Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Security

November 30th, 2007, 08:05 GMT · By Bogdan Popa

Symantec and McAfee NOT the Best Antiviruses!

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


McAfee's HQ
Enlarge picture
You might be tempted to believe that Symantec, McAfee, ESET, Kaspersky or Softwin Labs provide the best antiviruses on the market. In fact, it's well known that these solutions have millions of consumers as they offer very powerful antivirus utilities. But (yeah, I know, there's always a 'but'), a recent research conducted by Cascadia Labs revealed that the technologies mentioned above are NOT the best solutions on the market when it comes to certain aspects of the antiviruses. The lucky (or maybe - the best) antivirus that provides the most powerful detection of new infectious agents (malware/viruses/spyware/Trojan horses) is included in Sophos Antivirus.

According to the research, the Sophos solution detected 86
percent of the pre-execution malware while McAfee and Symantec found only 43 percent and 51 percent. Symantec's post execution detection won the first place with 18 points while McAfee came second with 2 percent.

"We were disappointed with McAfee's effectiveness. It only caught 43 of our 100 files pre-execution. Although 28 of these were caught with signatures, McAfee's pattern-based recognition and other pre-execution capabilities couldn't keep up with Sophos. McAfee caught 13 more malware samples at execution but none of these could be attributed to its run-time HIPS capabilities. It should be possible to improve McAfee's protection by configuring HIPS rules, but it takes a lot of expertise and time to configure the rule-based HIPS and we conducted our testing with basic HIPS settings in place", Cascadia Labs wrote in the report.

Symantec and McAfee have always been two of the top antivirus technologies on the market and I guess they will remain among the leaders as long as the developers continue to implement more and more security features. For example, the Symantec engineers improved the security of the products with the Proactive Threat Scan feature. However, the report reveals that this function may not be as useful as it might sound.

"Symantec's new Proactive Threat Scan is included to bring additional protection against some malware, but it only runs hourly by default. This default configuration leads to a window of vulnerability where malware is not detected and can inflict damage. Although Proactive Threat Scan can be configured to run when a process starts, it places a heavy burden on the system according to Symantec's documentation and confirmed in our testing", it is mentioned in the report provided by Cascadia Labs.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

6,469 hits · 3 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Sophos Applauds the Performance of Its Anti-Virus on 64-bit Windows Vista

The Best Antivirus for Windows Vista and Windows XP SP2

Another Antivirus Bites The Dust

Security on Windows Vista? What a Joke!

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: GrahamC on 30 Nov 2007, 10:30 UTC reply to this comment

This is an interesting story, as so many anti-virus tests are done against *known* malware which the security companies have already seen rather than investigating how well anti-virus vendors perform in terms of proactively detecting unknown malware.

With the amount of new malware (viruses, trojan horses, spyware) being seen every month it's important to test not only detection of existing threats but also zero day threats.

The full report into how well Sophos, McAfee and Symantec tackle zero day threats is available on Sophos's website for those who are interested.

Regards
Graham Cluley, Sophos


Comment #2 by: John McAfee on 08 Dec 2007, 09:15 UTC reply to this comment

Interesting article. I am curious though.
Why the obvious vagueness about "the research"?
What research? What test? Performed by who?
Very often, especially whith skewed sales hype like this, the devil is in the details.


Comment #3 by: Lim on 08 Jun 2010, 11:02 UTC reply to this comment

Yes. Agreed. I am from Singapore, not sure is anyone has the same problem as me..

First symtom:
Windows auto shut down, leading to difficulties on-ing it. (CPU running, but not the monitor & others)

2nd symtom:
About 20 tries, finally can on. But, kept coming out warning saying: "Registry unfound or missing"...

3rd symtom:
Can't on, after it shut down again...

Last resort:
Call technician and said my anti-virus, Symantec, is untrust worthy. Reason: Hardware corrupted, etc, by virus...
Sad, but he told me to download the free AVG, which would be better..

And opinions? Nt sure... Cause he is more experienced.?
A free one is better than an damn expensive one?

Pls help :)

Reply to me!

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM