Definitely a Contender
Bitdefender's antivirus technology routinely earns excellent scores from the independent testing labs, though it didn't do quite as well in my hands-on malware blocking test. It holds the top score in my phishing protection test, and its parental control system works across multiple Windows and Android devices. If its strengths match your needs, it can be a very good choice. However, it's not going to unseat Norton Internet Security (2014) as PCMag's security suite Editors' Choice.
I recommend downloading and running Reimage. It's a computer repair tool that has been proven to identify and fix many Windows problems with a high level of success.
I've used it in the past to identify and fix everything from blue screens (BSOD's), ActiveX errors, corrupt files and processes, dll/exe/sys errors, recover lost memory, Windows update problems, defragging, malware removal etc.
You can download it direct from this link http://downloadreimage.com/download.php. (This link will automatically start a download of Reimage that you can save to your computer.)
Malicious URL Blocking
Thanks to a real-time feed supplied by MRG-Effitas, I have access to a continually updated list of malicious URLs. I use these to check how each antivirus product handles extremely new threats. Does it block access to the URL, wipe out the downloaded malware, or just sit there doing nothing?
Bitdefender completely blocked access to 18 percent of the live malicious URLs I used for testing, but didn't wipe out any of the downloads that got through. It might well have caught those on launch, but that's not what this test measures. I've run two dozen products through this test so far, each with URLs no more than four hours old. The average protection rate is 33 percent, almost twice what Bitdefender managed. I'll be interested to see how Norton AntiVirus (2014) and Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2014) do when it's their turn for this test.
Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart
Good Malware Blocking
I rely more and more on the independent labs for in-depth antivirus testing, but I always need to do my own hands-on testing, to get a feel for the product's protection. To start, I opened a folder containing my just-gathered new set of malware samples. Bitdefender quickly and quietly wiped out 83 percent of those samples.
Next I launched the remaining samples and noted the antivirus's reaction. It completely missed several, ending up with an overall detection rate of 86 percent and an overall score of 8.... Read more
Avast's lab test scores range from best to worst. It received AAA-level certification fromDennis Technology Labs and rated Advanced+ in two tests by AV-Comparatives. However, "crazy many" false positives caused it to fail the file detection test from that same lab. Bitdefender and Kaspersky generally take top scores across the board.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avast earned 9.0 of 10 possible point, better than most products tested using this same malware collection. Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015)earned a perfect 10 in this test.
My malicious URL blocking test uses newly-discovered malware-hosting URLs, typically no more than four hours old. When I challenged Avast with about 100 of these, it blocked all access to 29 percent at the URL level and eliminated another 43 percent during download, for a total block rate of 72 percent. That's quite good, though McAfee Internet Security 2015 managed to block 85 percent.
Good, Not Great
Avast Internet Security 2015 offers almost all of the expected suite components (parental control is the exception), but their effectiveness varies. I like the innovative home router scan; this is an area that most vendors overlook. And Avast offers plenty of other bonus features. The problem is, top suites just do a better job overall.
Parental Control: n/a
This suite builds on the antivirus protection found in the standalone G Data Antivirus 2015. Please read that review for full details regarding the testing that I've summarized below.
West Coast Labs certifies G Data's technology for virus detection, and it received VB100 certification in all of the recent Virus Bulletin tests that included it. In the latest test by AV-Test Institute, G Data received 6 of 6 possible points for protection against malware and totaled 16 of 18 possible points. That's good, but Kaspersky Internet Security (2015) at Amazon and Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 scored a perfect 18. The other labs that I follow don't include G Data.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, G Data earned a respectable 9.3 points, beating almost all programs tested using the same malware collection. F-Secure Internet Security 2015 also managed 9.3 points, while Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) swept the field with a perfect 10 points.
G Data also fared well in my malicious URL blocking test. When exposed to 100 newly discovered malware-hosting URLs, it prevented 51 percent of the downloads, in most cases by blocking the browser from all access to the URL. The current average protection rate for this test is 40 percent.
The product's accuracy at blocking malware-hosting URLs didn't quite carry over into blocking fraudulent (phishing) websites. In this test, G Data's detection rate was 34 perc... Read more
Malicious URL Blocking
The big difference between F-Secure's suite and the standalone antivirus is the addition of browser protection. This component blocks access to malware-hosting URLs, and it did well in testing.
I started with a collection of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas, none of them more than four hours old. Some had already vanished, but I kept launching them one after another until I had results for 100 still-working URLs.
F-Secure blocked an impressive 73 percent of the malicious URLs. Only Trend Micro Internet Security 2015 at Trend Micro and avast! Internet Security 2014 at Avast have done better, with 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively.
F-Secure's standalone antivirus lacks browser protection, but it did manage to wipe out 34 percent of the malicious payloads during or immediately after download. That's just slightly better than the average blocking rate among current programs.
So-So Phishing Detection
The browser protection component also serves to steer users away from visiting phishing sites?fraudulent sites that attempt to steal login credentials. However, it wasn't nearly as effective as it was against malware-hosting URLs.
I started by collecting suspected phishing URLs from various sites. Then I launched each simultaneously on five test systems. Naturally one test system relied on F-Secure's protection. Another used Norton Internet Security (2014) at Amazon. The remaining three relied on the b... Read more
F-Secure is good, but it's quite expensive for an antivirus that offers fewer components, better use Emsisoft, Norton or Kaspersky.
