- May 1, 2018
- 229
Hello
Like in the post theme, Whats be better for multi device, stand alone protection, for my family?
Regads
Like in the post theme, Whats be better for multi device, stand alone protection, for my family?
Regads
Norton expired, McAfee Total is worth trying or stay with Norton? Whats better?
- Thread starter KonradPL
- Start date
Please provide comments and solutions that are helpful to the author of this topic.
- Status
- May 16, 2018
- 1,363
McAfee is not in the same league as Norton. And it has not been for over a decade..
There are peers to Norton.... but it ain't CrapAfee.
There are peers to Norton.... but it ain't CrapAfee.
- Jul 6, 2017
- 2,392
Stay with Norton, but you can try McAfee in case you like it.
- Nov 3, 2019
- 413
I'm running McAfee now which is provided by my ISP and so far I like it IMHO.............
- May 10, 2019
- 1,854
McAfee has improved a lot recently. Give it a try and see how it goes. If you have safe habits, you'll be OK.
- Oct 22, 2018
- 435
McAfee has improved a lot in the last year or two. I don't think they're in Norton's league yet, but they're nipping at Norton's heels.
- Nov 3, 2019
- 413
I have to agree with The Cog in the Machine it has improved a lot
- Sep 8, 2019
- 461
Mcafee has under average protection, I would stick with Norton.
- Apr 13, 2014
- 890
- May 1, 2018
- 229
Thanks you very much Guys, I'll rather stick with Norton in this case
McAfee is great as a webfilter, but AV is below average. It is also very inconsistent. Sometimes it outperforms every AV out there, sometimes it just lets all in... It can't be trusted too much. If you want McAfee, I've got unlimited devices license, valid till 2028. I can send you an install link. But I would strongly recommend that you use something like the Acronis or TrendMicro anti-ransomware tools in conjunction with McAfee.
I would go with Bitdefender or Kaspersky, but if it is between Norton & McAfee then absolute Norton.
- Nov 8, 2016
- 574
Norton. But honestly? I would get kaspersky free or just keep with Microsoft Defender (and Configure Defender from @Andy Ful, if you want)
I am very concerned about the following points with McAfee:
1. Many times it detects a threat as "Suspect". It asks for a reboot, then after reboot the executable is still there. If you try and run it, the cycle just repeats.
2. Many times it detects a threat on one machine, but not on another. Sometimes it would detect a threat on Virus Total, but will not stop it on anyone's machines.
3. Response time to new threats is definitely not best...
4. Behavioural blocker is a hit and miss. I've seen it in action a lot of times, but many times threat is actively working in the background and RealProtect is just sleeping.
5. I raised my concerns with McAfee team (I used their software and tested it for about 2 months every single day). I was asked to submit a sample that McAfee won't detect...which really, wasn't a hard task. The first sample that I downloaded that day was not detected. I sent them an email and did not hear anything ever since. It doesn't look like McAfee is looking to provide great protection. They rely on contracts and OEM bullshit to sell their software.
What I have observed (I don't wanna be accused of Bashing) was seen in various tests and the inconsistency of McAfee was confirmed.
AV-Test for example, In October awarded McAfee with "Top Product". December, just 2 months later, McAfee's detection rate is 5.0/6/0, which is almost the worst. Only eScan and TotalAV have a score lower than McAfee.
AV-comparatives or any other organisation doesn't place McAfee in a leading position either, in fact McAfee always tends to get pretty much the worst score, with some minor exceptions. The only test where it truly shined, was AV-Comparatives performance test, which I somehow don't accept as valid.
www.av-test.org
AV-Test's endurance Test is a good way to compare.
1. Many times it detects a threat as "Suspect". It asks for a reboot, then after reboot the executable is still there. If you try and run it, the cycle just repeats.
2. Many times it detects a threat on one machine, but not on another. Sometimes it would detect a threat on Virus Total, but will not stop it on anyone's machines.
3. Response time to new threats is definitely not best...
4. Behavioural blocker is a hit and miss. I've seen it in action a lot of times, but many times threat is actively working in the background and RealProtect is just sleeping.
5. I raised my concerns with McAfee team (I used their software and tested it for about 2 months every single day). I was asked to submit a sample that McAfee won't detect...which really, wasn't a hard task. The first sample that I downloaded that day was not detected. I sent them an email and did not hear anything ever since. It doesn't look like McAfee is looking to provide great protection. They rely on contracts and OEM bullshit to sell their software.
What I have observed (I don't wanna be accused of Bashing) was seen in various tests and the inconsistency of McAfee was confirmed.
AV-Test for example, In October awarded McAfee with "Top Product". December, just 2 months later, McAfee's detection rate is 5.0/6/0, which is almost the worst. Only eScan and TotalAV have a score lower than McAfee.
AV-comparatives or any other organisation doesn't place McAfee in a leading position either, in fact McAfee always tends to get pretty much the worst score, with some minor exceptions. The only test where it truly shined, was AV-Comparatives performance test, which I somehow don't accept as valid.
