McAfee #1 in malware detection??

If any of you have been to McAfee's website or read the news about their new claim, you might be in a little shock. They are now claiming they are #1 in Malware Detection based upon one malware test performed by AV-Test.org which can NOT be found anywhere on the web, at least I can't find it.

If anyone can find this test results, then please post a link. I'm sure that Avira wasn't tested because it is not even listed in the top 3. Avira has had higher test results on all other testing sites than what Symantec, Kaspersky and McAfee has had in the past.

It appears that McAfee didn't want to post a link to the results for some reason probably because the results could be disputed.

I know that McAfee has made many improvements on their 2010 product lineup, but to go as far to say that they are #1 in malware detection is really pushing it over the edge. I have never seen a anti-malware product claim to be #1 in detection.

Thanks.

 

maybe this?

http://virusinfo.info/index.php?page=tests

 

Meh, detection or no detection, the performance drag that McAfee products place on the system is unacceptable in an age when even Symantec was compelled to clean up its act.

 

when I see McAfee>Symantec>Kaspersky, I laughed.

 

The results of these tests were only published in the German print magazine ComputerBild.
This was a biweekly test, but I think it was stopped at the end of last year.

For example the results from November 2009.

Panda 99,9
G-Data 99,9
McAfee 99,9
Bullguard 99,7
F-Secure 99,6
Norton 99.2
Avira 99,1
Kaspersky 98,8

Typical AV-Test.org nonsense... We must do everything we can to allay consumer fears.

Cheers

 

Thanks for the link, it appears that McAfee-GW had the highest detection because McAfee is also listed separate with a much lower detection rate.

I suppose McAfee-GW stands for Gate Way, but is that now included in their home products as well? If so that would explain the high detection rate.

If McAfee-GW is not included in their home products, then why are they advertising that they are now #1 in malware detection?

I'm guessing McAfee-GW has definitions from many vendors, does anyone know which vendors they use?

There is also a McAfee+Artemis listed, what is that?



Thanks.

 

McAfee just makes up stuff. Dont trust that company. They shipped their 2009 product in the 2010 box and deceived all their customers. Only last week did they release their real 2010 product.

 

McAfee Artemis
McAfee Artemis Technology can quickly notify the user if the file should be blocked or quarantined through the following steps:
1. A user receives a file that the scan agent deems suspicious (for example, an encrypted or packed file) and for which there is no signature in the local .DAT database.
2. Using McAfee Artemis Technology, the agent sends a fingerprint of the file for instant lookup to the comprehensive database at McAfee Avert Labs.
3. In less than a second, if the fingerprint is identified as known malware, an appropriate response is sent to the user to block or quarantine the file.

http://www.mcafee.com/us/enterprise/products/artemis_technology/index.html

McAfee GW
Next generation Web gateway solutions, such as McAfee Web Gateway (MWG), analyze the content in conjunction with the advertised filename, making evasion extremely difficult. Files that attempt to load in an end users browser by masquerading as something they are not are instantly blocked by McAfee Web Gateway.
http://siblog.mcafee.com/network-security/web-gateway-provides-zero-hour-protection/
http://www.mcafee.com/us/enterprise/products/email_and_web_security/web/web_gateway.html

 

Rather flawed testing methodology. The online scans are NOT equivalent to the real product. There is a recent post/thread about that. ('search')
The online McAfee scan uses ARTEMIS ? I seriously doubt that. I'm not saying it's not possible, it just seems implausible. Artemis is an in-the-cloud thing, and the online scans are usually more limited than the 'real' product.

Of course, I don't know if McAfee used that test, I can't find any reference to av-test.org on the McAfee website. Just some propaganda about a detection of 99.9 %. Maybe it's legal, but it's deceptive and unethical. McAfee isn't THAT good.

I don't know anything about the test mentioned in post #5.

 

The results of this test were based on Virustotal scan data. The scan engines for many of the listed scanners are not the same as that of their stand-alone products and IMO cannot be considered valid for product comparison.

 

Not to sing the praises of Norton, whose products I no longer use due to their past arrogance, but I just received an email this past week from Comcast that they are now dropping McAfee as their "freebie" to Comcast users and now including Norton instead. If McAfee is all that great then why is the largest cable provider in the US dropping them and now adding Norton?

I don't know if this has yet "trickled down" to the rest of the Comcast users in the US, but if you have not heard it yet, it is coming. Again, I am not using either McAfee or Norton.

Acadia

 

I use to use the Comcast security package from McAfee, it slowed my PC down badly.

 

The relatively recent free availability of MSE, the popularity of Avast, AVG, and Avira free are sending shock waves in the AV establishment, and we all know that one of the negatives aspects of the Internet is that anybody can claim anything shamelessly.

