CA internet security

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by anderb, Apr 11, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. anderb

    anderb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Posts:
    106
    Hello friends I´ve installed this suite without the firewall,and in my opinion it´s very good light and no problems so far,but I´d like to know your opinions about it,if someone already used it.Thanks:)
     
  2. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    its poor and a resource hog.

    detection is a no-no.
     
  3. optigrab

    optigrab Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Posts:
    624
    Location:
    Brooklyn/NYC USA
    I used it for several months, both with and without the bundled firewall. I found it to be fairly light in resource usage, but the detection rates being reported (AV Comparitives) STRONGLY suggest there are better free alternatives (Avira, Avast, AVG...).
     
  4. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Features of the CA Internet Security Suite are good, and it is light in terms of resource usage. Now, the recent single test from AV-comparatives shows its detection rate to be not so good. I believe there may be some explanation to this. As you can see, the results from AV-C's test are as follows:

    Windows Viruses - 86% (OK detection, not bad)
    Macro Virus - 99% (very good)
    Script Viruses/Malware - 46% (Bad, but some other AVs are also bad at this but still qualify for Standard certification)
    Worms - 83% (weak point, they may need to improve here)
    Backdoors - 63%
    Trojans - 55%
    Other malware - 47%
    OtherOS malware - 43%

    Now, as you can see, mainly CA lacks in Backdoors and Trojans detection along with other malware detection (OtherOS malware detection I'll ignore for now). The fact is that many of these malware are included in the PestPatrol engine of CA rather than the eTrust engine. I think CA Internet Security includes the PestPatrol engine, so the detection rates should be significantly higher than CA Antivirus 2007, as PestPatrol should add a decent bit to the detection rate of eTrust. This is just a theory though, and I suspect the overall protection of CA IS will come up to be around that of Sophos (i.e. 77-82% or something like that). This is, however, still not good enough to protect you very well if you are a high risk surfer, but there is still the chance that CA may improve in the future, given their position in the market and the resources at their disposal.
     
  5. anderb

    anderb Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2006
    Posts:
    106
    Thanks for your opinions,I think I´ll change for another security software,cause I´m a high risk surfer hehe:) What ones can you recommend?
     
  6. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The obvious :p

    I would personally recommend Kaspersky Internet Security, for which you can get a 3-year license at a steal price of $29.95 by purchasing Systweak Photo Studio or Boost XP from the below page, along with which you will receive a free KIS license ;)

    http://www.systweak.com/newstore.asp

    Other products I recommend are BitDefender Internet Security, ZoneAlarm Security Suite and AVG Internet Security. AVG is the most cost effective security suite I have ever used ($69.95 for 2 years for 1 user!), followed by BitDefender. All of the products I have mentioned have very good detection rates and will protect you well. :)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.