Over 1 million tech questions and answers.

Comodo Firewall 10 PCMag Review

Q: Comodo Firewall 10 PCMag Review

PROS
Stealths ports to protect against outside attack. Controls which programs can access network. Host Intrusion Prevention System (HIPS) flags suspicious program behaviors. Virtual desktop and secure browser. Free.

CONS
HIPS flags both good and bad programs. In testing, Website Filter didn't block any malware-hosting URLs. Automatic sandboxing disabled by default. No protection against exploit attacks.

BOTTOM LINE
Comodo Firewall 10 has a bold new look, but it's not just a pretty face. Under the hood, it includes full firewall protection along with a variety of related security features

more in the link above

RELEVANCY SCORE 200
Preferred Solution: Comodo Firewall 10 PCMag Review

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.)

A: Comodo Firewall 10 PCMag Review

Gotta stealth those ports or else you gonna get owned

Read other 1 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 119.6

You get a boatload of features with Comodo Firewall 8, and they don't cost you a thing. It does the job of a personal firewall, and its Viruscope malware detection system has evolved impressively. And there's the hardened browser, virtual desktop, and program sandboxing, the feature list goes on and on. My one concern is the popup-happy behavior-blocking system, which really needs to evolve into something that doesn't rely on user interaction. When it does so, we'll raise the rating back up to 4.5 stars.

Even with this one worry, Comodo hangs on to our Editors' Choice badge for personal firewalls. It shares that honor with ZoneAlarm Free Firewall 2015.

Full Article
 

A:Comodo Firewall 8 PCmag review

Got to love the reviewer comment on the HIPS:




The HIPS system wreaked havoc on my attempt to install 20 PCMag utilities. These utilities necessarily hook into various Windows processes, and Comodo suspected some type of malfeasance for most of them. Only seven installed and ran without incident. All the rest triggered anywhere from one to dozens of popups. I always chose to allow the reported action and remember my answer. Even so, in a couple of cases the popups just never stopped coming. Well, I gave up at two dozen; I figure the average user would get frustrated even sooner.Click to expand...

However in my opinion, the reviewer nails one thing right:




My one concern is the popup-happy behavior-blocking system, which really needs to evolve into something that doesn't rely on user interaction.Click to expand...


 

Read other 10 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 97.6

Decent Malware Blocking
In my own hands-on malware blocking test, Comodo scored 8.3 points out of a possible 10. That puts it on par with McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 and just a hair behind Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2015. Panda Free Antivirus 2015 earned 8.0 points in this test. However, Panda received excellent ratings from many of the labs, and I weight those scores higher than my own simple hands-on testing. Quite a few products, Avast Free Antivirus 2015among them, have detected all the tweaked samples.

Interestingly, all of Comodo's malware detection occurred the instant I opened my folder of samples. It quickly and silently wiped out 83 percent of the samples, without bothering to announce what it had done. When I launched the samples that survived the initial massacre, it didn't actively block any of them.

I also exposed Comodo to a folder containing hand-modified versions of the same malware samples. I tweaked some non-executable bytes in each sample, and also changed each file's name and size. I was quite surprised to find that my simple tweaking prevented Comodo's signature-based detection system from recognizing more than half of the samples. This might suggest that its signatures need to be more open-ended and less restrictive.

Poor Blocking of Malicious URLs
Of course, in the real world you're very unlikely to simply open a folder containing malicious programs. If you encounter a malware attack, it will most likely come through a malic... Read more

A:Comodo Antivirus 8 PCmag review

thx
 

Read other 2 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 95.2

Shared Antivirus
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.

Tough Firewall
The firewall component resisted all m... Read more

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 68.4

AVG Protection PRO


Pros
Installs AVG's security suite on unlimited PCs, antivirus on unlimited Android and Mac devices. AVG Zen tool monitors security of all your devices and allows remote fixing of problems. Less expensive than comparable products.
Cons No security suite for Mac, just antivirus. Comparable products are more feature-rich.
Bottom Line
AVG Protection PRO lets you install a security suite on unlimited PCs and antivirus on unlimited Mac and Android devices. It costs less than similar products, but it also offers fewer features.
Source: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2472440,00.asp
 

A:AVG Protection PRO PCmag review

I always liked AVG for it's simplicity. Very good for normal user.
 

