Serious Discussion New McAfee and what is wrong with it

Trident

Level 34
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Feb 7, 2023
2,355
McAfee offers more aggressive detection and protection on downloads through their download advisor. The blocking of malicious and phishing sites is solid too. McAfee now blocks fully qualified malicious domains and IP addresses system-wide.

All in all, it is ok for an average user.
 

Obsession

New Member
Oct 11, 2024
2
IMHO it's not bad that only on-execution scanning is done. What is malware supposed to do if it's lying around on the disk and never executed? I also always set Eset to on-execution. The speed is fantastic and so far I've never caught anything from it. What is the point of a scan that scans the same file again every time the machine accesses it? I know there are different opinions on this, but the danger is not as great as it is portrayed here, it only consists in the fact that you can copy the file. Files that you receive from strangers (or friends), for example on a USB stick, should be scanned beforehand anyway and not blindly executed. That is where the danger is greater, but in this case the problem is IN FRONT of the screen.

just my 2 cents.
 

Game Of Thrones

Level 7
Thread author
Verified
Well-known
Jun 5, 2014
304
IMHO it's not bad that only on-execution scanning is done. What is malware supposed to do if it's lying around on the disk and never executed? I also always set Eset to on-execution. The speed is fantastic and so far I've never caught anything from it. What is the point of a scan that scans the same file again every time the machine accesses it? I know there are different opinions on this, but the danger is not as great as it is portrayed here, it only consists in the fact that you can copy the file. Files that you receive from strangers (or friends), for example on a USB stick, should be scanned beforehand anyway and not blindly executed. That is where the danger is greater, but in this case the problem is IN FRONT of the screen.

just my 2 cents.
most antimalware scans local files once and then only scans new files so the impact will be minimal. only geeks scan the USB files, normal people just open the files or copy them and pass them to others, the point is with this on execution scan the chain of attack/infection will go on. As you see with Kaspersky or ESET it is possible to implement a balanced yet powerful policy of scanning and prevention which is still light on resources. with kinds like eset or Kaspersky, you don't need to worry about the performance of on access scan they made a balance by using local detections and cloud detections(hybrid detection which is the best policy and malware detection tactic)

this on execution scan is not logical, malware should be taken care of ASAP, lying around on disk or network or USB devices is not rational. they wanted to make McAfee light but they messed up in this on execution thing
 

Obsession

New Member
Oct 11, 2024
2
It's not that simple. When you say "only scan new files", consider the following scenario: you download a file, the AV doesn't find anything. You just leave the file in the downloads folder. Then the AV updates its signature, which COULD find a virus in this file, but since it's not newer, it won't be scanned anymore. Even more stupidly, whitelisted files are usually not scanned when they're executed - the file is clean, it's already been scanned.

The hybrid detection you mentioned has nothing to do with on-access or on-execution. One is HOW malware is detected, the other is WHEN malware is detected.

And in that case, it's usually sufficient if the malware is detected BEFORE it's executed.

These are different strategies, each with its own specific advantages and disadvantages. This is simply not a black and white issue, a lot of people have already racked their brains over it.

For example, I don't want an AV that constantly scans the same files and wastes my power and time.

Kaspersky is a completely different issue (in relation to UltraAV), but even there and in ESET there is the option to set it to on-execution (which I have always done, I used to be with Kaspersky for years, then with ESET until six months ago and now with F-Secure and, as a result of a campaign, also with McAfee - but different PCs). With F-Secure (which many people consider to be very easy) I do notice the on-access check. But that's another story.
 

BSONE

Level 2
Verified
Feb 17, 2024
80
Trying Mcafee Antivirus now. Nice and simple UI that gets out of your way similar to Windows Security and F-Secure. The Mcafee Webadvisor Chrome extension is responsive and gives green ticks to Website search results. Has very little CPU usage on fast.com and speedtest.net download tests (1000mps/50mps internet). Quite fond of it at the moment.
 

mlnevese

Level 28
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
May 3, 2015
1,770
Just to add my $0.02 any downloaded file will be scanned on download for malware before being saved. Then only on execution or if a manual scan is triggered.
 
Last edited:

RoboMan

Level 35
Verified
Top Poster
Content Creator
Well-known
Jun 24, 2016
2,490
IMHO it's not bad that only on-execution scanning is done. What is malware supposed to do if it's lying around on the disk and never executed? I also always set Eset to on-execution. The speed is fantastic and so far I've never caught anything from it. What is the point of a scan that scans the same file again every time the machine accesses it? I know there are different opinions on this, but the danger is not as great as it is portrayed here, it only consists in the fact that you can copy the file. Files that you receive from strangers (or friends), for example on a USB stick, should be scanned beforehand anyway and not blindly executed. That is where the danger is greater, but in this case the problem is IN FRONT of the screen.

just my 2 cents.
Take into account that a malicious file may be actually executed without user interaction. There has been cases where a vulnerability on unzipping software lead to malware exe executing upon user extracting the compressed file. Usually, the triple combo is the safest approach: scan on access, on modification, and on execution.
 

nickstar1

Level 10
Verified
Well-known
Dec 10, 2022
483
Looks the new mcafee is really awesome it’s very light and doesn’t have annoying ads in the products like other vendors like gen digital.

