Which Internet Security Suite to get included with new computer?

I am ordering a new computer (Vista Home Premium 64 bit) that offers an
Internet Security Suite from Norton, McAfee, or Trend Micro in the
purchase price.

I am seeking recommendations on which of the three to get.

I am open to advice ranging from one of them being superior, to they all
are inferior, to which one sucks the least, or even the one easiest to
remove without hosing the system before installing a different suite.

I also have available Kaspersky 7.0 (which I know will update when
installed) with one more available computer on its license. It is
running fine on two Vista Home Premium 32 bit systems.

--

I'm glad my Mom named me Aaron,
That's what everybody calls me.

 

> I am ordering a new computer (Vista Home Premium 64 bit) that offers an <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Internet Security Suite from Norton, McAfee, or Trend Micro in the
> purchase price.
>
> I am seeking recommendations on which of the three to get.
>
> I am open to advice ranging from one of them being superior, to they all
> are inferior, to which one sucks the least, or even the one easiest to
> remove without hosing the system before installing a different suite.
>
> I also have available Kaspersky 7.0 (which I know will update when
> installed) with one more available computer on its license. It is
> running fine on two Vista Home Premium 32 bit systems.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

I should have mentioned, I have no problem with recommendations for
individual programs to make a 'suite'.

--

I'm glad my Mom named me Aaron,
That's what everybody calls me.

 

Aaron wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I am ordering a new computer (Vista Home Premium 64 bit) that offers an
> Internet Security Suite from Norton, McAfee, or Trend Micro in the
> purchase price.
>
> I am seeking recommendations on which of the three to get.
>
> I am open to advice ranging from one of them being superior, to they all
> are inferior, to which one sucks the least, or even the one easiest to
> remove without hosing the system before installing a different suite.
>
> I also have available Kaspersky 7.0 (which I know will update when
> installed) with one more available computer on its license. It is
> running fine on two Vista Home Premium 32 bit systems.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


You'll get nearly as many differing opinions as you will responses.

I'll start by saying that I don't think any security "suite" is a
good choice. It'd be better to use smaller, less-resource-draining
stand-alone products.

I had used, and recommended, Norton Antivirus and then Norton
Internet Security, for many years, on Win98, WinNT, Win2K, and WinXP,
all without any significant problems. I had used McAfee prior to that.
But it's been several years since I've been tempted to try McAfee
products. Their quality seemed to take a steep nose-dive after they were
acquired by Network Associates.

However, when my subscription to Symantec's updates for Norton
Internet Security came up for renewal (at a cost substantially higher
than the preceding year's subscription), I decided to try less expensive
solutions. I downloaded and installed the free version of GriSoft's AVG
( ). It proved to be easily
installed, easy to use, and quite effective. Additionally, I was
pleasantly surprised to see a small but very noticeable improvement in
my PC's performance, once I'd replaced the Symantec product. Another
free (for personal use) anti-virus product is AVAST! 4 Home Edition
(), which is what I've used
without problems on both WinXP Pro and Vista Business.

For a recent comparison of anti-virus products:

Retrospective / ProActive Test


Stick with the Kaspersky, which is superior to any of the suites being
offered, and which you already own.

Vista's built-in Windows Firewall is adequate for most users, but
not particularly easy to configure. Vista's built-in firewall, although
superior to that of WinXP, is of a rudimentary nature, intended to meet
the simpler needs of most home consumers (or business/enterprise clients
already ensconced behind more advanced perimeter defenses).

One 3rd-party add-on (Sphinx's Vista Firewall Control
) might make the Vista Firewall a bit more
useful to you, but nothing but a completely independent product will be
able to provide the detailed control you want.

There are two interfaces for Vistas built-in firewall:

1) A simplified one accessed through the Control Panel that is the only
one most people see.

2) And the more advanced "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security
(WF.msc)," accessed via the Start Menu's Administrative Tools folder,
for the experienced user who wants better control.

Having said that, it's important to remember that firewalls and
anti-virus applications, which should always be used and should always
be running, while important components of "safe hex," cannot, and should
not be expected to, protect the computer user from him/herself.
Ultimately, it is incumbent upon each and every computer user to learn
how to secure his/her own computer.



--

Bruce Chambers

Help us help you:




They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. ~Benjamin Franklin

Many people would rather die than think; in fact, most do. ~Bertrand Russell

The philosopher has never killed any priests, whereas the priest has
killed a great many philosophers.
~ Denis Diderot

 

Trend-Micro. Because I know they used to be good, I like their
write-ups, and I hear so few complaints about them.

