New changes to McAfee's GUI

roger_m

Level 36
Verified
Top poster
Content Creator
Dec 4, 2014
2,563
I do like the new UI, however there is one thing which I don't like about the both the new and previous UI. Every time you open McAfee it insists on showing information about how it has protected your system, as well as giving you the options to remove tracking cookies, etc. There are number of different messages it shows and each time you open it, it shows 3 or 4 of them. You dismiss a message and then get shown the next one. There is no way to permanently dismiss messages. The following are just some of the alerts it shows.

McAfee 1.png
McAfee 2.png
McAfee 3.png
McAfee 4.png
McAfee 5.png
The final screenshot, it what you see after you've dismissed all of the messages. While the message about been protected from over 1,000 risky connections sounds concerning, I'm not worried as none of my systems actually get infected.
 

Cortex

Level 26
Verified
Top poster
Well-known
Aug 4, 2016
1,500
I really dislike useless information regarding what the AV has done, it's meaningless, (that can't be permanently disabled) the only info I need is the program is running that can usually be seen by the tray icon & if there is infection or a strong potential - F-Secure pushes it luck with me with the info at the bottom of it's main screen.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 89360

Agree, very annoying!!!!!!! also inside my VM runs quite slow even with the new plain GUI...

And the FW is blocking suspicious connections since You start the system (even without testing malware) :unsure: :rolleyes:
They all do that, they reject packets because a rule told them to do so 🤣
However it has wrongly been categorised as “suspicious connection” when in fact it could be your smart TV trying to “handshake” when you’ve set Public mode for your network.
It’s only McAfee that keeps a count of rejected packets.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 89360

It is a VM and I have no Smart TV connected to the network :)
It was just a way of saying. If you click on “See what we blocked” it will open the security history and you’ll see that many blocked packets belong to Windows Network Discovery or other legit processes. Only NetGuard is capable of blocking a connection to suspicious address and in that case you’ll see a notification saying hacker attack has been blocked.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: harlan4096

sepik

Level 11
Well-known
Aug 21, 2018
509
When i tested Zonealarm Pro, it also blocked a lot of connections during the boot stage. After resolving blocked IPs manually, many of them seems to be somekind of Microsoft telemetry etc and stuff like that. ZA Pro is a good firewall in term of protection, but it "choke" when there's too much traffic and eats a lot of CPU when torrenting. With 1Gbit/1GBit connection, speedtest.net download speed went down to 500mbit/s. Not good. McAfee firewall went down to 750mbit/s. WFC was 850mbit/s which is acceptable.

Kind regards,
-sepik
 
F

ForgottenSeer 89360

When i tested Zonealarm Pro, it also blocked a lot of connections during the boot stage. After resolving blocked IPs manually, many of them seems to be somekind of Microsoft telemetry etc and stuff like that. ZA Pro is a good firewall in term of protection, but it "choke" when there's too much traffic and eats a lot of CPU when torrenting. With 1Gbit/1GBit connection, speedtest.net download speed went down to 500mbit/s. Not good. McAfee firewall went down to 750mbit/s. WFC was 850mbit/s which is acceptable.

Kind regards,
-sepik
Well there are different sertings, you can try edit the rules or set your network as Home Network.
 
  • Like
Reactions: roger_m

sepik

Level 11
Well-known
Aug 21, 2018
509
I'll stay with my current setup, which is Symantec Endpoint Protection and only firewall with Intrusion Prevention/Exploit protection enabled. It's very effective against web attacks.
"[SID: 29670] Web Attack: Malicious Shell Script Download 2 attack blocked. Traffic has been blocked for this application: C:\PROGRAM FILES (X86)\GOOGLE\CHROME\APPLICATION\CHROME.EXE"
My AV is GData, it should catch shellscripts too, but Symantec IPS was faster. :)