PC Tools AntiVirus Free 7.0.0.545

That's good...the must have been why it took so long for v7 to be released.

 

Hmmm That is interesting.

 

I strolled over to AV-Comparatives and took a look at the test results from the February, 2010 test (on-demand).

It's striking to me how similar the detection percentages in each category are for PC Tools and Symantec.

~ Removed Direct PDF Link as per AV-Comparatives Request - See Main-Tests page for the actual PDF ~

 

I uncovered some more info too.....The "avdb" folder also has a text file which has many Symantec references in it.....the database from Symantec is definitely there, so are the engine DLLs in fact. In addition, PC Tools has it's own AV/AS engine modules (with a database) too, which might account for a few detections more compared to Norton.

As far as actual detections go, in my testing I noticed that it basically detects everything Norton does, but under different names. Also, the heuristic detections (and apparently, heuristic techniques) seem to be different between Norton and PC Tools and it's not guaranteed that if NAV has a heuristic detection, then PC Tools does too (and vice versa). This seems to support my previous theory of databases being "internally" shared between the two companies but the actual addition of signatures is still done separately, because if one just had to "port" the database into a product, the developers wouldn't really want to spend the extra time (IMO) to rename all the detections.

Some very old samples (1999-2002 period) I had displayed a lower detection rate that caused me some worry initially, but at least as far as samples from 2008 onwards go, Norton and PC Tools detected the same files (apart from a few extra riskware/cookies/rogue that PC Tools detected, but those were like only 2 or 3 files so I wouldn't call it significant).

Other comments: Having used PC Tools Internet Security (during which I have found all this information), I do feel that this product is not as performance-optimized as Norton is. The scans are slower, it takes more memory and sometimes it does feel quite heavy. It's not too bad, but I think between Norton and PC Tools, performance-wise there is a noticeable difference. But one has to consider that PC Tools is value oriented and often comes cheaper than Norton products. Both seem to be very effective in their protection, though I think Symantec/Norton is better for the security enthusiasts.

 

Thanks for the informations FireCat.

 

What do you mean? Heuristics?

 

Heuristic is there but no BB of Threatfire.

 

PC Tools Internet Security has a lot of Guards:
-Behavior Guard
-Browser Guard
-Cookie Guard
-Email Guard
-File Guard
-Immunizer Guard
-Network Guard
-Process Guard
-Site Guard
-Startup Guard

Maybe I did miss one, but of all those shields: the free version got a total of three: Email Guard, File Guard and Immunizer Guard. Spyware Doctor with Antivirus contains like two more I think.
File Guard is ofcourse the most important and is included, but File Guard is exactly how traditional antiviruses works, using signatures. And everyone on Wilders (also antivirus vendors themselves) agrees on the fact that signature-based detection doesn't work anymore. But the conclusion is that PC Tools Antivirus Free is heavily crippled software, far more than AVG Free, avast! Free, Avira Personal, Panda Cloud Antivirus Free (and Microsoft Security Essentials) (Those are all beter anyway). So all the shields which should help the File Guard for providing better zero-day protection (Behavior Guard: Threatfire, Process Guard, Startup Guard and so on) or provide earlier detection of the malware (Browser Guard, Network Guard, Site Guard) are not available. It is also crippled in database I heard.

Conclusion: In my eyes PC Tools Internet Security already isn't worth any penny, so how could it's heavily crippled free variant be worth any penny. In other words: PC Tools Antivirus Free sucks big time. Got nothing to do with being PC Tools basher or not, it is just the truth.

 

I see, yes ... maybe it's too crippled to use it these days

 

Of course I can be wrong: but I am sure if I am wrong, somebody will say it here.

 

Most those guards are not needed. If someone ran the free software I would just add Threatfire. But I agree, there are other free options that are probably better.

 

PCT IS is not really that bad though but the free AV its not that good

 

I agree that there are a number of more amenable free products to be considered ahead of PC Tools AV Free but your overall conclusion seems to be derived as much from heresay as from hard evidence.
Also, it is a little scary responding to someone who keeps asking to be corrected or flamed but can you clarify:

Which antivirus vendors have ceased using signature matching because it "doesn't work anymore"? Most I know of are continually refining and enhancing it.

Where did you "hear" that PC Tools Antivirus Free is "crippled in database"?
(And is that anything like being stabbed in the rotunda? )

Given that PC Tools IS is consistently achieving at or near the highest rating for malware detection and removal in comparison to all others, especially on already infected systems (though it does use a lot of RAM), "any penny" sound like remarkably good value!

 

Ok, then it might not be true that PC tools is crippled in database, or maybe that was the previous version.
(I don't know what the word rotunda means, but I do think in understand the line, I have to admit the deserves to be there.)

It is not about ceasing signatures or whatever, I haven't said something like that. But the point is that signatures alone can't do it anymore and need help. And the shields which should do that by assisting the main signature/heuristic driven File Guard are removed from the free version.

I guess you have seen the latest May report of AV-Comparatives? 17% for PC Tools and 43% for Symantec. (This also makes the point invalid that Symantec and PC Tools share technologies after Symantec bought PC Tools, as some said.)

But ofcourse, I could be wrong. Correct me if I am.
With the correct me/flame me if I am wrong, I just want to show it is not that I am a PC Tools basher or prejudiced against PC Tools in any way.

 

That's 17% for PC Tools

Anyway, that test is just on-demand detection, i.e. it tests the heuristics of the AV engine, not the behaviour-based, on access/execution protection. I cannot comment much on the free version, but the PC Tools Internet Security product does have quite decent behaviour-based protection......

EDIT:

As I have mentioned previously in this thread, they share common scan technologies (scan engine) and the signature database. Note that I did mention that the heuristic detections were different between Norton and PC Tools. Norton also has insight technology which does a cloud-based lookup of the files and does a reputation analysis. So it could be "better" in this regard.

 

That is true (the version tested was the Spyware Doctor + AV). The fuctions you describe are exactly the functions the free version lacks.

 

I think you are right, PC Tools will always be a crippled Norton

 

for free

 

In regards of zero-day malware. But with known malwares it will be at per.

 

Not that that matters, since you can pretty easily turn known malware into unknown malware using an executable compressor.

 

That's quite a gross oversimplification.

 

That's what most 0day malware do...

 

First, explanation (off topic).
"They got him right in the rotunda" is from an old but very funny sketch by Canadian commedians John Wayne and Frank Shuster, available here: Rinse the blood off my toga - the line is about 2:17 minutes in.
"got him right in the rotunda", "crippled in the database" - maybe you had to be there.

It is indeed a mystery as to why there is such a disparity between Norton and PC Tools in the retrospective test, when their results are almost identical in the ~ Removed Direct PDF Link as per AV-Comparatives Request - See Main-Tests page for the actual PDF ~ On-demand Comparative test in February[/URL]. I'll go undercover and dig deeper.

 

Oops! I didn't realize (till now) that forum links counted as hosting a document. Always learning.

Speaking of learning, I interpreted this statement, "we share the signature database and virus definitions" as meaning they are the same for each product. Turns out they are not, and so I apologise for misleading anyone by repeating what I believed to be true.

According to PC Tools, they do not share the exact same database as each other because they have a different engine to that of Norton. They work on their engines whereas Symantec work on theirs. They may share some technologies, signatures etc but still a different product altogether.

 

Dude in On-demand comarative there will be similarity because they share the database for known virus, but in retrospective tests, the heutistic engine plays the role, not the database, and PC Tools do not share same engine as Norton.