"Aaron" <kem_tek@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OHy2YXHxJHA.1492@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro--><!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> I am ordering a new computer (Vista Home Premium 64 bit) that offers
>> an Internet Security Suite from Norton, McAfee, or Trend Micro in the
>> purchase price.
>>
>> I am seeking recommendations on which of the three to get.
>>
>> I am open to advice ranging from one of them being superior, to they
>> all are inferior, to which one sucks the least, or even the one
>> easiest to remove without hosing the system before installing a
>> different suite.
>>
>> I also have available Kaspersky 7.0 (which I know will update when
>> installed) with one more available computer on its license. It is
>> running fine on two Vista Home Premium 32 bit systems.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> I should have mentioned, I have no problem with recommendations for
> individual programs to make a 'suite'.
>
> --
>
> I'm glad my Mom named me Aaron,
> That's what everybody calls me. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Aaron wrote:<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I am ordering a new computer (Vista Home Premium 64 bit) that offers an
> Internet Security Suite from Norton, McAfee, or Trend Micro in the
> purchase price.
>
> I am seeking recommendations on which of the three to get.
>
> I am open to advice ranging from one of them being superior, to they all
> are inferior, to which one sucks the least, or even the one easiest to
> remove without hosing the system before installing a different suite.
>
> I also have available Kaspersky 7.0 (which I know will update when
> installed) with one more available computer on its license. It is
> running fine on two Vista Home Premium 32 bit systems.
>
> --
>
> I'm glad my Mom named me Aaron,
> That's what everybody calls me.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Kaspersky, go with what you know works for you. Norton / Symantec and
MacAfee are a waste of space. And you know what, the fact that you were
sensible enough to ask means you already have the best protection you
can get - which is common sense.

 

On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:40:56 -0400, Aaron <kem_tek@hotmail.com> wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I am ordering a new computer (Vista Home Premium 64 bit) that offers an
> Internet Security Suite from Norton, McAfee, or Trend Micro in the
> purchase price.
>
> I am seeking recommendations on which of the three to get.
>
> I am open to advice ranging from one of them being superior, to they all
> are inferior, to which one sucks the least, or even the one easiest to
> remove without hosing the system before installing a different suite.
>
> I also have available Kaspersky 7.0 (which I know will update when
> installed) with one more available computer on its license. It is
> running fine on two Vista Home Premium 32 bit systems.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


Three points:

1. I think using *any* security suite is a very poor practice. It's
far better to choose each individual piece of software based on its
qualities as compared to the competing products. The company that
makes the best anti-virus program doesn't necessarily also make the
best anti-spyware program, so I recommend staying away from suites
that force you into making such an assumption

In fact, I think the same thing about almost any kind of suite of
software, including an Office suite. I, for example, use WordPerfect
in preference to Microsoft Word, but Excel in preference to Quattro
Pro.

2. Norton and McAfee are the two *worst* vendors of security software,
in my view. I would stay far away from all their products.

3. Trend Micro is much better than either of the other two, but I
would still recommend that you use the following:

a. The built-in Windows Vista firewall

b. NOD32 anti-virus

c. AT least *two* anti spyware programs. The best is Malwarebytes, but
also add as many as you want from this list:

SuperAntiSpyware
Adaware
Spybot Search and Destroy.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP - Windows Desktop Experience
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

 

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> skrev i meddelelsen
news:be52v4hos76mmippnlt171qe7gkfj6n3d4@4ax.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 20:40:56 -0400, Aaron <kem_tek@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 2. Norton and McAfee are the two *worst* vendors of security software,
> in my view. I would stay far away from all their products.
>
> 3. Trend Micro is much better than either of the other two, but I
> would still recommend that you use the following:
>
> a. The built-in Windows Vista firewall
>
> b. NOD32 anti-virus
>
> c. AT least *two* anti spyware programs. The best is Malwarebytes, but
> also add as many as you want from this list:
>
> SuperAntiSpyware
> Adaware
> Spybot Search and Destroy.<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Why not start by recomminding the user to run as a non admin (LUA)?
Shall we stop trying to put all our trust in fear driven products and start
using our common sense?

 

None of the below. Stick with an antivirus program you trust, add an
anti-spyware/adware package, and turn on and use the Windows firewall. I
don't like, use or recommend suites because of the system impact they carry.