A Sweet Suite
Bitdefender Internet Security 2016 has everything you'd want in a suite, and more. Its antivirus gets stellar scores in our tests and lab tests, and its antispam beat out all competitors for accuracy. The firewall doesn't attempt fancy exploit blocking, but it's tough and hassle-free. Add features like ransomware protection, password management, and secure browsing, and you've got a suite with power to spare.
Along with Kaspersky Internet Security (2016), Bitdefender is a security suite Editors' Choice. Other products have earned the Editors' Choice rating for different variations on the security suite concept. In particular, McAfee LiveSafe 2015 and Symantec Norton Security are our Editors' Choice products for cross-platform multi-device security.
Note: These sub-ratings contribute to a product's overall star rating, as do other factors, including ease of use in real-world testing, bonus features, and overall integration of features.
Few people realize that Bitdefender simply uses Windows Firewall and adds some policies to it. Windows Firewall does work rather well with outbound notifications...
Shared Antivirus Features
The antivirus component in this suite is almost the same as the free Avira Antivirus 2015. The main difference is that the free edition relies on a browser plug-in for detecting malicious and fraudulent websites, whereas the Pro edition filters such sites below the browser level. That's an important distinction, because the free edition doesn't currently offer a plug-in for Internet Explorer.
Avira doesn't participate in testing with all the independent labs I follow, but those that do test it generally give it good ratings. The only significant exception is a poor score in a test by AV-Test Institute that specifically measures the ability of an antivirus product to completely clean up a detected malware infestation.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Avira didn't fare so well. With 76 percent detection and an overall score of 7.4 points (out of a possible 10), it's near the bottom.Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) earned the best score of products tested using my current malware collection; it managed a perfect 10.
As noted, the suite and free antivirus use different components to detect and block malware-hosting URLs, so I expected to see differing result in my malicious URL blocking test. Despite different styles of malicious URL detection and a completely different (but very new) set of test URLs, the two products earned almost identical scores, for a protection rate of 58 percent. That's... Read more
Baloney. I used Avira to clean up an infected computer that was running Webroot. LSS, I don't have faith in this review.
ThreatTrack Vipre Internet Security 2015
Pros - Good score in our malicious URL blocking test. Automatically applies security patches to browsers and important programs. Simple spam filter settings; accurate spam detection.
Cons - Fair to poor ratings from independent labs. Dismal antiphishing. Firewall failed some basic functions. Advanced firewall functions interfere with normal operation. Firewall easily disabled. More performance impact than most suites.
Bottom Line - The best part of ThreatTrack Vipre Internet Security 2015 is its spam filter. The antivirus and firewall components, more important overall, didn't perform as well in our testing.
Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2471672,00.asp
Four months ago we reviewed Bitdefender Internet Security 2014. The developer has just released the 2015 version of the antivirus application, bringing in new features and improvements concerning usability. We had the opportunity to take a look at the new product a bit early and evaluate it for ourselves.
NOTE: Bitdefender Internet Security 2015 was tested on 64-bit Windows 8.1 Pro.
A collection of 8,502 virus samples was submitted to the test, in order to verify Bitdefender's threat detection ratio. The test machine was an Intel Core i5-3470 @CPU 3.20GHz with 12GB RAM and 500GB Seagate Barracuda ST500DM002 7200RPM, running Windows 8.1 Pro. Default settings were applied. The collection did not include zero-day threats.The real-time guard was excellent! As soon as we triggered the extraction procedure of the 8,502 virus samples from the password-protected archive, Bitdefender immediately picked up on it and started eliminating files while remaining completely silent (no kind of notifications were shown). In the end, it left behind only 225 files.
In the next step, we proceeded with a contextual scan to find out whether the tool was capable of detecting and removing more files, and we were right. It detected and eliminated 207 extra files, leaving behind only 30 items. Overall, Bitdefender had a success rate of 99.6%.
In order to evaluate the app's scan speed, we ran a system scan (the primary drive had 156GB occupied space). Default settings ... Read more
I have been using it. My rating too is 5/5
When I challenged Trend Micro to protect a virtual machine test system from my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out 66 percent of them on sight. It whacked quite a few more when I tried to launch them. Its detection rate of 89 percent and overall score of 8.9 put it in between F-Secure Internet Security 2015 and Bitdefender Total Security 2015.
I tested the product's ability to block malicious URLs using newly-discovered URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. When initially tested, Trend Micro's 80 percent blocking rate for malicious URLs was a new high score. However, a few days later it was deposed by McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015, which blocked 85 percent. Both scores are impressive, given that the current average is 32 percent.Symantec Norton Security, tested simultaneously with Trend Micro, managed to block 51 percent.
A full scan of my standard test system took just 20 minutes. Because Trend Micro avoids re-scanning files already found to be safe, a repeat scan finished in less than a minute.
Trend Micro's impressive handling of malicious URLs also carried over to my test of its phishing protection ability. Its detection rate lagged just 4 percentage points behind that of Norton. Very few products come close to Norton's fraud detection rate.
