Mediaboss Marketing

PCWorld Rating

4.0 / 5 - PCWorld, Jan 30, 2012

Pros

Low impact on PC performance Strong protection against malicious software

Cons

Bottom Line

The Kaspersky security suite's on-access scans could be faster, but it’s very good at detection and blocking.

Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 ($80 for one year and three PCs as of January 25, 2012) ranked fourth in our 2012 roundup of security suites. Although it finished outside the top three, it's a solid all-around suite that will do an effective job at keeping you safe.

In our real-world malware blocking tests, Kaspersky's suite fully blocked all samples that it encountered. This result means that it should do very well in protecting you from brand-new, as-yet unknown malware. In addition, it detected 99.34 percent of known malware samples in more-traditional signature-based detection tests. On its own, that's a great showing--but believe it or not, that's merely an average result this year due to the overall strength of 2012's suites.

False positives are largely a nonissue: Kaspersky’s product misidentified only one safe file out of a pool of 250,000 files as dangerous. And the suite was effective at disinfection, detecting and disabling all sample infections on our test PC. It removed all traces of malware 60 percent of the time, performing slightly above average in that regard.

In general the Kaspersky suite has a low impact on PC performance, though it did slow our test machine a fair amount when we copied files over a network: It took 3 minutes, 34 seconds to complete this test, landing well behind the average of 3 minutes, 2 seconds.

It was faster than average, however, at scanning. It completed an on-demand scan (which runs when you manually click the 'Scan Now' button) of 4.5GB of data in 1 minute, 11 seconds--the third-best showing, and a considerably better result than the average of 1 minute, 59 seconds for the suites we looked at. It wrapped up on-access scanning (which kicks off when you open or save a file) of 4.5GB of data in 4 minutes, 40 seconds, about 8 seconds faster than average.

On the rest of our speed tests, Kaspersky finished either around average or above average as compared with its competition.

Kaspersky gave its software a face-lift in 2012, abandoning the curiously divided interface in last year's suite. While the new interface is fine, it isn't outstanding. Kaspersky uses a fairly standard multistep wizard installer that's fairly painless, but some of the other suites we looked at this year have one-click installation processes. Once the package was installed, we navigated its screens fairly easily. The main screen gives a clear indicator of your protection status, with buttons along the bottom to adjust settings for the suite's major components. Some parts still could use a redesign, though. For example, a few panels open in the main window, while others spawn new windows, which can be a little disorienting. And from a purely aesthetic perspective, I wasn't a huge fan of the teal-and-white theme--but that's picking nits.

Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 falls a little short of the absolute top competitors, mainly because of the all-around strength of this year's suites. Nevertheless, Kaspersky’s latest offering is worth a look.

Read the original:
Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 Review: Effective Antimalware Performance

PCWorld Rating

4.0 / 5 - PCWorld, Jan 30, 2012

Pros

Good malware detection and blocking Friendly interface

Cons

Lacks some common features

Bottom Line

Avast's latest security suite is effective in defending against malware, but it could stand to improve in cleanup.

Images (click to enlarge)

A solid choice for keeping you safe, Avast Internet Security 6 ($50 for one year and one PC as of January 25, 2012) finished sixth in our 2012 roundup of security suites. Although it ranked in the bottom half of our Top 10, the Avast package is easy to use, and in general it will protect your PC quite capably.

Avast's suite blocked 96.2 percent of malware in our real-world tests, which help determine how well security products can stop brand-new malware. With that result, it placed near the top of the pack; even so, the very best performers in our test group were able to stop all attacks. The Avast suite also managed to stop 99.75 percent of known malware samples, which is an excellent showing, but again, not the absolute best we've seen (our top performer detected over 99.99 percent of samples in this test). It achieved a perfect score in our false-positives test, flagging not a single safe file as being potentially malicious.

Regrettably, although the Avast software proved adept at identifying and neutralizing all infections on our test PC, it left more malware remnants behind than many of its competitors did.