"Aaron" <kem_tek@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:OJ2wYVHxJHA.4452@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I am ordering a new computer (Vista Home Premium 64 bit) that offers an
> Internet Security Suite from Norton, McAfee, or Trend Micro in the
> purchase price.
>
> I am seeking recommendations on which of the three to get.
>
> I am open to advice ranging from one of them being superior, to they all
> are inferior, to which one sucks the least, or even the one easiest to
> remove without hosing the system before installing a different suite.
>
> I also have available Kaspersky 7.0 (which I know will update when
> installed) with one more available computer on its license. It is running
> fine on two Vista Home Premium 32 bit systems.
>
> --
>
> I'm glad my Mom named me Aaron,
> That's what everybody calls me. <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

A Security Suite ends up being a bloated, resource-hungry hog, that tries to
be everything to everybody, and fails in all departments.

I even disable Defender, as is not prime time Anti spyware.

I recommend the combination below:



Avast Anti-Virus is XP and Vista compatible (32bit and 64bit Versions),
FREE, auto-updating, and a low resources user of your computer.
And, only have 1(one) Anti-Virus installed / running on your computer at any
one time.
Conflicts may occur if you have more than 1(one).



Spybot Search & Destroy 1.6.2 is a very good, FREE Anti-Spyware Program.
Download, install, update, and immunize your System with it.
Then SCAN with it.
Update it, and scan your System once a fortnight.



SpywareBlaster 4.2 is a non-intrusive, FREE Anti-Spyware Program (no
scanning by you!).
SpywareBlaster prevents the installation of many so-called spyware, adware
and malware programs by disabling the CLSIDs of popular spyware ActiveX
controls, and also prevents the installation of any of them via a webpage
Update it once a fortnight.



Malwarebytes is as the name says, a Malware Remover!
For the Free version scroll down their page to either download from
Download.com, or Major Geeks.com

Download, install, update and scan once a fortnight..

--
Mad Mike


"Aaron" wrote:
<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I am ordering a new computer (Vista Home Premium 64 bit) that offers an
> Internet Security Suite from Norton, McAfee, or Trend Micro in the
> purchase price.
>
> I am seeking recommendations on which of the three to get.
>
> I am open to advice ranging from one of them being superior, to they all
> are inferior, to which one sucks the least, or even the one easiest to
> remove without hosing the system before installing a different suite.
>
> I also have available Kaspersky 7.0 (which I know will update when
> installed) with one more available computer on its license. It is
> running fine on two Vista Home Premium 32 bit systems.
>
> --
>
> I'm glad my Mom named me Aaron,
> That's what everybody calls me.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Aaron;1026978 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> I am ordering a new computer (Vista Home Premium 64 bit) that offers an
> Internet Security Suite from Norton, McAfee, or Trend Micro in the
> purchase price.
> .<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

*Do not get Trend Micro it is subpar. Norton is the best out of these
three-Trend is by far the worst.*

Trend Micro is bottom of the barrel Antivirus/Antimlaware program and
will at best provide subpar protection.

No Lab certification from either AV-Comparatives, or Virus Bulletin.
There is only the west coast labs certification, which shows a missed
Trojan, and ICSA (which doesn’t even test for polymorphic
threats-i.e., self replicating/potentially catastrophic malware
threats). AV-Comparatives is top notch, and is the best, followed
closely by Virus Bulletin’s VB100. Trend Micro failed the last
VB100, and has no recent entries at all with AV-Comparatives. It is
usually a fair indicator that a Vendor’s product is subpar, when
it is not entered into either AV-Comparatives, or the VB100, and/or
consistently fails the VB100 whereas NOD32 and Symantec consistently
pass year after year.

'_http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/produ..._pro_2009.html_'
()

*--*“Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009 Review*--*
-*-*Jan 22, 2009 by Erik Larkin, PC World*-*-
-*-*::TREND MICRO'S SUITE FAILS AT THE MOST BASIC TASK OF DETECTING AND
BLOCKING MALICIOUS SOFTWARE. NOT RECOMMENDED.::*-*-

