not been so for the past year or more.

 

My own personal experience with Defender has been chocked full of false positive and performance hits. I went searching for the various AV testing sites and sure enough, Defenders status has changed for them also.

As far as the poll, I am using ESET having switched a month ago and have yet to see a false positive, performance is much better.

[Good Bot, Bad Bot]

On 05/01/2024 at 03:49, goretsky said:

Hello,

Windows Defender has kernel level components, it is no different than third-party security solutions in that regard.  There is a good write-up on them at https://n4r1b.com/posts/2020/01/dissecting-the-windows-defender-driver-wdfilter-part-1/.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
 

Of course it does but it's from the maker of the OS (zero risk). My point is why would one want a 3rd-party to have that level of access to your system?

[goretsky Supervisor]

On 05/01/2024 at 06:14, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

Of course it does but it's from the maker of the OS (zero risk). My point is why would one want a 3rd-party to have that level of access to your system?

Hello,

A kernel component can be exploited for malign activity regardless of whether it is from the OS manufacturer or a third party.  Just because code is written by Microsoft does not make it less vulnerable to exploitation.

A quick check of processes on my system reveals code running in kernel space from multiple third parties, including a biometric security device manufacturer, CPU manufacturer, GPU manufacturer, RAID software manufacturer, sound card manufacturer, scanner manufacturer (for document scanning, not antivirus), SSD manufacturer, and virtualization software manufacturer, to name a few.  All sorts of non-Microsoft code runs in kernel space--and that's not crufty little hacks, either; it is how Windows was designed. 

If you want to take the approach that everything non-Microsoft in kernel space is bad, you can go ahead and remove everything that isn't from Microsoft, but at the end of the day, you're probably not going to be overly happy with the performance of the Microsoft Basic Display Adapter, the performance of your SATA or NVMe drives (assuming they are still even accessible), not being able to scan or print documents, etc.

To take an analogy from the automobile industry, safety technologies like antilock breaking systems, crumple zones and seatbelts all add risks… in certain circumstances.  But they also add benefits as well, and those benefits typically outweigh the risks involved, often by a large factor.  If you were to completely strip out and remove Microsoft's security software from your Windows installation and use the operating system with no security software installed--from Microsoft or anyone else--you would be invulnerable from any attacks on the security software.  But you would also be vulnerable to all of the attacks that the security software protects against, which is likely a far greater risk.  Computer security is, in a sense, all about managing risk, and accepting the tradeoffs that ensue with those decisions.  If there's one thing that's been demonstrated time and time over again in the past few decades, it is that Microsoft alone cannot secure things; that's why there is a whole security ecosystem around their products with trusted third-parties.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

[adrynalyne]

On 05/01/2024 at 06:14, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

Of course it does but it's from the maker of the OS (zero risk). My point is why would one want a 3rd-party to have that level of access to your system?

Keep in mind, MS purchased what became Defender. They didn’t write it all themselves. 
 

https://news.microsoft.com/2004/12/16/microsoft-acquires-anti-spyware-leader-giant-company/
 

It evolved from here. Knowing how keen MS is on keeping old code, who knows what’s lurking in it. 

Edited January 6 by adrynalyne

[Good Bot, Bad Bot]

On 05/01/2024 at 07:51, xrobwx71 said:

I used to be in the "Defender is the best" camp because it's integrated blah blah blah. this has not been so for the past year or more.

 

My own personal experience with Defender has been chocked full of false positive and performance hits. I went searching for the various AV testing sites and sure enough, Defenders status has changed for them also.

As far as the poll, I am using ESET having switched a month ago and have yet to see a false positive, performance is much better.

Weird, my personal experience has been the opposite. In some 30 years I have had only had a dozen or so virus warnings at home or work which were all false positives and all with 3rd-party products. I don't think know what the Windows Defender warning message even looks like.

 

On 05/01/2024 at 18:27, goretsky said:

Hello,

A kernel component can be exploited for malign activity regardless of whether it is from the OS manufacturer or a third party.  Just because code is written by Microsoft does not make it less vulnerable to exploitation.

A quick check of processes on my system reveals code running in kernel space from multiple third parties, including a biometric security device manufacturer, CPU manufacturer, GPU manufacturer, RAID software manufacturer, sound card manufacturer, scanner manufacturer (for document scanning, not antivirus), SSD manufacturer, and virtualization software manufacturer, to name a few.  All sorts of non-Microsoft code runs in kernel space--and that's not crufty little hacks, either; it is how Windows was designed. 

If you want to take the approach that everything non-Microsoft in kernel space is bad, you can go ahead and remove everything that isn't from Microsoft, but at the end of the day, you're probably not going to be overly happy with the performance of the Microsoft Basic Display Adapter, the performance of your SATA or NVMe drives (assuming they are still even accessible), not being able to scan or print documents, etc.