Small Performance Hit
I wondered whether the additional installation of the password manager, safe browser, vault, and especially SafeSync would make this suite more of a resource eater than Trend Micro... Read more
Thanks for the info. How good is PCMag in-terms-of antivirus testing?
Have any one of you used Bitdefender anti-Ransomware with Bitdefender Internet security 2015?? The anti-ransomware function is not include of 2015 products of Bitdefender and I have almost 1 year BIS 15 licence .
Bitdefender 2015 and 2016 licenses are the same
Could Be Good
There's no question that Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus (2015) is the tiniest suite around, with the least impact on system resources. And it offers impressive antivirus protection, demonstrated by top marks in my own tests and independent lab tests.
However, it lacks a number of features found in most of its competition. There's no firewall, just extra support for Windows firewall. If you need spam filtering or parental control, this isn't the suite for you. But if your needs coincide with the features it does have, it can be a great fit.
Note: These sub-ratings contribute to a product's overall star rating, as do other factors, including ease of use in real-world testing, bonus features, and overall integration of features.
Parental Control: n/a
Great antivirus for people who aren't too prone to malware infections.Despite the $39.99 price tag.I'm using it right now & so far, I've got no complaints about it.
-Extremely low memory usage (Cloud AV)
-Minuscule disk usage
-Full scan takes less than 10 minutes
-Cloud AV (Lower detection rates)
-Poor 0-day malware protection
-Requires a constant internet connection to function properly
During a full antivirus scan, G Data reports both time elapsed and time remaining. At one point, the sum of those two times exceeded 80 minutes. However, the scan actually completed in 48 minutes. That's a good bit longer than the current average of 28 minutes to scan a clean system. Some antivirus products speed subsequent scans by skipping known safe files. Comodo Antivirus 8, for example, re-scanned my test system in less than two minutes. Not G Data; a repeat scan took just as long.
Good Malware Blocking
When I exposed G Data to a folder containing my current collection of malware samples, it wiped out most of them right away, and eliminated a few more when I tried to launch them. One way or another, G Data detected 93 percent of the samples and scored 9.3 of 10 possible points. Few products have scored better in this test, though Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did manage a perfect 10.
As always, I also checked the product's reaction to a folder containing modified versions of the same samples. Each of the modified samples has a different filename and file size from the original, and a few non-executable bytes are also different. G Data didn't immediately recognize 22 percent of the samples whose originals were wiped out on sight. Interestingly, it did recognize several modified files whose originals weren't caught until I tried to launch them. Clearly there are multiple levels of protection going on here.
G Data blocked access to 45 percen... Read more
thanks for the share petrovic !!
McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015
Pros - Good scores in independent lab tests and our hands-on tests. New high score in malicious URL blocking. Website rating, with details. Numerous bonus features.
Cons - Phishing detection rate less than Chrome or Firefox alone. Firewall does not stealth ports in all cases. Most of the product's 12 services could be disabled by malware.
Bottom Line - McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 earns a new top score in our malicious URL blocking test, and it gets good ratings from the independent labs. It comes with a raft of useful bonus tools, though the bonus firewall seemed a bit wobbly in our testing.
Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2469309,00.asp
i have red the review a few hours ago and the most disturbing thing for me is that mcafee can't protect it's self from malware.also the firewall isn't good but you can always use windows built in firewall.if they improve those components i believe more people will trust them because some components are very good such as web blocking(site adviser)
In addition to checking scores with the major testing labs, I put each antivirus through hands-on testing. I start by opening a folder containing a collection of malware samples. The simple access that occurs when Windows Explorer gets file information for display was enough to trigger AVG's real-time protection. It detected 72 percent of the samples on sight and offered to remove them.
Next, I launched the samples that weren't wiped out immediately. Overall, AVG detected 79 percent of these samples and earned 7.8 of 10 possible points. That's definitely on the low side, but I give significantly more weight to the independent lab tests. My own malware-blocking test serves mostly to give me hands-on experience with each product's way of handling real-time protection.
One feature of AVG's Web TuneUp browser extension is Site Safety, which promises to warn you before you visit a "risky or dangerous website." Apparently Site Safety doesn't apply to URLs that point directly to malware programs; Site Safety didn't kick in at all during my malicious URL blocking test. However, of the 100-odd newly reported malicious URLs I tried, the real-time protection component wiped out 54 percent. That's better than the current average of 41 percent.
McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 holds the top score in this test, with 85 percent of the URLs blocked. Avast managed a respectable 72 percent.
Unusual Phishing Protection
Phishing we... Read more
Excellent scores from independent labs. Scores from very good to superb in our hands-on tests. Effective ransomware protection. Many bonus features including password manager, secure browser, and file shredder.
Full antivirus scan took longer in testing than most competitors.
Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2017 combines top-scoring antivirus protection with so many bonus features it would almost qualify as a security suite.
...more in the link above
Every years it is the same story "BD is top because blablabla... "
Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) is the tiniest antivirus around, and its installation and scanning are both super-fast. The mega-suite is slightly bigger, but it still takes about one tenth the disk space of the average suite. Read my review of the antivirus for full details. I'll simply summarize here.