-*-*Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009 ($70 for three users as of
12/24/08 ) fails badly at any security suite's most important task:
Identifying malware before it can attack your PC. In tests for "Paying
for Protection," our 2009 roundup of nine security suites, Trend Micro's
newest offering didn't just come in last place in that crucial
category--its dismal 69.3 percent detection rate was a full 20
percentage points behind the next worst competitor. In AV-Test.org's
tests, which put each suite up against a huge array of bots, password
stealers, and other malware, top performers tagged about 99 percent of
the 654,914 samples--but Trend Micro's package let three out of every
ten pieces of malicious software go by untouched. That just doesn't cut
it for security software.*-*-
-*-*Trend Micro likewise fell flat in heuristic tests using
two-week-old signature files to simulate dealing with unknown threats,
and at catching annoying adware. It was dead last in both
categories.*-*-
-*-*The company says that it emphasizes proactive protection that
attempts to block threats before they can try installing malware (and
before the suite would have to recognize it). Trend Micro uses its own
Web crawlers, download tests, and user reports to maintain a database of
malicious Web sites, and will block those sites from loading on your PC.
It's a valid approach--one that could well supplement scanning for
malware on your PC--but it can't yet replace that core detection
task.*-*-
-*-*Trend Micro's package did shine when tasked with cleaning up an
existing infection. It removed all the files from nine out of ten
malware infections, a performance that only BitDefender matched. It was
almost as good in dealing with Registry changes, placing second in that
test.*-*-
-*-*The suite offers a few interesting features, such as a scan for
missing Windows patches that assigns a risk level for each one. You'll
also get a useful Wi-Fi advisor button in a browser toolbar that can
warn you if your wireless network lacks encryption--a smart tool placed
in a good location.*-*-
-*-*Trend Micro also did well with its user interface, and clearly took
time to provide good descriptions for features and options. Right away
we noticed the use of plain English throughout the program.*-*-
-*-*But the company went too far with its desire to simplify, as we saw
no pop-ups or warnings when it blocked our attempted Zango-adware
download. We had to dig into the program logs to find out what was going
on. It's good to help people make informed decisions to protect their
computer, but it's also important to at least give users an idea that
something we just tried to do was potentially harmful. Without an alert,
a user might think that their browser simply had a problem, and they
might then try installing the dangerous software through another
browser--or even worse, on another PC. You can change the default
setting to display warnings when your PC encounters viruses or spyware,
but you shouldn't have to.*-*-
-*-*Trend Micro's suite has some good points, but there's no getting
around the fact that Internet Security Pro 2009 fails at detecting
malicious software, and therefore fails as a security program. We cannot
recommend buying it.”*-*-


--
rive0108

'::_-Win_$500_With_Vista_Forums-_::'
(

 

*Do not get Trend Micro it is subpar. Norton is the best out of these
three-Trend is by far the worst. *
For recent Certified lab test results
see:'_http://www.vistax64.com/system-security/172321-vista-sp1-antivirus-performance.html_'
()

'_http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?vendor=VE3_'
()
'_http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary_'
()
'_http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/report20.pdf_'
()
'_http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report21.pdf_'
()
'_http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary_'
()

Trend Micro is bottom of the barrel Antivirus/Antimlaware program and
will at best provide subpar protection.

No Lab certification from either AV-Comparatives, or Virus Bulletin.
There is only the west coast labs certification, which shows a missed
Trojan, and ICSA (which doesn’t even test for polymorphic
threats-i.e., self replicating/potentially catastrophic malware
threats). AV-Comparatives is top notch, and is the best, followed
closely by Virus Bulletin’s VB100. Trend Micro failed the last
VB100, and has no recent entries at all with AV-Comparatives. It is
usually a fair indicator that a Vendor’s product is subpar, when
it is not entered into either AV-Comparatives, or the VB100, and/or
consistently fails the VB100 whereas NOD32 and Symantec consistently
pass year after year.

'_http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/produ..._pro_2009.html_'
()

*--*“Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009 Review*--*
-*-*Jan 22, 2009 by Erik Larkin, PC World*-*-
-*-*::TREND MICRO'S SUITE FAILS AT THE MOST BASIC TASK OF DETECTING AND
BLOCKING MALICIOUS SOFTWARE. NOT RECOMMENDED.::*-*-