To take an analogy from the automobile industry, safety technologies like antilock breaking systems, crumple zones and seatbelts all add risks… in certain circumstances.  But they also add benefits as well, and those benefits typically outweigh the risks involved, often by a large factor.  If you were to completely strip out and remove Microsoft's security software from your Windows installation and use the operating system with no security software installed--from Microsoft or anyone else--you would be invulnerable from any attacks on the security software.  But you would also be vulnerable to all of the attacks that the security software protects against, which is likely a far greater risk.  Computer security is, in a sense, all about managing risk, and accepting the tradeoffs that ensue with those decisions.  If there's one thing that's been demonstrated time and time over again in the past few decades, it is that Microsoft alone cannot secure things; that's why there is a whole security ecosystem around their products with trusted third-parties.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

>A kernel component can be exploited for malign activity regardless of whether it is from the OS manufacturer or a third party

I didn't mention anything about 3rd-party software being more exploitable than Microsoft code.

> If you want to take the approach that everything non-Microsoft in kernel space is bad, you can go ahead and remove everything that isn't from Microsoft...

That was not an argument of mine at all. LOL

Aryeh, my point was very simple. Windows ALREADY has built-in anti-virus so IMO adding a 3rd-party product is simply not necessary. One is just adding complexity to their system and worse the software in question that in the kernel space and is a product that is known to be really buggy, unreliable, and the companies that sell them often employ very questionable business practices.

Your analogy is cool and all that but I never said anything about only trusting Microsoft for one's system security. I just don't want to replace a part on my car for a non-OEM part that may be inferior.  I do use an 3rd-party anti-virus scanner (portable version) as a STANDALONE product for double checking when necessary.  I of course also implement other security measures outside of my OS.

I have no analogy but a story of experience... I have worked in IT for a "large" library system for almost 20 years now. We have always used a 3rd-party anti-virus solutions (a couple different ones over the years) of course as that is what professional organizations to do. Over the years we have had so many issues that turned out to be caused by the anti-virus. My favorite was when after an update the AV was disabling keyboards on some machines. When a new issue pops-up someone always says "it's probably the anti-virus*. LOL It became enough of problem we decided  to remove our anti-virus product from the public machines a couple of years ago. We were able to convince management we could do that because they were less a risk (user has no admin access and the user profile is deleted at the end of a session). Guess what? I don't recall any issues on the public PCs due to Windows Defender.

Do you work for an anti-virus vendor or something? You seem to be pushing them rather hard.

 

On 05/01/2024 at 21:30, adrynalyne said:

Keep in mind, MS purchased what became Defender. They didn’t write it all themselves. 
 

https://news.microsoft.com/2004/12/16/microsoft-acquires-anti-spyware-leader-giant-company/
 

It evolved from here. Knowing how keen MS is on keeping old code, who knows what’s lurking in it. 

OK? LOL Yes, all operating systems and any software that has been around for a while often have old code in them (OS wise usually for compatibility reasons). I am not sure how that is argument to use a different anti-virus product.

[adrynalyne]

On 06/01/2024 at 22:23, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

 

OK? LOL Yes, all operating systems and any software that has been around for a while often have old code in them (OS wise usually for compatibility reasons). I am not sure how that is argument to use a different anti-virus product.

If you don’t see or understand Microsoft’s issues with code rot and stability, then we should conclude this conversation right here. Have a good evening. 

[Good Bot, Bad Bot]

On 07/01/2024 at 00:31, adrynalyne said:

If you don’t see or understand Microsoft’s issues with code rot and stability, then we should conclude this conversation right here. Have a good evening. 

There is nothing I don't understand here but I am good with the conversation being over. LOL I like you but you really need cut out it out with the unnecessary and random rudeness (I can be rude but to people that deserve it that are being a$$hats) and the injecting of irrelevant ###### to discussions.

[adrynalyne]

On 06/01/2024 at 23:07, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

There is nothing I don't understand here but I am good with the conversation being over. LOL I like you but you really need cut out it out with the unnecessary and random rudeness (I can be rude but to people that deserve it that are being a$$hats) and the injecting of irrelevant ###### to discussions.

Replying LOL to everything is rude as hell and is taken as passive aggressiveness. That’s why I answered the way I did. Before that I was interesting engaging in conversation.
 

Consider your own advice on that matter.

[Good Bot, Bad Bot]

On 07/01/2024 at 01:44, adrynalyne said:

Replying LOL to everything is rude as hell and is taken as passive aggressiveness. That’s why I answered the way I did. Before that I was interesting engaging in conversation.
 