Read other 3 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 67.6

Pros
Extremely fast scan. Removed many malware samples. Free.
Cons
No real-time protection. Missed older malware samples in testing. In testing, some files reported as quarantined were still present.
Bottom Line
Malwarebytes 3.0 Free aims to wipe out pernicious malware that gets past your regular antivirus, or prevents you from installing protection. But with no real-time protection it can't be your primary antivirus.
more in the link above

 

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 67.6

Simple Installation
When you purchase F-Secure SAFE, you get a link to download a just-for-you installer with your license key embedded. You create an F-Secure SAFE account and proceed to make your first installation. You can choose to download and install on the machine you're using, send an email link to another device, or send the link via SMS.

Installation is quick and simple. Any time you want to use another of your licenses, you simply log in to the F-Secure SAFE online console and repeat the process?either download locally or send a link via email or SMS.

PC Protection
Installed on a PC, F-Secure SAFE is precisely F-Secure Internet Security 2015, with the tiny addition of a tray menu item that links to the F-Secure SAFE online console. Read my review of the suite for full details.

Very briefly, this suite offers good detection of malware-hosting URLs, but isn't as good at detecting fraudulent (phishing) sites. It earned good scores in independent lab tests and in my own hands-on tests. However, its parental control system is limited, and it lacks features found in other suites, including one found in its own previous edition.

Android Protection
F-Secure SAFE for Android has a slick, spacious appearance. A row of icons across the bottom lets you flip between feature pages, or you can just swipe left or right. The antivirus component offers on-demand scanning, real-time protection, and scheduled scanning. You can also configure it to scan when the device ... Read more

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

Still the Leader
Malwarebytes doesn't attempt ongoing, real-time protection. That's a job for your regular, full-scale antivirus. But if that full-scale antivirus won't install, or if malware defeats it, Malwarebytes is the go-to tool to solve the problem. Tech support agents from other antivirus companies rely on it; I've even heard agents pretend it belongs to their own company. Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0 remains our Editors' Choice for free, cleanup-only antivirus.

Full Article
 

A:Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 2.0 review Pcmag.com

I agree, easy and effective.
 

Read other 2 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

Pros
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.
Cons
Full antivirus scan took longer in testing than most competitors.
Bottom Line
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
 

A:PcMag Bitdefender Antivirus Plus 2017 Review

Every years it is the same story "BD is top because blablabla... "
 

Read other 4 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

Excellent Malicious URL Blocking
I've been running my malicious URL blocking test since last November. I start with a feed of very new malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I filter out those that don't point directly to malicious executables and then try launching each URL. Even though they're typically less than four hours old, many are already MIA. For the URLs that still work, I note whether the antivirus blocks access to the site entirely, blocks the malicious download, or does nothing.

avast! Free Antivirus 2014 was one of the first products to undergo this test, and for many, many months its blocking rate of 79 percent remained the top score. In the last couple weeks, that score has been thrashed repeatedly. Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015 blocked 80 percent, a new high score. But just days later, McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 leapt into first place with 85 percent.

ESET blocked access to 32 percent of the URLs and prevented malware download for another 49 percent. Its total blocking percentage of 81 percent doesn't beat the record, but it's respectably in second place.

Average System Scan
ESET defaults to what it calls Smart Scan for malware. I had to dig deep to find a way to launch an in-depth scan. I thought the scan was going to be quick, because the progress bar filled almost to the end in just a few minutes. However, it sat there at almost-done for quite some time. In the end, it took 26 minutes, precisely the current average.

It did repo... Read more

A:ESET NOD32 Antivirus 8 PCmag review

Who believes this PCmag review fellows? According to them AVG is the best;their reviews are far away from reality.Our friend @Manzai has better review with proof..............
 

Read other 11 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

Very Good Malware Blocking
Emsisoft also turned in a very good performance in my own hands-on malware blocking test. Unlike many of its peers, this product's on-access scanning doesn't trigger simply because Windows Explorer displayed information about the file. However, when I copied my malware collection to a new folder it quickly eliminated over 85 percent of those samples.

