- Jun 14, 2017
- 264
McAfee Total Protection Tested!
- Thread starter Daljeet
- Start date
It is advised to take all reviews with a grain of salt. In extreme cases some reviews use dramatization for entertainment purposes.
- Jan 8, 2017
- 1,320
- Jan 10, 2017
- 1,061
- Apr 1, 2017
- 1,782
The guys testing Avs in a better way and i like his tests!although the samples he uses for dynamic detection are not new!
Hands down that is the ugliest test I have ever seen in my life. I always recommend to take Anti-Virus tests with a grain of salt in general, regardless of the source, but this review just takes the biscuit.
Unless the author is telling me that they have reverse engineered McAfee products to determine exactly how the web filter has been implemented and works, and then also reverse-engineered web browsers to determine how their web filters work, the test is completely unrealistic and inaccurate when it comes down to the URL test. How do you know that the browsers aren't doing a database comparison before a connection is actually started without checking? How do you know the browser doesn't do its own internal checks before the security product is even aware of the connection, or at-least to the extent where it can use the received data for it to perform a scan?
Google/Firefox intercepting and blocking a malicious URL before McAfee doesn't necessarily mean that McAfee missed it, it may have identified it if Google/Firefox hadn't. If not through blacklisting, maybe through web-based heuristic analysis... I can see Intel having implemented something of the sort for their McAfee products. Plus if the data is blocked by a third-party, it prevents the AV from receiving the remaining which could have lead to a detection. Until you reverse engineer, you can't say for certain. Therefore this entire test was stupid and the "missed" URLs because of third-parties identifying first is nothing but pure, misleading speculation.
The "New" samples are VirusSign? LOL! You've got to be kidding me?? That is just stupid, but what is more stupid is how McAfee don't go through new VirusSign packs and add them to the database with a proper detection name. They should have had 100% for that, surely they have access to VirusSign paid samples as well as the free list. The more the merrier
What a stupid test.
Unless the author is telling me that they have reverse engineered McAfee products to determine exactly how the web filter has been implemented and works, and then also reverse-engineered web browsers to determine how their web filters work, the test is completely unrealistic and inaccurate when it comes down to the URL test. How do you know that the browsers aren't doing a database comparison before a connection is actually started without checking? How do you know the browser doesn't do its own internal checks before the security product is even aware of the connection, or at-least to the extent where it can use the received data for it to perform a scan?
Google/Firefox intercepting and blocking a malicious URL before McAfee doesn't necessarily mean that McAfee missed it, it may have identified it if Google/Firefox hadn't. If not through blacklisting, maybe through web-based heuristic analysis... I can see Intel having implemented something of the sort for their McAfee products. Plus if the data is blocked by a third-party, it prevents the AV from receiving the remaining which could have lead to a detection. Until you reverse engineer, you can't say for certain. Therefore this entire test was stupid and the "missed" URLs because of third-parties identifying first is nothing but pure, misleading speculation.
The "New" samples are VirusSign? LOL! You've got to be kidding me?? That is just stupid, but what is more stupid is how McAfee don't go through new VirusSign packs and add them to the database with a proper detection name. They should have had 100% for that, surely they have access to VirusSign paid samples as well as the free list. The more the merrier
What a stupid test.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,298
@daljeet
The test shows that Edge + Smartcreen provides the best protection against phising and malicious URL's followed by Chrome + Google and on a far distance Firefox. Better to disable the features of the browser when testing the effectiveness of an AV against bad-url's.
Good test of browser's protection capabilities
, not so relevant test for an Antivirus web-protection (because you consider a block by browser's protection mechanism as a fail).
Regards Kees
The test shows that Edge + Smartcreen provides the best protection against phising and malicious URL's followed by Chrome + Google and on a far distance Firefox. Better to disable the features of the browser when testing the effectiveness of an AV against bad-url's.
Good test of browser's protection capabilities
, not so relevant test for an Antivirus web-protection (because you consider a block by browser's protection mechanism as a fail).Regards Kees
Last edited:
I knew that McAfee was good detection-wise, but I have had both McAfee Total Protection & McAfee Livesafe and they are awful
- May 16, 2017
- 200
Wow, I never saw the word 'stupid' so many times in a single post before... (As far as my stupid mind remembers) or maybe its because I'm a stupid and not reading enough stupid forum posts lately
BTW, you're right about the browser intercepting/blocking bad URLs thing
- Mar 13, 2016
- 1,298
What I like about @daljeet video is that the results are summarized and test is fast forwarded.
So many video testers force you to view the entire video and they don't increase display speed at recorded snail speed.
So many video testers force you to view the entire video and they don't increase display speed at recorded snail speed.
- Oct 11, 2014
- 317
- Jun 14, 2017
- 264
Same here I like this person videos Computer Solutions
I subscribe to his channel few ago
Similar threads