-*-*Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009 ($70 for three users as of
12/24/08 ) fails badly at any security suite's most important task:
Identifying malware before it can attack your PC. In tests for "Paying
for Protection," our 2009 roundup of nine security suites, Trend Micro's
newest offering didn't just come in last place in that crucial
category--its dismal 69.3 percent detection rate was a full 20
percentage points behind the next worst competitor. In AV-Test.org's
tests, which put each suite up against a huge array of bots, password
stealers, and other malware, top performers tagged about 99 percent of
the 654,914 samples--but Trend Micro's package let three out of every
ten pieces of malicious software go by untouched. That just doesn't cut
it for security software.*-*-
-*-*Trend Micro likewise fell flat in heuristic tests using
two-week-old signature files to simulate dealing with unknown threats,
and at catching annoying adware. It was dead last in both
categories.*-*-
-*-*The company says that it emphasizes proactive protection that
attempts to block threats before they can try installing malware (and
before the suite would have to recognize it). Trend Micro uses its own
Web crawlers, download tests, and user reports to maintain a database of
malicious Web sites, and will block those sites from loading on your PC.
It's a valid approach--one that could well supplement scanning for
malware on your PC--but it can't yet replace that core detection
task.*-*-
-*-*Trend Micro's package did shine when tasked with cleaning up an
existing infection. It removed all the files from nine out of ten
malware infections, a performance that only BitDefender matched. It was
almost as good in dealing with Registry changes, placing second in that
test.*-*-
-*-*The suite offers a few interesting features, such as a scan for
missing Windows patches that assigns a risk level for each one. You'll
also get a useful Wi-Fi advisor button in a browser toolbar that can
warn you if your wireless network lacks encryption--a smart tool placed
in a good location.*-*-
-*-*Trend Micro also did well with its user interface, and clearly took
time to provide good descriptions for features and options. Right away
we noticed the use of plain English throughout the program.*-*-
-*-*But the company went too far with its desire to simplify, as we saw
no pop-ups or warnings when it blocked our attempted Zango-adware
download. We had to dig into the program logs to find out what was going
on. It's good to help people make informed decisions to protect their
computer, but it's also important to at least give users an idea that
something we just tried to do was potentially harmful. Without an alert,
a user might think that their browser simply had a problem, and they
might then try installing the dangerous software through another
browser--or even worse, on another PC. You can change the default
setting to display warnings when your PC encounters viruses or spyware,
but you shouldn't have to.*-*-
-*-*Trend Micro's suite has some good points, but there's no getting
around the fact that Internet Security Pro 2009 fails at detecting
malicious software, and therefore fails as a security program. We cannot
recommend buying it.”*-*-


--
rive0108

'::_-Win_$500_With_Vista_Forums-_::'
(

 

Are we advocating sales here? Nice marketing plug.......