When I launched the surviving samples, a couple of them triggered behavior-based detection, meriting verification by the Emsisoft Anti-Malware Network. The network advised quarantining one but gave the other a clean bill of health.

Either on sight or at launch, Emsisoft detected 97 percent of my samples and scored 9.5 of 10 possible points. Few have done that well with my current sample set, though Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus managed a perfect 10 points.

My malicious URL blocking test starts with a feed of newly discovered malware-hosting URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas. I simply launch each URL and note whether the product forbids access to the URL altogether, wipes out the malicious payload, or sits idly by. Even these very new URLs are often dead by the time I try them, so I continue testing until I have 100 valid samples.

Emsisoft's Surf Protection kept the browser from connection to 55 percent of the sample URLs. Unlike many, it does not display a warning in the browser. Rather, it pops up a notification and leaves the browser to display an error message. That's not as pre... Read more

A:Emsisoft Anti-Malware 9.0 PCmag review

Overall a positive review from Rubenking...although, it appears this time he did not try to install EAM 9 on an already heavily infected system. That is what, according to him, sank EAM 7.

However, Emsi's position is that you cannot protect an already infected system so getting EAM onto such a system is not part of their product/threat model.

His review confirms what I see on my W8.1 system from day-to-day. EAM/EIS 9 is a very good product.
 

Read other 2 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

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

A:G Data Antivirus 2015 PCmag review

thanks for the share petrovic !!
 

Read other 1 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

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

A:Symantec Norton Security PCmag review

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.
 

Read other 20 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

Very Good Malware Blocking
Unlike Emsisoft Emergency Kit, Emsisoft Anti-Malware includes a collection of real-time protection components. Certainly you'll agree, while removing a malware infestation is good, preventing it from ever happening is even better.

Real-time scanning activates any time a file is accessed, but different products define "access" differently. For most, the minuscule access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is enough to trigger a scan. At the other end of the spectrum, GridinSoft Trojan Killer, Ashampoo Anti-Virus 2015, and a few others don't scan until just before the file executes.

I thought at first that Emsisoft fell into the latter category, which is a pain to test. Then I found that the act of moving a file to a new location was sufficient to trigger a scan. You can also tweak the File Guard settings in either direction, setting it to scan on any access for thoroughness, or to only scan on execution, for speed.

Emsisoft detected and eliminated 79 percent of the samples in my malware collection when I copied them to a new folder. It got most of the rest when I tried to launch them. In a couple of cases, it popped up an alert recommending that I quarantine a file based on its behavior; I complied.

One way or another, Emsisoft detected 93 percent of my samples and scored 9.0 of 10 possible points, the best score of any product tested with this same sample collection. Tested with my previous collection, F-S... Read more

A:Emsisoft Anti-Malware 10.0 PCMag review

Petrovic said:







View attachment 63201

Very Good Malware Blocking
Unlike Emsisoft Emergency Kit, Emsisoft Anti-Malware includes a collection of real-time protection components. Certainly you'll agree, while removing a malware infestation is good, preventing it from ever happening is even better.

Real-time scanning activates any time a file is accessed, but different products define "access" differently. For most, the minuscule access that occurs when Windows Explorer displays the filename is enough to trigger a scan. At the other end of the spectrum, GridinSoft Trojan Killer, Ashampoo Anti-Virus 2015, and a few others don't scan until just before the file executes.

I thought at first that Emsisoft fell into the latter category, which is a pain to test. Then I found that the act of moving a file to a new location was sufficient to trigger a scan. You can also tweak the File Guard settings in either direction, setting it to scan on any access for thoroughness, or to only scan on execution, for speed.

Emsisoft detected and eliminated 79 percent of the samples in my malware collection when I copied them to a new folder. It got most of the rest when I tried to launch them. In a couple of cases, it popped up an alert recommending that I quarantine a file based on its behavior; I complied.

One way or another, Emsisoft detected 93 percent of my samples and scored 9.0 of 10 possible points, the best score of any product teste... Read more

Read other 14 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

Hands-On Testing
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

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

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
 

A:McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2015 PCmag review

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)
 

Read other 3 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

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

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66.8

Shared Antivirus
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

A:ESET Smart Security 8 PCmag review

Really ?

ESET is still the king
 

Read other 12 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

Shared Antivirus
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.