System slowdowns shouldn’t be a serious issue with the Avast suite, though overall it wound up near the middle of the pack in that respect. It added barely any time to file downloads as compared to our test system without antivirus software installed. Its scan speeds were faster than the average of the products we tested: It completed our on-demand scan test (in which we scan 4.5GB of data using the manual scanner) in 1 minute, 21 seconds--one of the fastest performances we saw this year--and its on-access scanner (which runs when the user opens or saves a file) completed its check of 4.5GB in 4 minutes, 1 second, a slightly better time than average.

In my hands-on testing of Avast Internet Security, I found it generally easy to use and navigate. Its installation process was fairly straightforward, asking me to click though only three screens before it was complete, though it did require me to restart my PC. Once installed, the Avast software does an initial scan of your system. The main interface is little changed from last year's suite, which isn't necessarily a bad thing--it's clean, attractive, and easy to navigate. Along the left side are tabs that let you access settings for the suite's main features. The settings are fractured to some extent, since the software doesn't have a unified 'Settings' panel; instead, it breaks up settings by function. If you want to change the firewall settings, for instance, you have to look under the Firewall tab. Admittedly, this arrangement does make settings less intimidating to beginners.

The interface is visually appealing, with lots of graphs and charts. The look makes the suite friendlier for less advanced users, but it might be a little distracting for some people. I also found that the Avast software popped up notifications in the lower-right corner a little more often than I would have liked.

Avast Internet Security 6 isn’t the most feature-rich suite we tested this year--it lacks some common functions found elsewhere, such as parental controls--but what it does provide, along with its strong protection against malware, should suffice for most users.

More here:
Avast Internet Security 6 Review: Good, Basic Malware Detection

PCWorld Rating

3.5 / 5 - PCWorld, Jan 30, 2012

Pros

Well-designed interface Effective at keeping malware off your PC

Cons

Can bog down PC performance Subpar malware cleanup

Bottom Line

McAfee's 2012 security suite posts mixed performance results, failing to keep up with top contenders.

McAfee Internet Security 2012 ($80 for one year, three PCs as of January 29, 2012) finished 14th in our 2012 roundup of Internet security suites. Despite its low ranking, it performed well in some areas; its overall uneven showing, however, proved to be its undoing in this year's extremely competitive batch of suites.

First, the good news: McAfee's suite does very well at detecting malware before the attacker infects your PC. It fully blocked 96.2 percent of brand-new malware in our real-world malware-blocking tests--a slightly above-average score compared with the other suites we looked at this year. Meanwhile, its 99.99 percent detection rate for known malware samples was the second-best result we saw this year--and ever, for that matter. Its three false positives (out of a pool of 250,000 files) wasn't the absolute lowest we saw, but it was still very good.

But although McAfee's suite put up a good showing in those tests, it was another story once malware got onto our test computer. The McAfee package detected 80 percent of active infections on our test system, a below-average result--only one other 2012 suite we evaluated was unable to detect all infections in this test.

In addition, the McAfee product rendered malware infections inert just 70 percent of the time--the second-lowest showing in this test. By comparison, 9 of the 14 suites we looked at successfully disabled all infections on our test PC. That said, McAfee's suite was able to eradicate all traces of infections 60 percent of the time--a slightly above-average result among this batch of suites.

McAfee's suite struggled in some of our system-speed tests, producing a greater-than-average impact on overall system performance. It especially struggled in our application-installation test, and when we copied files over a network. It added over 1.5 minutes to our app-installation test (as compared with our test PC with no antivirus installed), which was the second-worst showing in this test. As for network file copying, it tacked on nearly 2 minutes to the test, a result good enough for only eighth place.

Scan speeds weren't great, either. McAfee's on-demand scanner (which runs when you manually start a scan) took 1 minute, 51 seconds to check 4.5GB of files, placing tenth overall for this subcategory. Its on-access scanner--which runs whenever you open or save a file--disappointed as well: Its time of 7 minutes, 4 seconds was the second-worst outcome we saw in that test.

All that said, we like McAfee's interface. The suite's installer takes a few steps to complete, but it has a couple nice touches: It will check your PC for malware before you install, and it will download the newest version of the software before it begins installation. The update check will take a while over slower connections, but it's a welcome addition nonetheless. For the most part, McAfee's main control panel is easy to use--clean, uncluttered, and friendly.