None of the six independent labs I follow currently include Webroot in their regular testing, though Dennis Technology Labs will add Webroot in the first quarter of 2015. A private test by Dennis Labs earlier this year revealed that Webroot would have earned top-level AAA certification. Webroot was also one of just three product to pass in a test by MRG-Effitas.
Webroot's malware detection relies on a cloud service that analyzes program behaviors, not on antivirus signatures. On detecting an unknown process, Webroot starts journaling all its actions and watching for signs that it's malicious. If a process steps over the line, Webroot reverses all of its actions. Until a process gets the green light, irreversible actions like transmitting information to the Internet are suppressed.
I observed this feature in action; some of my malware samples initially seemed to get past the antivirus, but after a few minutes it started wiping them out. In the end it earned a perfect 10 points in my hands-on malware blocking test.
The suite also earned a very good score in my malicious URL blocking test. This test challenges each antivirus with 100... Read more
Actually there is no 2015 range of Webroot products, only Neil J. Rubenking seems to think that. I don't think Webroot releases even work that way.
ESET Internet Security 10 Review by PCMAG
Article: ESET Internet Security 10
Home Network Protection
Banking and Payment Protection
Small Hit on Performance
Uneven Component Quality
Very good scores in lab tests and our tests. HIPS blocked many exploits. Speedy malware scan. Useful network map. Secure browser for banking. Simple spam filter handles POP3 and IMAP.
Firewall doesn't pass common tests. Mediocre antiphishing score. Parental control limited to content filtering.
Antivirus is the best part of ESET Internet Security 10, but other components include an old-school firewall that fails some common tests and parental control that's limited to content filtering.
Read more: ESET Internet Security 10
I guess 10 for Smart Security hasn't come out yet?
Source: McAfee Internet Security (2016)
Pros Protects all your Windows, Mac OS, Android, and iOS devices. Antivirus rates high in lab tests and our tests. Accurate antiphishing and antispam. New True Key password manager offers multifactor authentication. Many bonus features.
Cons Firewall not fully protected. Minimal parental control. Mac OS support somewhat limited. iOS support very limited.
Bottom Line McAfee Internet Security (2016) includes the multitude of features found in McAfee's antivirus and adds accurate spam filtering, limited parental control, and an impressive password manager featuring serious multifactor authentication.
The antivirus protection in this suite identical with Comodo Antivirus 8. You can read that review to get full details, but I'll summarize here.
Most of the labs I follow don't include Comodo in their testing. It did manage 16 of 18 possible points in AV-Test Institute's three-part antivirus test, which is good. However, Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 and Kaspersky Internet Security (2015) both managed a perfect 18 points in that same test.
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Comodo detected 83 percent of the samples and scored 8.3 of 10 possible points, putting it a mere fraction behind Bitdefender Internet Security 2015. My Comodo contact pointed out that the software's automatic sandboxing feature doesn't kick in for files already present when the product is installed. I followed his instructions to test in such a way that auto-sandboxing would have a chance, but doing so didn't change the results.
Comodo's performance in my antiphishing test was utterly dismal. It hardly detected any fraudulent websites. In fact, its detection rate came in 94 percentage points below that of Symantec Norton Security, which consistently aces this test. My Comodo contact advised that the suite should do better at antiphishing and malicious URL blocking, so I reran the phishing test. After one new round of testing, I found no appreciable difference, so I didn't continue.
The firewall component resisted all m... Read more
An Excellent Choice
Kaspersky Internet Security (2016) is an all-around great security suite. The independent labs praise its antivirus protection to the skies, its firewall does the job without hassling the user, and its spam filter is more accurate than most. Even the parental control component boasts more features than most suites offer. Powerful remote management is icing on the cake. Kaspersky is a PCMag Editors' Choice security suite, sharing that honor with Bitdefender Internet Security 2015.
Kaspersky already admits its lack of protection currently on Windows 10.
So, if this test is on Windows 10, then it is not reliable.
But if it is not on Windows 10, then KIS rocks definitely!
For some antivirus products, the minimal file access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is sufficient to trigger real-time protection. Avast waits until just before a program executes to run a real-time scan. In testing, it wiped out almost 80 percent of my malware samples immediately on launch.
Avast detected most of the remaining samples at some point as they attempted to install and run. In a couple of cases, it activated a powerful analysis tool called DeepScan. Avast also invoked DeepScan to make sure that a couple of my malware-testing programs weren't themselves malicious.
In one case, fortunately the last sample I tested, Avast requested a boot time scan for complete cleanup. That scan took almost an hour, and required my attention every so often to make decisions about the disposition of particular malware traces. You can launch a boot time scan at will, if you suspect the regular scan has missed something.
One way or another, Avast detected 93 percent of my samples, the same asF-Secure Anti-Virus 2015. However, because Avast allowed installation of some executable malware traces, its final score came out to 9.0 points, while F-Secure managed 9.3. The absolute winner among products tested with this sample set is Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015), which earned 10 of 10 possible points.
Avast's previous edition was among the first products exposed to my malicious URL blocking test. For many, many months, its... Read more
To get a feel for the program's protection, I challenged it with my collection of malware samples. Its real-time protection kicked in the moment I opened the sample folder, quickly eliminating 66 percent of the samples. Note, though, that F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 wiped out 83 percent of those same samples on sight.