Endurance Test with 18 Internet Security Suites
The latest endurance test proves that there is even better protection for Windows 10 than is provided by Windows Defender. The lab at AV-TEST examined 18 Internet security suites over a period of 6 months. Here are the results.
www.av-test.org
AV-Test's endurance Test is a good way to compare.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Mar 28, 2019
- 564
Wow, nice. I didn't know this.I am very concerned about the following points with McAfee:
1. Many times it detects a threat as "Suspect". It asks for a reboot, then after reboot the executable is still there. If you try and run it, the cycle just repeats.
2. Many times it detects a threat on one machine, but not on another. Sometimes it would detect a threat on Virus Total, but will not stop it on anyone's machines.
3. Response time to new threats is definitely not best...
4. Behavioural blocker is a hit and miss. I've seen it in action a lot of times, but many times threat is actively working in the background and RealProtect is just sleeping.
5. I raised my concerns with McAfee team (I used their software and tested it for about 2 months every single day). I was asked to submit a sample that McAfee won't detect...which really, wasn't a hard task. The first sample that I downloaded that day was not detected. I sent them an email and did not hear anything ever since. It doesn't look like McAfee is looking to provide great protection. They rely on contracts and OEM bullshit to sell their software.
What I have observed (I don't wanna be accused of Bashing) was seen in various tests and the inconsistency of McAfee was confirmed.
AV-Test for example, In October awarded McAfee with "Top Product". December, just 2 months later, McAfee's detection rate is 5.0/6/0, which is almost the worst. Only eScan and TotalAV have a score lower than McAfee.
AV-comparatives or any other organisation doesn't place McAfee in a leading position either, in fact McAfee always tends to get pretty much the worst score, with some minor exceptions. The only test where it truly shined, was AV-Comparatives performance test, which I somehow don't accept as valid.
Endurance Test with 18 Internet Security Suites
The latest endurance test proves that there is even better protection for Windows 10 than is provided by Windows Defender. The lab at AV-TEST examined 18 Internet security suites over a period of 6 months. Here are the results.
AV-Test's endurance Test is a good way to compare.
Kaspersky and Norton always on top.
- May 1, 2018
- 229
- May 16, 2018
- 1,363
Endurance Test with 18 Internet Security Suites
The latest endurance test proves that there is even better protection for Windows 10 than is provided by Windows Defender. The lab at AV-TEST examined 18 Internet security suites over a period of 6 months. Here are the results.
www.av-test.org
This is good info.
Did this get its own thread already.... or did I miss it?
Last edited:
Endurance Test with 18 Internet Security Suites
The latest endurance test proves that there is even better protection for Windows 10 than is provided by Windows Defender. The lab at AV-TEST examined 18 Internet security suites over a period of 6 months. Here are the results.
AV-Test's endurance Test is a good way to compare.
Just playing devils advocate here, but their intro statement is a little misleading IMHO. I mean looking at the result WD for 5.8 out of 6 for protection, so I wouldn't really say that it's a missive home run for the ones that got 6 out of 6. Don't get me wrong, the products that got perfect are all well regarded, but me personally wouldn't be running to the store anytime soon to replace WD when it score near perfect too, that's just my opinion.
You don’t have to, WD is good. Bit heavy; with lots of false positives, but MS invested millions in its architecture and backend, bought many startups, mostly Israeli. The result is, WD jumped almost to the top from the rock bottom. It’s not so bad after all. Also, if you go AV-comparatives, you’ll see there is a period where Windows Defender smoothly transitions, from ~8x% to 99... it’s not like they woke up and suddenly their detection rate jumped.
Last edited by a moderator:
What I forgot to mention about McAfee, which I know is now off-topic, but is worth saying for the public to know is literally shocking.
Most of the samples that haven’t been detected, weren’t even signed or anything. So McAfee allows a totally suspicious executable to mess around with the system, download additional unsuspicious files and do whatever the hell it wants.
This was one of the things I never understood. I mean if you miss a highly-sophisticated infection that’s fine, but unsigned exes, with no visible window, connecting to the network, self-terminating, downloading other files and scripts, creating scheduled tasks, autoruns, collecting and sending data... and McAfee’s codenamed Raptor (RealProtect) just sits quietly... I just don’t get it. Seems like McAfee needs to be taught some fundamentals.
Most of the samples that haven’t been detected, weren’t even signed or anything. So McAfee allows a totally suspicious executable to mess around with the system, download additional unsuspicious files and do whatever the hell it wants.
This was one of the things I never understood. I mean if you miss a highly-sophisticated infection that’s fine, but unsigned exes, with no visible window, connecting to the network, self-terminating, downloading other files and scripts, creating scheduled tasks, autoruns, collecting and sending data... and McAfee’s codenamed Raptor (RealProtect) just sits quietly... I just don’t get it. Seems like McAfee needs to be taught some fundamentals.
- Status