From an ethical point of view this kind of tactic is "acceptable" and has always been used systematically in advertisement campaigns using other media (you don't have supply proof of what you are promoting, a good example is the ad war among powder detergents).

Installing an AV is becoming more of a service (see MS) than buying a product.

 

Comcast just dumped McAfee and went to Norton 360. Even still, I'd rather use something like MSE or Avast.

 

I should imagine a better deal and nothing to do with detection.

 

Actually, I would suspect too many support calls.

Acadia

 

I think that is a great move by Comcast. McAfee is not even worth the price of the download. Unfortunately my cable provider is moving in the opposite direction from some no-name security product to McAfee. I dont know which is worse.

McAfee is securing a lot of deals with major providers by under-cutting prices from Norton and others. So unfortunately we are going to see a lot more of their sub-standard products. If you dont like their products I would complain to your cable/FIOS provider and ask for a change. There are all over the place and soon to become a bit vermin than they already are. You can read some of their plans at their latest quarterly announcment http://files.shareholder.com/downlo...957ac41/MFE_Prepared_Remarks_Final_021110.pdf

"Recently we announced new or expanded partnerships with AT&T, British Telecom, Facebook, Fujitsu and Verizon, to name just a few. The business opportunities we see through these strategic relationships are tremendous. For example, our new telco/ISP partnerships have started off very well and on a global basis McAfee now covers more than 70% of the total broadband subscriber base of the world’s top 10 largest ISPs."

Oh, the pain.

 

McAfee, Symantec and others made some errors during their history and I think they'll continue doing them...it's almost normal. Although I don't use their products I continue to respect them...for many reasons.

I don't blame companies claiming things. I blame the people that is not well informed and those terrible OEM preinstallations that are the worse thing in the computer world.

 

I have more respect for the vendors who offer free products for protection.
Avast, Avira, MSE, Comodo, PC Tools, AVG, BitDefender, Online Armor, Malwarebytes, Spybot S&D, Crawler, to name a few.

Not everyone has the money to buy protection, because these vendors get my highest respect.

If you think about all the money it takes to advertise a product, what would be better than to have a free version of your protect available with upgrade options? I believe McAfee, Symantec, TrendMicro, Eset, etc. would benefit if they had free version available and get more respect from their customers.

I just recently bought Avast Pro and Online Armor Full version, I really didn't need the extra features, but after using the free versions, I was sold. Both are excellent products.
I know my money went to a company that makes free products and I have help support that cause.

Thanks.

 

The problem for all these security companies is that you really dont need to pay for security software, you can have for free the same protection that if you pay.

For example the only difference btw avast and avast pro is that avast pro has sandbox, but you can use avast free + sandboxie and you will have the same protecction, and the same for any paid security software.

 

First of all Sandboxie is not exactly free.
I had the same opinion with you for many years. Then and after buying some products I have realized that the paid versions have obviously more things to give.

The important thing is to use free products only when you are sure at a high percent that you are the kind of user that can combine them in an effective way and that you are seriously aware of the risks according to your internet habits.

And of course we should not forget that when you pay you expect the company to care and be responsible. An example: Comodo IS and Avast Internet security. For sure these are two different products with different strong points. But what happens when Comodo during the update trash your pc and what happens when Avast does the same? Well, normally, me and everyone who has paid Avast we demand a solution (or we'll try to do so). Unfortunately we cannot demand anything from Comodo. We can only stop using their product. Avast has to lose more if fails its mission. Comodo has really less to lose. This is a critical point and for me the basic reason paid versions have more quality to offer and almost always more features.

Another example. Online Armor free and paid. Although many think that these two versions are similar, who has tried the paid version knows well there is more power released into the paid version.

note: when I say free I don't include open source software.

 

you may have it there

 

OA and Comodo, I have to suppose that Comodo have spend more resources in develop CIS than OA in his firewall, since OA does not support x64 does not have own av, own behaviour bloker, or sandbox...
Comodo have a great comunity and I havent had any problem with the support.
OA is a firewal+hips and the defense plus is as good or more than the OA hips.

If avast trash your computer what are they going to do? just help, the same help that you can find on internet forums, wilders, or if you are using Comodo in comodo forums.

If the paid version has a behaviour blocker, you can use Threatfire for free.
If has a sandbox? you can use the free version of sadboxie, even the free version of sandboxie is much better than other paid sandbox solutions.
If the paid version have a firewall-> Comodo, PCtools
You can find free software for everything as good as the paid versions.

BTW who know what is the best AV, now in 2010 they are still changing the methodologyof the tests, and with this new methodology we have seen that one of the best is MSE.

 

Looks accurate to me.

 

McAfee GW is the former Webwasher product, which uses the Avira engine + some additional detection.