I don’t use a laptop so I only really need a solution when I’m online anyway. I’m a great candidate for cloud solutions! I wonder if most people operate online most of the time? That’s when you really need protectionIt's still very bad without cloud access. Actually, old McAfee before they moved to the all-cloud technology was not bad at all.
I don’t use a laptop so I only really need a solution when I’m online anyway. I’m a great candidate for cloud solutions! I wonder if most people operate online most of the time? That’s when you really need protection
Very good point, my protection environment is purely home. Corporate networks are a whole different beast I wasn’t thinking about.There are times when you have to work on confidential, sensitive stuff, so while you are working on these type of projects, you lose access to basically anything other than a select set of domains/websites that your organization requires you to work on. I recall a case or two in my life where I was in such kind of closed network that I couldn't even receive antivirus updates during the working hours. There's also the case of misconfigured proxy server access at certain workplaces which would temporarily stop your AV from gaining cloud access. Unfortunately, during such times, inside the workplace, using pen drive or local intranet file transfer is still very much in vogue due to convenience factors. It is in such cases that you can get infected, and yes it has happened a few times. Of course, your AV would pick it up as soon as it got access to the net/cloud again, but it's probably not a great idea to leave a malware hanging in your computer a long while.
That's why cloud systems are not supposed to completely replace signature based systems, over dependency on cloud has a lot of negative aspects. This is a good reason why Avira and BitDefender are in fact strong candidates and well regarded in the industry: they do not need the cloud to deliver a good protection.
Very good point, my protection environment is purely home. Corporate networks are a whole different beast I wasn’t thinking about.
I think it depends on the use case. I don’t download files now and then execute them later very often. And am almost never offline. In a case like mine ESET, with good signatures, or a strong cloud solution such as WD is suitable. Though currently I’m using Bitdefender which has a good BB. I wouldn’t say one is more important than the other as a blanket statement, because not all use cases are the same. I can also save a download and execute it after a day or two while connected and get the benefit of smartscreen or live grid. But for a user who has inconsistent access or needs to be offline I agree with you that good a BB and HIPS will be more beneficial.A lot of people would say that corporates have their own endpoints and endpoint security etc. - but consider this, there are a lot of people working basically on consultancy or contractual basis for the corporates - i.e. they are actually employed and paid by another firm but they are going and working for this firm because of agreement/arrangement. So from time to time the employee would visit different companies and stay for some time and then be assigned another job - in this case bring your own device is most common because it is expensive to allocate resources to someone who's not going to be around for the long term. And there are specialists who will use their own device irrespective of what the company offers them just because they are more comfortable and efficient with it. So basically, this situation exists and is not as uncommon as people believe. A good BB, HIPS - that can work offline too. A good cloud is rendered useless when there is no internet. That is why, good signatures, good behaviour blocker, HIPS is far more important than cloud services or AI/Machine Learning (because, machine learning on client computer is computationally expensive and can lead to diverging outcomes on per-computer basis, hence most of the ML algorithms run on vendor-side and are cloud-linked to users).
It’s the same with Comcast/xfinity and their Norton offering, which seems to be complete. The offering of Norton is actually kind of great, but they way overcharge. And don’t get me started on data caps, which have been proven to be unnecessary, at least in the US, with the increased demand recently.I can answer this, at least partly. This is the webpage with the McAfee product offered by Altice and it seems free of charge to Optimum customers. It also seems pretty surprisingly complete, and includes the firewall. It kind of better be "free" considering Optimum majorly overcharges for basic Internet, even if you use your own modem and don't rent their flimsy crap. FIOS, where are yoooou? Yoo-hoo!
Free McAfee internet security for multiple devices is included with Optimum Online. Protect your devices, laptops and computers with internet protection powered by McAfee.www.optimum.net