Next, I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre. In several cases it reported the sample or one of its components as suspicious, in some cases with the warning "Please do not open this file unless you trust its source." That seems a bit weak to me?a user could accidentally choose to run malware detected in this way. I made sure to avoid that error.
With 89 percent detection and 8.7 points overall, Trend Micro is just behind F-Secure among products tested with this same malware collection. Note, though, that I give greater weight to ratings from the independent labs than to my simple hands-on test.
Trend Micro's Smart Protection Network gathers telemetry from millions of computers. Among other things, it identifies malware-hosting websites, and instructs your local antivirus to prevent access to those sites. Based on my testing, it really works. The test starts with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I simply launch each URL and note whether the product blocks URL access, eliminates the download, or does nothing.
Trend Micro detected 80 percent of the samples, almost all of them at th... Read more
Read other 1 answers
So-so Malware Blocking
Last year Avira earned an impressive score in my hands-on malware blocking test, with 97 percent detection and 9.7 of 10 possible points. Not this year.
When I opened a folder containing my current collection of malware samples, Avira wiped out 72 percent immediately. That's good, but Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 at BitDefender, F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015, and ThreatTrack Vipre Antivirus 2015 all managed 83 percent.
I also tested Avira using hand-modified versions of the same sample set. For each file, I changed the name, appended nulls to change the file size, and tweaked some non-executable characters. Avira missed three of the tweaked files. However, it detected another two tweaked files whose originals it missed. I can't explain that.
After launching all of the remaining samples, I evaluated how well Avira handled them. Overall, it detected 76 percent of the malware samples and scored 7.4 points, quite a drop from last year.
Good Malicious URL Blocking
In the real world, you're more likely to encounter a brand-new malware attack via a malicious or compromised website, so I test for that ability as well. I start with a feed of newly-discovered malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. After filtering out those that don't point directly to malicious executables, I try loading each one in a browser to see what (if anything) the antivirus will do.
Quite a few of the URLs were already defunct, despite being no more than four hours... Read more
Avira need to put some more effort because the competition is pretty high
Very Good Malware Blocking
As with SuperAntiSpyware Professional 6.0, Panda's on-access scanning doesn't spring into action until you attempt to execute a file. Unlike SuperAntiSpyware, Panda did a good job blocking malware at launch. It deleted three quarters of the samples before they could execute.
A few of the samples did manage to launch; Panda caught some of those later in the process. Its detection rate of 86 percent is tied with Bitdefender for the best detection rate among products tested with my current sample set. Panda's overall score of 8.0 can't beat Bitdefender's 8.3 points, but it's better than the rest of the current group, includingKaspersky Anti-Virus (2015)'s 7.9 points.
Panda Free Antivirus 2015 Malware Blocking Chart
You'll note in the chart that AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014 and various others tested with my previous malware collection made a significantly better showing. That was a different set of samples, though, and the independent testing labs give very good scores to Panda, Kaspersky, and Bitdefender.
As part of my testing, I installed about 20 PCMag utilities. Panda's behavior-based malware detection identified a temporary file created by one of them as malicious, though when I looked at the detailed log it merely said "suspicious." I submitted the file to VirusTotal, to be sure it wasn't actually infected. All of the 53 antivirus engines hosted on VirusTotal gave it a clean bill of health... Read more
Does it differ from Panda Cloud Free?( I mean ,Are they two seperate products or this one is the new follower?)
Good Malware Blocking
F-Secure also performed well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my standard collection of malware samples, the software wiped out 83 percent of them right away. By contrast, Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015$39.99 at Trend Micro detected just 66 percent of the same samples on sight.
I keep a second set of samples on hand, tweaked versions of my main collection. For each file, I change the name, append nulls to make the file size different, and modify a few non-executable bytes. Considering just the ones whose originals it did detect, F-Secure's real-time protection failed to recognize over 40 percent of the modified versions.
When I launched the few remaining samples, F-Secure's DeepGuard behavioral detection kicked in and blocked one as harmful. Overall, F-Secure detected 93 percent of the samples and earned 9.3 points, better than almost all products tested with this malware collection.
F-Secure's standalone antivirus doesn't include browser protection?that feature is reserved for the full security suite. In my malicious URL blocking test, which relies on a feed of very new malicious URLs from MRG-Effitas, F-Secure did wipe out 36 percent of the downloaded files. That's a bit better than the current average of 32 percent. Trend Micro has the current high score for this test, with 80 percent blocked, almost all of them at the URL level.
When F-Secure's cloud database can... Read more
Looking good to me! As a second demand scanner one a week.
Online Scanner F-Secure:
Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015)
Extremely small and light on resources. Fast install, super-fast scan. Top marks in two independent lab tests. Perfect score in hands-on malware blocking test. Very good malicious URL blocking. Can control protected computers from Web console. Good phishing protection.
Cons Requires Internet connectivity for full protection.
Two independent testing labs have given Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015) their top ratings, and it earned a perfect score in our hands-on malware blocking test. Add the fact that it's the smallest antivirus around and you've got a definite Editors' Choice.
Read more: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2470312,00.asp
F-Secure Internet Security 2017 Review by PCMag 3,5/5 stars
Excellent scores in our hands-on malware and malicious URL blocking tests. Firewall-assist component blocked many exploits. Banking protection prevents man-in-the-middle attacks.
Core functionality vulnerable to malicious attack. Child with administrator privileges can disable minimal parental control. Mediocre score in our antiphishing test. Good, not great, scores from independent testing labs.
The antivirus components of F-Secure Internet Security scored high in our testing, aided by the suite-specific Browsing Protection features. However, the rest of its components don't make up a top-notch suite.
Full article: F-Secure Internet Security (2017)
F-Secure is definitely not the best Internet Security Suite available for the price. It does ok but not the best in terms of detection rates & has very little extra features. I am not a big fan of the GUI or settings either but that's just me.
Direct Download links for offline installation
Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 ( 32 bit)
Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015 ( 64 bit)
Bitdefender Internet Security 2015 (32 bit)
Bitdefender Internet Security 2015 (64 bit)
Bitdefender Total Security 2015 (32 bit)
Bitdefender Total Security 2015 (64 bit)
BitDefender Antivirus Plus 2015 User Guide
BitDefender Internet Security 2015 User Guide
BitDefender Total Security 2015 User Guide
Bitdefender Internet Security 2015 Screenshots
Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2014 ( 32 bit)
http://download.bitdefender.... Read more
Hello BleepingComputer Forums.
Windows 8.1 (64bit)
Dell Inspiron 15 7537 Ultrabook.
Intel Core I7-4510U CPU 2.00GB - 3.10GB.
1 TB HDD Seagate.
Nvidia GeForce GT 750M 2 GB Dedicated GPU.
Intel 4500 onboard GPU 2.30GB.
Ive decided to give Bitdefender 2015 Interet Securty a try, and give up on McAfee Live Safe 2015, Simly Because there is no option to Aloow and Trust certain Programs Using McAfee Live Safe. I then made sure Windows Defender was working and updated before I did anything else!
I have A 6 Month Trial Licnece for Bitdefender Internet Security, But No Matter what I try, I cannot Install it.
I can run Both the diferent launchers. but both just seem to not do anything at all once I click the Install Button!
The Full Bitdefender 2015 Internet Security Installer Also does very similar once I click the install Button. it shows a screen which says Bitdefender needs to remove any other installled AV Product before it can be Installed. (Im unsure if this is just a generic warning) or I Have multiple security program leftover instalation issues.
I was using Malwarebytes Free.
Super Anti Spyware
I have also tried Spybot S&D in the past on this Laptop.
I thought I had fully removed these Products!! Using Iobit Uninatall Tool.
I Also made a full System Restore to my earliest restore Point, Which was succesfull. But this also did NOT fix the issue i am having. After making A full system... Read more
McAfee removal tool ... http://service.mcafee.com/FAQDocument.aspx?id=TS101331 .Read other 9 answers
I want to buy KIS 16 key but I still have BitDefender. Whats you experience with those two Anitivirus?
1 more question, if someone knows, can I activate KIS 16 with KIS 15 unactivated key?
Thanks everyone, this is very important to me
I'm a KIS 2016 user and I find it much lighter on system resources compared to the 2015 version. Yes, a KIS 15 key can activate up to KIS 18. I've stocked up on KIS 2015 keys. I brought like for 3 for £27.
With regards to how it compares to Bitdefender? Sorry I cannot comment as I've never used Bitdefender.
This is a mini-review of BitDefender Internet Security 2016.
Tested on Intel i7-4720HQ with SSD - so a fast system; not tested on low-end HDD (slow) system.
Top-tier signature-based upon testing against samples from MT Malware Hub.
GUI is straight-forward and organized; minimalistic approach all the way around.
Highly automated requiring very little user interaction; very well suited to "set-it-and-forget-it" novice.
Notifications are clear, concise, unobtrusive but demand attention, and remain open long enough for user to respond if they so choose.
Safe Pay isolated browser that is stable (NOTE: Not the same as Sandboxie).
Only experienced one minor GUI bug and a few service crashes; BD auto-restarted and self-generated a bug report and submitted it.
System optimization tools are completely unnecessary.
Since it is so highly automated, BD actions when protecting/cleaning system are not really all that clear (but maybe that is as it should be considering the intended audience).
Some minor GUI quirks that may confuse inexperienced novice.
Uses file rating/heuristics; lacks true Behavior Blocker.
BD Rescue Disk does not support Secure Boot (BD notifies user).
No firewall prompts from within which rules can be created; generic "Allow" autorules are created and editing is completely a manual affair.
No means for user to manually add object to Quarantine.
Navigation/info access is not always intuitive or convenient.
Web-protection (HT... Read more
Thumbs up Maybe you could make more for other products?
Post the strength and weaknesses of Bitdefender 2015 that you know
Pros : User friendly. Easy to use. very good malware detection rate, Good malicious & phishing website detection rate,Proactive successfully detects new unknown malware and blocks internet access to some of them.
Cons : Bootup gets slowed down. High RAM usage during scan .
If you use old software then there is high chance that you will encounter compatibility issues with bitdefender. So update all the installed software and install only latest softwares
slows down browsing and loaded with tons of bugs ( atleast in the previous versions I have used ) is this still the case?