Mcafee has improved everything from its detection/ protection. The one thing that drives me nuts is how slow mcafee scans are. Other vendors only take like 3 to 5 mins. Mcafee takes 28 minuets/40minuets.
 

tofargone

Level 6
Jun 24, 2024
264
Looks the new mcafee is really awesome it’s very light and doesn’t have annoying ads in the products like other vendors like gen digital.

Mcafee has improved everything from its detection/ protection.

The one thing that drives me nuts is how slow mcafee scans are. Other vendors only take like 3 to 5 mins. Mcafee takes 28 minuets/40minuets.
Man that is bad, weird though on my PC McAfee scans just like Kaspersky, maybe faster, just a few seconds...Maybe it's something else happening on your PC (just sharing in case you need the info to research further)
 

nickstar1

Level 10
Verified
Well-known
Dec 10, 2022
483
Man that is bad, weird though on my PC McAfee scans just like Kaspersky, maybe faster, just a few seconds...Maybe it's something else happening on your PC (just sharing in case you need the info to research further)
A full scan of McAfee typically takes 30 mins which could be improved. This is a freshly installed windows PC and my other laptop as well same thing. not sure why yours is scanning so fast that's actually concerning to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: simmerskool

tofargone

Level 6
Jun 24, 2024
264
A full scan of McAfee typically takes 30 mins which could be improved. This is a freshly installed windows PC and my other laptop as well same thing. not sure why yours is scanning so fast that's actually concerning to me.
OH I'm sorry.

I thought you were talking about "fast or quick scan) I always do those first, then a full scan if it finds anything. I regularly scan with offline scanners too, like Norton Eraser and other, once or twice a month (always clean)
 
  • Like
Reactions: roger_m

vonvon

Level 3
Verified
Well-known
Nov 25, 2014
125
While waiting for a lighter version of ZoneAlarmNextGen, out of curiosity, I had fun installing McAfee ultimate. Really very light and discreet apart from a false positive on ElevenClock. I'll keep it a bit to see for myself, the protection tests being very good. To be continued...
 

Vitali Ortzi

Level 28
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Dec 12, 2016
1,764
While waiting for a lighter version of ZoneAlarmNextGen, out of curiosity, I had fun installing McAfee ultimate. Really very light and discreet apart from a false positive on ElevenClock. I'll keep it a bit to see for myself, the protection tests being very good. To be continued...
The trellix version I have tried wasn't exactly lightweight on my specific system actually although zonealarm uses a bigger signature (more ram usage ) it felt lighter then trellix on the system I tried it in
(Didn't check the consumer version)

not sure if you can set trellix as cloud only but might try trellix again in the future and play more with the settings
Actually I tried even having only the network modules like Symantec (firewall etc ) but it was heavier than Symantec config of only firewall and ips module (only Symantec vs trellix network modules nothing else compared )

Actually using Symantec firewall , ips , eset endpoint advanced, hitmanpro.alert , commodo all together feels lighter in nearly every task and at every task if I disable cryptoguard (cryptoguard slows down some software like ida pro and some operations in the ide etc but it's easy to just disable it temporarily)
 
Last edited:

partha_roy

Level 4
Verified
Well-known
Oct 16, 2022
151
McAfee stands out to me due to its streamlined security approach. I value the seamlessly integrated, pre-configured protection modules, which eliminate the risk of misconfigurations through unnecessary customization options like protected folders or webcam protection.

If you prioritize robust, top-tier security without the distractions of unnecessary options, McAfee is an excellent choice.
 

Vitali Ortzi

Level 28
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Dec 12, 2016
1,764
McAfee stands out to me due to its streamlined security approach. I value the seamlessly integrated, pre-configured protection modules, which eliminate the risk of misconfigurations through unnecessary customization options like protected folders or webcam protection.

If you prioritize robust, top-tier security without the distractions of unnecessary options, McAfee is an excellent choice.
Macafee isn't bad at all and yes it's preconfigured more aggressive then some av software defaults
But all around pretty good
I would say the web advisor is in the top 5 in fake store detection and at least top ten in phishing

Resource use has improved , malware detection

Basically it's above average at almost everything by default
 

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top