Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
The Best Security Suites (2013/2014)
tomos:
Stiftung Warentest have tested security suites:
https://www.test.de/Internetsicherheits-Software-Wirksame-Programme-gegen-Cyberangriffe-4684917-0/
(German language; pay to view article)
I hope it's okay to post a summary here (?)
SpoilerThey tested by adding a harddrive full of new malware/virus** to each system. Almost no info given about testing of firewalls.
Marks given (very good/ good/ so-so/ poor/ crap) for:
Protection:
Real-time protection
Scanning
Reaction time taken to respond to new threats
Firewall
------
Handling (help/ease-of-use/installation/etc.)
------
Resources used:
Speed
Resources used
________________
Focusing on the Protection section, best at the top (all of these tested 'good' with G-Data well ahead of the posse):
* G Data internet security 2014 [all 'good' with scanner best @ 'very good'; bottom of list in resource usage though :-(]
* Bitdefender "New Edition" [very good real-time; poor firewall]
* Eset Smart Security [does best on resource usage]
* F-Secure Internet Security 2014 [poor reaction time to new threats]
* Kapersky 2014 [very good real-time; so-so firewall, so the AV must be pretty good!]
* BullGuard [best firewall - virus protection not so good]
* Avira Suite 2014 [very fast; good 'handling']
Overall score were (best to top)
* G Data internet security 2014
* Avira Suite 2014
* Eset Smart Security
* F-Secure Internet Security 2014
* AVG
* Avast
* Kapersky 2014
* Bitdefender
* BullGuard
They test a couple of free AV's as well - MS Essentials does poorly; Avira/Avast/AVG all 'good'.
** my translations in italics
tomos:
Stiftung Warentest have tested security suites:
https://www.test.de/Internetsicherheits-Software-Wirksame-Programme-gegen-Cyberangriffe-4684917-0/
(German language; pay to view article)-tomos (April 22, 2014, 08:38 AM)
--- End quote ---
(Note that all were tested on Windows 7)
I get the impression that the pcmag tests were more in-depth. I can understand that a more in-depth test could find e.g. G-Data Internet (S'Warentest's winner) not so good after all - but I find the reverse hard to understand:
Norton & McAfee score heavily and get editor's recommendations from PCMag. Stiftung Warentest has them at 11th and 12th places in their list of thirteen, with: 'good' real-time protection and scanning, but with very poor response time to new threats, and OK (Norton) to poor (McAfee) firewall scores. (FWIW, both do very poorly as well in terms of help and interface.)
:-\
TaoPhoenix:
Windows XP was first released in 2001. Why stay with a 12-year old OS? When XP just came out if someone asked you advice on how to stay with Windows 95, what would you tell them? And there was only a 6 year span between those OSes!
Modernize, please. You don't have to go whole hog and upgrade to Windows 8.x, but at least move to Windows 7. If you have half-way decent specs in your PC with a decent graphics card you'll enjoy better performance than you did with XP. Once Microsoft officially drops support, you're going to start seeing your favorite programs dropping support as well & some will release new versions that won't even be able to install on XP any longer.
But to stay on the topic of this thread, which is security, even with the latest patches Windows XP is not as secure as the OSes that have come after it.
-Innuendo (February 21, 2014, 07:27 AM)
--- End quote ---
But here we are. There are millions of us who can't yet afford the time, software, and potential hardware risks of upgrading. My project machine from 2006 *might* be able to run Win7, but it's a long shot push.
Meanwhile MS seems to be saying they're copying Apple and not supporting an OS more than about 3 editions back so depending how they count, Win7 is already one step old.
I am holding on hard for Win9 to (re)define the landscape, to give us some desperately needed context to all of this. After all, Win7 was Vista's escape route, and a new CEO is at MS, he probably needed to shove 8.1 out the door, but I am hoping at the engineering level he makes Win9 the new OS to jump to.
Cloq:
AVG!? - Heh surely you jest!?
No thanks. Long story short, they recommended white listing windows folder and signing all apps so that their heuristics wouldn't tag/kill/quarantine false positives.
The kicker.. their heuristics db/engine would "forget" that files xyz were safe and on later updates would tag/kill/quarantine files that were submitted to their engineers (they assured wouldn't get tagged by future updates). 5 Years of that BS was enough (stuck on contract).
AVG - Consumer version and enterprise version.
TaoPhoenix:
AVG!? - Heh surely you jest!?
No thanks. Long story short, they recommended white listing windows folder and signing all apps so that their heuristics wouldn't tag/kill/quarantine false positives.
The kicker.. their heuristics db/engine would "forget" that files xyz were safe and on later updates would tag/kill/quarantine files that were submitted to their engineers (they assured wouldn't get tagged by future updates). 5 Years of that BS was enough (stuck on contract).
AVG - Consumer version and enterprise version.
-Cloq (April 22, 2014, 09:26 PM)
--- End quote ---
Naw, I wasn't going to go with AVG - something else. I'm still not sure yet.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version