After some convincing I gave myself I am back with Bitdefender to check/try out the 2015 version. Just a short "checking out" (I do not want to stay using it) based on the previous trial I did with the 2014 version(BD IS 2014 and BD AV Plus 2014). I have prepared two partitions. One with Bitdefender IS 2015 as the only real-time protection (formerly with Avira Free + Comodo Firewall ver8 with HIPS) and one with Bitdefender AV Plus 2015 + Outpost Firewall Pro ver9.1(formerly with Avira Free + Outpost Firewall Pro ver9.1). The second partition was prepared to check or show contrast as to how the second security combination will fair against just BD IS 2015. I will not delve on the AV as I am confident that BD is superb in this category. The BD Wallet and SafePay I do not use either. I have my own app I trust
So these are some of my observations on BD IS 2015.
Seems sluggish (still).
There is still this sluggish delay feeling when opening programs and application. Even when just opening explorer.exe and the contents of that partition or folder is minimal it would go on reading it as if it was full t the brink or like an unrecognized usb stick being read slowly(or a dvd-disc slowly being read). Programs would pause for a moment while fully opening. Opening PDF files with PDF Xchange Viewer is also delayed. The file would open but it would show blank pages at start and after a few moments it will display the contents. Still observing here.
Blank blue screen-delay
I... Read more
Why dont you write av reviews? This is pretty good and educational
i confiused what i should use antivirus bitdefender or eset or panda is??? i using window 7 32 bit ram 2gb..intel pentium
ESS is overall winner imo. why?
* It's CPU usage is 0% in my system most of time. I'm using ESS 9 beta so mine takes 100+ MB ram but it will take less ram then it in stable version. Ram is not the issue here coz AV who use ram r better then who use page file to hide their actual ram. Ram is faster then HD.
*System impact is very less on almost every system i feel like feather in my system but it depends wut system u r using. If u r using dinosaur age system like atom processor with 1 GB ram & slow HD then it ESS will feel u slower. No slow boot time issue not even when doing gaming or multitasking.
*User interface is good & can be understandable but it's ' more ' friendly to whom who knows how to configure it. If u r a newbie with no knowledge how to configure it then u can be in trouble. Check for guru guidance of ESS
[How To Set] ESET Smart Security f
*U maybe know that no security tool gives u 100% protection but ESET always gives u a better protection coz of it's latest 0 day malware threat detection/good web threat protection/smart real time protection/better HIPS & firewall protection then window firewall/ very good at detecting PUP infections. It's BB is not good as EAM but u can be usre it will give u a good level protection.
* IMO overall winner is ESS, i don't know much about panda but it's a cloud AV & if ur net is down or u r cut from internet coz of some issue, u won't feel secure. Though bitdef... Read more
From the firewall to the spam filter, the sandbox to the new network scanner, there's a lot to like about Avast Internet Security 2015. Experts will appreciate its extreme configurability, too. But Avast's distinctly average protection scores from labs including AV-Comparatives and AV-Test are a significant concern, and this core antivirus issue makes the suite hard to recommend.
Smart firewall, accurate spam filter, SafeZone protects your privacy, handy new network scanner, highly configurable, some detailed Help pages
We Don't Like
Unimpressive detection results with independent testing labs, can interfere with some legitimate applications, some tools require extra spending to be useful
Hands On With the Antivirus
The test results from the big independent labs are certainly useful, but I like to run my own tests, to get a hand-on feel for how each product works. The test starts when I open a folder containing my collection of malware samples. It's not uncommon for a security product to immediately wipe out most of the samples. Bitdefender Total Security 2015 and F-Secure Internet Security 2015 both wiped out more than 80 percent of the samples on sight.
Norton's approach is different, with much less reliance on simple signature-based detection. It wiped out 28 percent of the samples on sight, but blocked and quarantined most of the rest when I tried to launch them. With an overall detection rate of 89 percent and an overall score of 8.3, it's just a hair behind Bitdefender.
You'll notice in the chart that many products tested using my previous malware collection scored quite a bit higher. Since it was a different collection, scores aren't directly comparable. And I do give more weight to results from the independent labs.
Good Malicious URL Blocking
My malicious URL blocking test starts with a feed of newly discovered nasty URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I launch those that point directly to malicious executables, noting whether the security product blocked access to the URL, quashed the download, or simply did nothing. Despite being just a few hours old, many of the URLs are already no good. I keep at it until I have data for 100 ... Read more
I do not like the bad detection of norton. Behavioral blocking and sonar is good but I like it when Antivirus detects even before executing.
Antivirus protection in this suite is precisely the same as what you get with ESET NOD32 Antivirus 8, so I'll just summarize here. Read the antivirus review for full details.
ESET's technology gets high marks from almost all of the independent labs. It's one of just a handful that participated in all 12 of the last 12 tests by Virus Bulletin and received VB100 certification every time. It got the top rating in tests by AV-Comparatives and Dennis Technology Labs. Only AV-Test Institute gave it a so-so rating.
ESET didn't fare nearly as well in my own hands-on malware blocking test. I run this test mostly to get real-world experience of how each product handles malware attack, but I still like to see a good score. ESET scored 7.3 of 10 possible points, almost the lowest among products tested with my current sample set.