"rive0108" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:74054e98de4b1ffcb14b4131ee21b4bb@nntp-gateway.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> *Do not get Trend Micro it is subpar. Norton is the best out of these
> three-Trend is by far the worst. *
> For recent Certified lab test results
> see:'_http://www.vistax64.com/system-security/172321-vista-sp1-antivirus-performance.html_'
> ()
>
> '_http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?vendor=VE3_'
> ()
> '_http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary_'
> ()
> '_http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/report20.pdf_'
> ()
> '_http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report21.pdf_'
> ()
> '_http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary_'
> ()
>
> Trend Micro is bottom of the barrel Antivirus/Antimlaware program and
> will at best provide subpar protection.
>
> No Lab certification from either AV-Comparatives, or Virus Bulletin.
> There is only the west coast labs certification, which shows a missed
> Trojan, and ICSA (which doesn’t even test for polymorphic
> threats-i.e., self replicating/potentially catastrophic malware
> threats). AV-Comparatives is top notch, and is the best, followed
> closely by Virus Bulletin’s VB100. Trend Micro failed the last
> VB100, and has no recent entries at all with AV-Comparatives. It is
> usually a fair indicator that a Vendor’s product is subpar, when
> it is not entered into either AV-Comparatives, or the VB100, and/or
> consistently fails the VB100 whereas NOD32 and Symantec consistently
> pass year after year.
>
> '_http://www.pcworld.com/reviews/produ..._pro_2009.html_'
> ()
>
> *--*“Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009 Review*--*
> -*-*Jan 22, 2009 by Erik Larkin, PC World*-*-
> -*-*::TREND MICRO'S SUITE FAILS AT THE MOST BASIC TASK OF DETECTING AND
> BLOCKING MALICIOUS SOFTWARE. NOT RECOMMENDED.::*-*-
>
> -*-*Trend Micro Internet Security Pro 2009 ($70 for three users as of
> 12/24/08 ) fails badly at any security suite's most important task:
> Identifying malware before it can attack your PC. In tests for "Paying
> for Protection," our 2009 roundup of nine security suites, Trend Micro's
> newest offering didn't just come in last place in that crucial
> category--its dismal 69.3 percent detection rate was a full 20
> percentage points behind the next worst competitor. In AV-Test.org's
> tests, which put each suite up against a huge array of bots, password
> stealers, and other malware, top performers tagged about 99 percent of
> the 654,914 samples--but Trend Micro's package let three out of every
> ten pieces of malicious software go by untouched. That just doesn't cut
> it for security software.*-*-
> -*-*Trend Micro likewise fell flat in heuristic tests using
> two-week-old signature files to simulate dealing with unknown threats,
> and at catching annoying adware. It was dead last in both
> categories.*-*-
> -*-*The company says that it emphasizes proactive protection that
> attempts to block threats before they can try installing malware (and
> before the suite would have to recognize it). Trend Micro uses its own
> Web crawlers, download tests, and user reports to maintain a database of
> malicious Web sites, and will block those sites from loading on your PC.
> It's a valid approach--one that could well supplement scanning for
> malware on your PC--but it can't yet replace that core detection
> task.*-*-
> -*-*Trend Micro's package did shine when tasked with cleaning up an
> existing infection. It removed all the files from nine out of ten
> malware infections, a performance that only BitDefender matched. It was
> almost as good in dealing with Registry changes, placing second in that
> test.*-*-
> -*-*The suite offers a few interesting features, such as a scan for
> missing Windows patches that assigns a risk level for each one. You'll
> also get a useful Wi-Fi advisor button in a browser toolbar that can
> warn you if your wireless network lacks encryption--a smart tool placed
> in a good location.*-*-
> -*-*Trend Micro also did well with its user interface, and clearly took
> time to provide good descriptions for features and options. Right away
> we noticed the use of plain English throughout the program.*-*-
> -*-*But the company went too far with its desire to simplify, as we saw
> no pop-ups or warnings when it blocked our attempted Zango-adware
> download. We had to dig into the program logs to find out what was going
> on. It's good to help people make informed decisions to protect their
> computer, but it's also important to at least give users an idea that
> something we just tried to do was potentially harmful. Without an alert,
> a user might think that their browser simply had a problem, and they
> might then try installing the dangerous software through another
> browser--or even worse, on another PC. You can change the default
> setting to display warnings when your PC encounters viruses or spyware,
> but you shouldn't have to.*-*-
> -*-*Trend Micro's suite has some good points, but there's no getting
> around the fact that Internet Security Pro 2009 fails at detecting
> malicious software, and therefore fails as a security program. We cannot
> recommend buying it.”*-*-
>
>
> --
> rive0108
>
> '::_-Win_$500_With_Vista_Forums-_::'
> ( <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Milo;1054024 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Are we advocating sales here? Nice marketing plug.......<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

"A marketing plug" that says trend Micro is deficient in malware
detection?, give me a break. Articles that attest to the failure of it
in LAB testing? Perhaps we have different ideas of a marketing plug. I
have also been a person who researches, and then backs up with
documentation/test results an answer to a question.

It is simply that trend Micro, while it has been improving in recent
Lab tests, Is still deficient, and as the OP inquired about the choice,
I would say Its a bad Idea-at least if you want to keep malware,
corruption and the like off your new PC.

For those who are interested, the best Certification Labs for AV
products are:

AV-Comparatives
VB100
EastCoast Labs
ICSA Labs


--
rive0108

 

Milo;1054024 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Are we advocating sales here? Nice marketing plug.......<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

Also, In case you are not aware, I am posting from a mirror site. thus
the Vistax64 stuff- any images, or links to articles will not show up,
but will only show a URL to you.


--
rive0108

 

Are you sure of EastCoast Lab? or was it West Coast Lab....

and what particular product you've done test on personally? and when
identifying flaws of product be particular with specifics. People read such
for reference maybe it would help the community better decide more if you
give link and details.

because I did check out the report and see that not all Trend Micro product
is as what you say referencing the actual testing company reports so maybe
you may need to be specific





