PC World reviews 8 security suites including Comodo

http://www.pcworld.com/article/165590/securing_the_desktop_eight_internet_security_suites.html

What do u think? Many big names missing.

 

Hi aigle,

Thanks for the link! Coincidently, I was asked recently about suites, and had to plead complete ignorance, so I've read about some since then, but this is the first test I've seen.

Taking some statements from the article:

I always ask, What is needed to protect against a particular threat or type of threat? Conficker was easily handled by a firewall and correct USB procedures, so a suite would add nothing.

What is meant by "silent threats" on an innocent web site? If drive-by downloads are meant, then the attacks I've looked at don't get by a properly configured browser, so a suite is not necessary here.

Admitting the possibility that something gets by the browser, I'll use the highest scoring suite as an example:

It gets lower if you consider the recent exploits, gumblar and others, which had practically 0 percent detection rate in the early hours/days.

It seems that a White List solution is more effective in these types of exploits, since 100 percent prevention occurs when malware executables attempt to sneak in.

This particular area is of interest, since adequate warning would be a help. However, both Opera and Firefox have warnings, and without being able to compare side by side, would a Suite offer more alerts to bad sites than say, Firefox?

I suppose for someone purchasing a new computer, who had not much knowledge about computer security, a Suite would offer good all around protection, assuming the person knew enough to understand how to configure it.

But given the opportunity to help someone set up a system and give instruction on security basics, in addition to a good firewall, browser, and a White List product, I would add a good AV as a complement, rather than a suite, if the person wanted to scan files to download, for example.

OK, that's my take on this, and I'm open to being convinced otherwise, since I may have to give some advice to some people considering getting a new computer later.

regards,

rich

 

It's very brief but does mention from the start it would focus on 'functionality' and design. Something new users place a lot of emphasis on.

G-Data and Symantec at the top I agree with. They tested with AV-Test.org's sample of 725,047 files.

 

norton done great I see

 

Wow, PC World gave not so great news for PC Tools' suite....interesting.

 

Would users find the whitelisting solution too restrictive? IMHO it's very easy to achieve good security with low usability but much harder to find a balance.

 

Give a great score to a AM product which asks you this incase of malware: "Do you want to just block the malware and let it be, OR, maybe you want to RUN the malware you're trying to open!?"

I certainly wouldn't... and either option you choose, it's bad somehow. Block it, and it's still left on your PC. Run it... well... you get the idea...

 

Such reviews are being done off n on by pcworld n pcmag.

Problem is that an ordinary user in my experience knows nothing except to click and want to know nothing as well. So I will surely prefer an antivirus that has multiple protection layers and is most user friendly.

Will not consider a suite as here I think no one of these uses outlook etc except web mail. For FW windows firewall is enough.

Only thing left is phishing/ malware sites. Local ISP.s censorship does some job in this regard as well. Rest might be covered with something like AVG Link scanner or just safe surfing.

 

Keep that malware wheel turning. Another commercial, pop magazine patting the backs of their sponsors. Theirs is a tired, old security model running blacklist programs and admin user accounts. It's obvious they can't make any money on advising LUAs, SRPs, browser config, web filters, etc. If only the readers of these 'grocery store' mags would visit any number of security forums like this one for new ideas, methods and solutions that would really prevent infections. Naw, that's no fun. After all, this mag probably sits right next to 'People' or 'Us' and I'll bet you readers are thinking, "Ahhh, I wonder what Britney Spears uses for antivirus?"...."Hmmm, page 33."

 

Anyone who why Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 was not taken into consideration ??

 

Avira and ESET too. It's either some security companies didn't want to participate or nobody invited them.

 

If you read the second paragraph of the story they have already tested Avira and Kaspersky earlier this year.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/158157/top_internet_security_suites_paying_for_protection.html

 

Well, what do you know - now we've a story too.

 

I was thinking more like an epic novel on here! I see why people are griping that Avira was omitted from this report from PC World on May 28. They weren't able to get a hold of version 9 back in January and somehow slipped through their hands now.

I did see another PC Tools Internet Security 'free giveaway' on a blog this morning. I was hoping to find another reason to dump Antivir.