On the other hand, it did an extremely good job of blocking downloads from newly-discovered malicious URLs. It blocked 81 percent of the downloads, some by blocking all access to the URL and others by halting the download. With 85 percent blocking, McAfee Internet Security 2015 is the only product that's done better.
Other Shared Features
ESET's social media scan will check that you've got your Facebook and Twitter accounts configured for maximum privacy. Of course, if you want the public to see your tweets, maximum Twitter privacy may not be quite what you want. The scanner includes links to each service... Read more
ESET is still the king
Good, Not Great
Qihoo 360 Total Security Essential 8.6 packs in more security-related bonus features than any other free antivirus I can think of. Those features would be a lovely addition to an excellent free antivirus. The problem is that Qihoo's core antivirus protection doesn't quite measure up. There's not much to go on from the independent labs, but its scores in our own malware blocking and malicious URL blocking tests were just average. And somehow going from the previous edition to this one, its antiphishing score went from near the top to near the bottom.
If Qihoo's many extras fill you with delight, you can go ahead and use it. But if your aim is to get the best free antivirus protection you can, there are better choices. All five of the independent testing labs that I follow include both Avast Free Antivirus 2016 and AVG AntiVirus Free (2016) in their testing, giving them good marks overall. Panda Free Antivirus (2016) includes a collection of bonus features that almost rivals Qihoo's. All three are Editors' Choice winners for free antivirus.
"But if your aim is to get the best free antivirus protection you can, there are better choices", I feel like who did this test has an agenda.
Very Good Malware Blocking
In addition to the company's own internal antivirus engine, Qihoo includes licensed engines from Bitdefender and Avira. However, you have to do a little work to make sure you're getting protection from those licensed engines. On the Virus Scan page you'll see icons for a total of five engines: 360 Cloud Scan Engine, System Repair Engine, QVMIII AI Engine, Bitdefender Engine, and Avira Engine. The last two are grayed by default, with an on/off switch that appears when you point to the icon. For testing, I turned both on.
Qihoo 360 Total Security Essential is a distinct improvement over its predecessor, 360 Internet Security. It gets great ratings from the independent testing labs, and it did well in all of our hands-on tests as well. On the flip side, I found that it erroneously marked one of my testing tools as malware. And while the behavior-based malware detection didn't pop up any notifications about actual malware samples, it flagged two PCMag utilities as suspicious.
Panda Free Antivirus 2015 remains our Editors' Choice for free antivirus. I'm particularly impressed with the availability of remote-control expert remediation for any malware that slips past the antivirus. I found Qihoo support to be not nearly as responsive. Even so, with a little tweaking Qihoo might well join Panda at the top. It's certainly worth a look.
Webroot scores top lol. These tests are getting worse and worse.
Bitdefender Total Security (2015) 188.8.131.520 Beta
This summer Bitdefender launched their 2015 version of security products. We were curious to test it and learn what's new, how well it works and, most of all, if Bitdefender remains one of the top security products on the market. We received a license of Bitdefender Total Security 2015 a week ago and since then we have been using it on a regular basis.
Bitdefender Total Security 2015 is a solid security product that delivers effective protection in a friendly package. The user interface has been simplified in this new version, the performance footprint has been optimized, all the available tools and features are more tightly integrated than they used to be and new and interesting features were introduced. All these changes and improvements make for a better user experience and a product that's faster and more effective than it used to be. We highly recommend it to all our readers.
My brother recently bought a Bitdefender Total Security 2015 (up to 3 PCs , 1 year). I'm using a Dell Vostro Laptop running Windows 8.1 64 bit. I tried downloading the offline pack from their site but not able to install it. I ran the program and when I click on continue it crashes without any eroor notification. I uninstalled my old antivirus, though McAffe AntiTheft is not getting uninstalled.
If anyone has faced this before or has any experience please share it here.
Did you follow these instructions: How to install Bitdefender 2015 using the offline installation kit?Another possibility is that the download may have been corrupted...this has happened to me before especially with larger downloads. Try redownloading.Read other 4 answers
Bitdefender Total Security Multi-Device 2015 Released
Security Meets Artificial Intelligence
Security meets artificial intelligence.Bitdefender Total Security Multi-Device 2015 uses self-learning technologies to provide the world's most outstanding detection, ranked #1 worldwide for 3 years straight.
Download Bitdefender Total Security Multi-Device 2015:https://my.bitdefender.com/dashboard?gs=tsmd
One product for all your Windows, Mac & Android devices
Secure transactions, privacy protection, anti-theft
Incredibly easy to use, OneClick security
Best protection guaranteed by BRAIN Technologies
Self learning threat management
More info - here:http://www.bitdefender.com/solutions/total-security-multi-device.html?sm_id=SMGlobal
Will test this out for sure
If im able to download it. Download on myBitdefender is broken.
Cannot test it for now as theyre using download installers, and the web stick doesnt work on my Laptop for now.
which one is better to be use.
I use Avast, it's very good. The downside is that on Windows 10 the NG is not ready. Avira is also good but it lacks 0-day protection, that is a big downside to me.
For paid security Kaspersky, ESET and Avast are in my top 3
When it comes to Memory Usage / CPU depends on what PC do you have. On my PC (Windows 10, 64x) Avast uses between 25-30 Mb.