Consider your own advice on that matter.

Oh no! The Internet is a rough place you know. LOL If you are so concerned about "code rot and stability" I wouldn't use Windows itself. Again! How does that lead me use a 3rd-party anti-virus? Are you saying the code in AV products is all clean, modern, and bug free? You are not because you have no idea.

BTW I thought you said goodbye?

[adrynalyne]

On 07/01/2024 at 00:21, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

Oh no! The Internet is a rough place you know. LOL If you are so concerned about "code rot and stability" I wouldn't use Windows itself. Again! How does that lead me use a 3rd-party anti-virus? Are you saying the code in AV products is all clean, modern, and bug free? You are not because you have no idea.

BTW I thought you said goodbye?

I said I wasn’t discussing the antivirus further and I haven’t. It’s cute that you talk about me being rude and continue being rude yourself. Hypocrisy at its finest. 

[goretsky Supervisor]

On 06/01/2024 at 22:23, Good Bot, Bad Bot said:

Weird, my personal experience has been the opposite. In some 30 years I have had only had a dozen or so virus warnings at home or work which were all false positives and all with 3rd-party products. I don't think know what the Windows Defender warning message even looks like.

 

>A kernel component can be exploited for malign activity regardless of whether it is from the OS manufacturer or a third party

I didn't mention anything about 3rd-party software being more exploitable than Microsoft code.

> If you want to take the approach that everything non-Microsoft in kernel space is bad, you can go ahead and remove everything that isn't from Microsoft...

That was not an argument of mine at all. LOL

Aryeh, my point was very simple. Windows ALREADY has built-in anti-virus so IMO adding a 3rd-party product is simply not necessary. One is just adding complexity to their system and worse the software in question that in the kernel space and is a product that is known to be really buggy, unreliable, and the companies that sell them often employ very questionable business practices.

Your analogy is cool and all that but I never said anything about only trusting Microsoft for one's system security. I just don't want to replace a part on my car for a non-OEM part that may be inferior.  I do use an 3rd-party anti-virus scanner (portable version) as a STANDALONE product for double checking when necessary.  I of course also implement other security measures outside of my OS.

I have no analogy but a story of experience... I have worked in IT for a "large" library system for almost 20 years now. We have always used a 3rd-party anti-virus solutions (a couple different ones over the years) of course as that is what professional organizations to do. Over the years we have had so many issues that turned out to be caused by the anti-virus. My favorite was when after an update the AV was disabling keyboards on some machines. When a new issue pops-up someone always says "it's probably the anti-virus*. LOL It became enough of problem we decided  to remove our anti-virus product from the public machines a couple of years ago. We were able to convince management we could do that because they were less a risk (user has no admin access and the user profile is deleted at the end of a session). Guess what? I don't recall any issues on the public PCs due to Windows Defender.

Do you work for an anti-virus vendor or something? You seem to be pushing them rather hard.

 

OK? LOL Yes, all operating systems and any software that has been around for a while often have old code in them (OS wise usually for compatibility reasons). I am not sure how that is argument to use a different anti-virus product.

Hello,

I think you may have a little bit of a misunderstanding about Microsoft Defender Antivirus [formerly known as Windows Defender, and developed from Windows Live OneCare, Microsoft Security Essentials, and Microsoft Windows AntiSpyware, derived from their acquisitions of GIANT Company (2004) and GeCAD Software (2003)] due to some of the changes made by Microsoft over the years, which may have not been communicated very clearly by the company.  Microsoft Defender Antivirus is Microsoft's anti-virus (technically, anti-malware, since like every other program these days, it protects against more than computer viruses) program that is bundled for free with Microsoft Windows.  The key phrase here being "bundled;" it has been included with consumer versions of Windows since Windows 8, and is not meant to be removed by the end user (although there are various workarounds for this).  Server versions of Windows can have the bundled components completely stripped away, though.

In 2017-2018, Microsoft went through a little bit of a reorganization in terms of how they brand security, and "Windows Defender" became an overarching brand name to encompass security features within Windows, including those built into the operating system and separate applications and services available under Microsoft 365 Business Premium, Microsoft 365 E3, Microsoft 365 E5, Microsoft 365 F3, Microsoft 365 Government G3, Microsoft 365 Government F5, Office 365 E3, Office 365 E5, and Office 365 Government G5, all of which have various additional security tools available as part of their licensing.  So, you have multiple operating system security features, bundled security software, and value-add security software all grouped under the Windows Defender umbrella. 

This all leads to a lot of confusion about what is and what is not Windows Defender.  Point is (which I'm finally getting back to), is that Microsoft's antivirus software isn't built in to the operating system:  It's a separate part, but one that Microsoft makes mandatory to have in consumer versions of Windows.  That said, it is first-party software, but so is, say Microsoft Office.  And while you can get that pre-loaded with the operating system, it is not considered part of the operating system (for now, at least). 