Sub-Ratings:
Firewall:
Antivirus:
Performance:
Antispam:
Privacy:
Parental Control: n/a

Full Article
 

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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.

Sub-Ratings:
Firewall:
Antivirus:
Performance:
Antispam:
Privacy:
Parental Control:

Full Article
 

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

ESET Internet Security 10 Review by PCMAG​
Article: ESET Internet Security 10

Features:

Basic Firewall
Home Network Protection
Banking and Payment Protection
Straightforward Antispam
Webcam Protection
Small Hit on Performance
Uneven Component Quality
Pros
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.

Cons
Firewall doesn't pass common tests. Mediocre antiphishing score. Parental control limited to content filtering.
Bottom Line
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
 

A:ESET Internet Security 10 Review by PCMAG (3/5 stars)

I guess 10 for Smart Security hasn't come out yet?
 

Read other 1 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

Real-time Protection
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

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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.

Sub-Ratings:
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.
Firewall:
Antivirus:
Performance:
Antispam:
Privacy:
Parental Control:

Full Article
 

A:Bitdefender Internet Security 2016 PCMag review

Few people realize that Bitdefender simply uses Windows Firewall and adds some policies to it. Windows Firewall does work rather well with outbound notifications...
 

Read other 4 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

Buy for Business, Not for Home
My rating of "good" for Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Premium 2.0 is an average, stuck in the middle between excellent malware cleanup and poor malware blocking. Businesses who buy it should consider teaming it with a more effective real-time solution such as Editors' Choice AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014. For personal use, stick with the free edition.

Full Article
 

A:Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Premium 2.0 review Pcmag.com

Agreed with the last statement, For personal use, stick with the free edition.
 

Read other 15 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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

A:Avira Free Antivirus 2015 PCmag review

Avira need to put some more effort because the competition is pretty high
 

Read other 7 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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.

Full Article
 

A:Qihoo 360 Total Security Essential 8.6 PCMag review

"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.
 

Read other 2 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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.

Firewall:
Antivirus:
Performance:
Antispam:
Privacy:
Parental Control:

Full Article
 

A:Kaspersky Internet Security (2016) PCMag review

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!
 

Read other 6 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

Hands-On Testing
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

A:Trend Micro Antivirus+ 2015 PCmag review

 

Read other 1 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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

A:Panda Free Antivirus 2015 PCmag review

Does it differ from Panda Cloud Free?( I mean ,Are they two seperate products or this one is the new follower?)
 

Read other 2 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

Effective Malware Blocking
Panda scored very well in my hands-on malware blocking test. When I opened a folder containing my current malware sample collection, it didn't do anything immediately. That's because Panda waits for a significant event like file creation or modification; it doesn't scan just because a process accessed the file. When I copies the collection to another folder, Panda got to work, quickly wiping out 86 percent of the samples.

It also caught some of the remaining samples when I launched them. Overall, it detected 89 percent of the samples and earned 8.8 points, the same as Kaspersky. Among products tested with this same collection, Trend Micro has the best scores, with 93 percent detection and 9.1 points.

Results from tests with my previous malware collection aren't directly comparable, of course, but you have to appreciate what Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus (2015) did with that bunch. It detected 100 percent of the samples and earned a perfect 10 points.

My malicious URL blocking test doesn't rely on a pre-set collection of samples. Rather, I take the very newest list of malicious URLs supplied by MRG-Effitas and attempt to download real-world malware samples. The antivirus gets credit for blocking access to the URL or for wiping out the file during or immediately after the download. I keep at this test until I have results for 100 very new malicious URLs.

As I proceeded with the test, Panda's stats stayed remarkably... Read more

A:Panda Free Antivirus (2016) PCMag review

I should not provide any questions for Panda cause they have already identical two flip side of a story in the test.

One is independent organization test and user based test.
 

Read other 9 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

A Good Choice
Emsisoft Anti-Malware 11.0 gets good ratings from the independent labs that test it, and it did quite well in our hands-on malware blocking and malicious URL tests. It's highly configurable, so you can make it work just the way you want. However, its antiphishing abilities could use tuning, and in our testing its behavior alert system flagged only valid programs, no malware. It's a good choice, but not an Editors' Choice.