On the other hand, the fact that the firewall asks you to decide which apps to allow or deny Internet access is not very user-friendly, and strikes me as a holdover from the days when it was okay for a security suite to be difficult and annoying to use.

Should you buy McAfee Internet Security 2012? Although it didn't do terribly overall, and although it offers some things to like, we find it difficult to give this package a recommendation considering its low ranking. But if McAfee can smooth out some of the rough spots, the suite may be worth watching.

View original post here:
McAfee Internet Security 2012 Review: Uneven Protection, Sluggish Speeds

The folks at Comodo clearly enjoy assembling different applications out of the same building blocks. Their Comodo Internet Security Pro 2012 ($4.99/year direct) security suite is a construct containing the firewall component from Comodo Firewall 5, the antivirus component from Comodo Antivirus 2012, and the Defense+ behavior-based malware detector shared by both.

The one big bonus in the inexpensive suite is support from Comodo's GeekBuddy service. In testing the other products, I repeatedly encountered screens offering cleanup by a GeekBuddy expert, but at an extra cost. GeekBuddy support is included with the suite. Note that this is not the same as the $49.95/year full GeekBuddy service, which promises live remote-control help with every kind of PC Problem. With the suite you specifically get help for malware removal.

Low Scores from the Labs
The independent labs don't give Comodo's basic antivirus technology high marks. ICSA Labs and Virus Bulletin certify it for virus detection, but not virus removal. Virus Bulletin has tested it five times, and all five times it fell short of VB100 certification. It also failed to achieve certification in a whole-product test by AV-Test.org last year, scoring especially poorly in the malware repair test. The chart below summarizes Comodo's lab test results along with those of other current products. For details on how I interpret the various tests, see How We Interpret Antivirus Lab Tests.

Firewall and Defense+
My review of Comodo Antivirus 2012 (free, 3 stars) covered the company's Defense+ technology, and my review of Comodo Firewall 5 (free, 3.5 stars) offers details on the firewall component. Please refer to these articles for full details; I'll summarize here.

Defense+ aims to keep your system safe from malware by blocking access to sensitive system areas. When it detects an access attempt it pops up a yellow, orange, or red alert and asks you what to do. Some alerts specifically identify the program in question as malicious; others specifically state that you must make the decision yourself.

I don't approve of security software that pushes important decisions off on the user, since most users aren't trained in security. For testing, I blocked all activity reported as a red alert and allowed yellow and orange alerts. If the alert recommended running the program in Comodo's sandbox, meaning limiting its access to sensitive areas, I always chose the recommended option.

I found that Defense+ detected suspicious activity by every single one of my malware samples. However, it also popped up red alerts for every single PCMag utility I tested. I specifically used old utilities that aren't digitally signed. The majority either wouldn't install or wouldn't run when I followed my block-on-red rule.

The firewall itself properly stealthed all ports and resisted Web-based attacks, though it did nothing to block attacks attempting to exploit system vulnerabilities. In its default program control setting it blocks outbound connections and allows inbound connections. However, also by default it automatically allows any questionable connection, so in effect its program control isn't active.

Antivirus Alone
In testing the standalone antivirus, I found that it did a mediocre job of malware cleanup, especially against rootkits. Even when I turned on the hidden option to scan for rootkits, it left some rootkits running.

Blocking malware from attacking a clean system was a team effort by Defense+ and the antivirus. Defense+ was always first to the crime scene, but in quite a few cases the antivirus jumped in to quarantine known malware. Comodo's malware blocking score was excellent, though tarnished by its high incidence of false positives in my testing with PCMag utilities.

I didn't invoke GeekBuddy help for each individual malware sample. Doing so would have taken an impossibly long time, and in any case Comodo scored quite well without GeekBuddy. For an explanation of how I test and score malware blocking, see How We Test Malware Blocking.

See original here:
Comodo Internet Security Pro 2012

30-01-2012 00:28 Ahnaris: http://www.youtube.com FOLLOW ME ON FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com FOLLOW ME ON TWITTER: http://www.twitter.com

See more here:
HUSKY VS INTERNET - Dual Cast - Monobattles - Part 1 - Video