Any computer program that is sufficiently complex is going to have bugs in it, whether that be an operating system, an application, a *nix daemon, Windows device driver or macOS kext, and it does not matter if the program is developed by the operating system vendor, a second party (systems integrator), or a third party.  To their credit, Microsoft has orchestrated patching processes to deliver software fixes through services like Intune, SCCM, Windows Update, WSUS, and WUfB, and there are all sorts of third-party management solutions out there as well.

To continue the car analogy (which I will be the first to admit is stretching very thin), there are are also aftermarket parts which work better than the OEM ones, providing things like better economy, higher performance, fixes for design or manufacturing flaws, and so forth.  One case in point: Aftermarket Ford Pinto fuel tanks.  The same applies to computer software as well; there are lots of security software developers out there, all of whom develop as well as market their software in different fashions.  In my second post in this thread, I linked to some of Neowin's tagged coverage of tests of security software by independent third-party testers.  In those tests, I think you will find there are programs both less buggy and more reliable than Microsoft's, as well as ones that are worse.  There are definitely companies with very questionable marketing practices in the security software space, but there are also well-behaved ones.  That is not unique to the security space, though, and Microsoft has certainly had its share of controversy, too.

The experience you shared is interesting, and certainly not unique.  However, Microsoft's security software is not always problem-free.  Case in point, this Neowin article from last month:  Following Microsoft Defender, Avira now freezing Windows at boot with 100% CPU / RAM usage.

I started working in the information security space in 1989, and have been with my current employer for just over eighteen years.  During that time, I've worked in support, quality assurance/test, documentation, integration, and R&D positions.  No sales or marketing roles, though, and the last time I wrote code commercially was in the 1990s.  I also received Microsoft's MVP Award annually from 2004-2018, which allowed me access to internal contacts activities beyond what most partners have access to.  So, I got to see things from both sides.  While I worked hard to keep the NDA content from both sides separate from each other, I also engaged on both sides multiple times to de-escalate situations and smooth things out that would otherwise have lead to outcomes that benefited no one.  Well, except maybe cybercriminals.

To address a point in your discussion with @adrynalyne, I would like to point out that some security software companies may have mandatory code review and refactoring policies that might require code to be rewritten, and that reusing older code might only be allowed through a formal exception program where justification has to be given (and accepted) for it to remain.

I hope I have addressed all of your points, but if not, I'm happy to answer any follow-up questions that you might have.

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
 

 

[Good Bot, Bad Bot]

On 07/01/2024 at 03:02, adrynalyne said:

I said I wasn’t discussing the antivirus further and I haven’t. It’s cute that you talk about me being rude and continue being rude yourself. Hypocrisy at its finest. 

LOL

 

On 07/01/2024 at 06:00, goretsky said:

Hello,

I think you may have a little bit of a misunderstanding about Microsoft Defender Antivirus...

TBH I didn't read your whole comment past the first couple of sentences and beyond doing a little skimming.  Why are you giving me a history of Windows Defender? The main problem is you keep feeling the need to "explain" things to me instead of actually addressing the points I am making. Are your really arguing whether Windows Defender is built-in or separate? Come on... It is totally integrated into Windows and not easily removed especially in Windows 11 which has no official uninstall. Regardless, that is just semantics and doesn't answer why one needs to install a different anti-virus form a 3rd-party when one ALREADY exists. Sure Windows and Windows Defender are hardly perfect nor bug free but how is installing software that is known to be crappy any improvement? It's fine if you think it's worth it for some reason but my advise is don't bother with a 3rd-party AV Suite and concrete on installing a GOOD browser or system-wide ad-blocker, promptly installing OS and app security updates, and being more knowledge about what are actual risks and use safe Internet/computer practices.

No, I have no questions and never did to begin with but thanks.

[goretsky Supervisor]

Hello,

I wrote detailed answers to your questions because I thought that they were important questions and that you deserved complete, thoughtful answers that not just answered them, but explained the reasoning behind the answer.  I am sorry that you did not find them helpful or educational in any way.

Let me try and write a short reply and see if I can address your preceding comments.

1. Microsoft forces installation of its antivirus software on consumer versions of Windows, but not on server versions.
2. There are programs which perform better, detect more and have less problems than Microsoft's, and they are from companies that behave ethically.
3. Using a good web browser with good plugins, and keeping all your software updated, including the operating system, is a good plan.  It is not a replacement for security software, though, but something that complements it.

Is that easier to read?

Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky
 

Edited January 9 by goretsky
Fixed line spacing issue + Edited for clarity