Full Article
 

A:Emsisoft Anti-Malware 11.0 Review & Rating | PCMag.com

Emsisoft improved alot.In such quick time it achieve high success.
 

Read other 0 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

Shared Antivirus
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

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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.





Much Improved
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.

Full Article
 

A:Qihoo 360 Total Security Essential - PCmag review

Webroot scores top lol. These tests are getting worse and worse.
 

Read other 2 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

Webroot SecureAnywhere AntiVirus (2015)


Pros
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.

Bottom Line
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
 

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

New version of ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus+ was tested by pcmag.com.

Results: Editor rating: excellent
Pros:
Tough, effective two-way firewall. Antivirus protection licensed from Kaspersky. Free. Several useful bonus features.

Cons
Hardly any results from independent testing labs. Doesn't include every feature of Kaspersky antivirus. No phishing protection. Behavioral detection flagged both good and bad programs.

Bottom Line
ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus+ combines a top-notch firewall with antivirus protection licensed from award-winning Kaspersky. This free program can be a good choice if you don't want a full-scale security suite.


For more go to Check Point ZoneAlarm Free Firewall 2017
 

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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.

DeepGuard
When F-Secure's cloud database can�... Read more

A:F-Secure Anti-Virus 2015 PCmag review

Looking good to me! As a second demand scanner one a week.

Online Scanner F-Secure:
http://www.f-secure.com/en/web/home_global/online-scanner

Kind regards,
 

Read other 2 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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

A:F-Secure Internet Security 2015 PCmag review

F-Secure is good, but it's quite expensive for an antivirus that offers fewer components, better use Emsisoft, Norton or Kaspersky.
 

Read other 1 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 66

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.

 

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 65.6

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

A:Trend Micro Maximum Security 2015 PCmag review

Hi Petrovic

Thanks for the info. How good is PCMag in-terms-of antivirus testing?

Tony
 

Read other 7 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 65.6

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

A:Avira Internet Security Suite 2015 PCmag review

Baloney. I used Avira to clean up an infected computer that was running Webroot. LSS, I don't have faith in this review.
 

Read other 1 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 65.6

Pros
Includes password manager, software updater, and many other Avira tools. Excellent scores from antivirus labs. Very good score in malicious URL blocking test. Free.
Cons
Many components require payment for full functionality. Sluggish antivirus protection and scanning. Real-time protection missed some executable malware files.
Bottom Line
Avira Free Security Suite, introduced this year, packs a goodly collection of features beyond antivirus, but it doesn't come close to the power of a full-scale, paid security suite
 

A:Avira Free Security Suite (2017) - PCMag Review

Av-Comparatives: "Product of the year"
Av-test: 16.5/18
PCMag: 3/5
Me:
 

Read other 9 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 65.6

F-Secure Internet Security 2017 Review by PCMag 3,5/5 stars​
Pros
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.

Cons
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.

Bottom Line
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)
 

A:F-Secure Internet Security 2017 Review by PCMag 3,5/5 stars

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.
 

Read other 1 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 65.6

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
 

Read other answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 59.6

Im just wondering if an antivirus is actually needed with comodo firewall.
As i understand it comodo firewall checks files as they are downloaded etc and im assuming it would pick up malware on its own therefore maybe i would not need to run the comodo av or any other av at all.

Any thoughts on this please.?

Thanks.
 

A:Do I need Comodo Antivirus, if I have Comodo Firewall?

i think Zone alarm better.
 

Read other 17 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 59.2

I have COMODO firewall installed on my notebook running Vista Home Premium. Should I turn off Windows firewall? Will they conflict with each other? Other threads I searched about this didn't really answer that question.

I also have NOD32 running.
Thanks,
G
 

A:Solved: Windows Firewall turn off or leave on with COMODO Firewall?

Read other 9 answers
RELEVANCY SCORE 59.2

I recently downloaded the latest version of Comodo firewall. I found out that the whole interface has been changed.

Now I'm unable to find the option to show all connections going on at the current movement. Has the option been removed? Or is it some where else?
Thanks!

A:How to view firewall traffic in latest version of Comodo firewall?

[PDF] Comodo Firewall All the information that you need is in this PDF download -

Read other 5 answers