"rive0108" <guest@unknown-email.com> wrote in message
news:b680bac2b39ddbef4012bde842deb264@nntp-gateway.com...<!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> Milo;1054024 Wrote:<!--coloro:green--><span style="color:green <!--/coloro-->
>> Are we advocating sales here? Nice marketing plug.......<!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->
>
> "A marketing plug" that says trend Micro is deficient in malware
> detection?, give me a break. Articles that attest to the failure of it
> in LAB testing? Perhaps we have different ideas of a marketing plug. I
> have also been a person who researches, and then backs up with
> documentation/test results an answer to a question.
>
> It is simply that trend Micro, while it has been improving in recent
> Lab tests, Is still deficient, and as the OP inquired about the choice,
> I would say Its a bad Idea-at least if you want to keep malware,
> corruption and the like off your new PC.
>
> For those who are interested, the best Certification Labs for AV
> products are:
>
> AV-Comparatives
> VB100
> EastCoast Labs
> ICSA Labs
>
>
> --
> rive0108 <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

 

Westcoast. Sorry bout that-typo.

I dont "test" av apps myself, I leave that to certified Labs and
professionals in the industry. Amature tests are of no value thats the
problem.

VB100 [Trend Micro Vendor Results]
'Virus Bulletin : VB100 results - Trend Micro'
()

AV-Comparatives
Retrospective/Heuristic testing [May 2009]

On-Demand Testing [Feb 2009]



*Computer magazines and ezine Antivirus Testing and Recommendations
(i.e., Editor's Pick Awards)

by Andrew J. Lee*
AVIEN Founding Member
'_http://www.avien.net_' ()

It is indisputable that any magazine can test and compare the
usability, the interface, the update method, the system performance
impact, the "user friendliness" and the features of respective
*products*, and, on that basis, many magazines have conducted good and
fair reviews of the anti-virus software included.

However, on the basis of their stated methodology for testing the virus
detection functionality of the scanners, they often have not. The idea
that a magazine will be able to test any virus scanner with their own
"quarantined" virus collection is at best foolish and at worst
dangerous.

Let me put it simply. When it comes to Scanner testing such magazines
usually do not know what they are doing. This is proved by telling us
how their test was conducted. It is simply wrong to assume that they can
test a scanner just by seeing if it detects the viruses that they have.
If it detects them they have proved nothing, except that there are some
files they suspect of being viruses that it detects, you cannot
extrapolate any further conclusion. If it does not detect, they have no
way of telling why.

This is because they don't know whether their samples are viable*
either fully or in part, nor whether the samples they have are mutations
or variants (i.e. someone or something has made changes to it). The
major criticisms that I have of such methodologies are these:


- They do not define and publish the sample set used - listing by
family, variant and type.
- They have not tested the ability to replicate, (the definition of a
virus), of each member of that sample set.
- They do not publish the methodology of testing, which must be
consistent for each product, i.e. how they set it up, were the files
tested against in their natural state (as they would appear in the
wild) etc.
- They do not state whether they have distinguished viruses from
Trojans or other non viral malware.
- They often state disinfection or healing as a benefit, when it is
far from agreed that it is of any benefit.
- They often do not state the update or engine level of each product,
nor the platforms on which they tested.
Therefore such tests have proved nothing, and are of little value in
making a purchasing judgement.


For reliable results check the tests done by respected independent
bodies in the field, you will often see that their testing contradicts
such arbitrary magazine test results. See these links for some real
tests :

'_http://www.av-test.org/index.php3?lang=en__'
()
'_http://www.virusbtn.com/100_' ()
'_http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/_'
()
'_ftp://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/texts/tests/pc-av/2001-07/0xecsum.txt_'
()
'_http://www.uta.fi/laitokset/virus/_'
()
'_http://www.check-mark.com/cgi-bin/redirect.pl_'
()
'_http://www.icsalabs.com/html/communities/antivirus/certifiedproducts.shtml_'
()

Real world anti-virus scanner testing is carried out using thousands of
verified viruses under strictly controlled conditions. They are also
carried out, at least the recognized tests, by experts in the field, who
understand not only the implications of the results, but who are able to
correctly interpret the results. Any tests a computer magazine have
conducted in the manner described earlier are immediately invalidated by
the non scientific method.

*Viable here means able to replicate and infect other files.


*Read more...*
SOURCE:[/B]
_HTTP://WWW.CLAYMANIA.COM/SCANNERTEST.HTML_ (\"HTTP://WWW.CLAYMANIA.COM/SCANNERTEST.HTML\")



*HEURISTIC AND ON-DEMAND
Hueristic testing is when they use old signature definitions for
malware (i.e., 6 month old virus signatures), and then introduce "new"
malware, and the program Instead of looking for specific signatures, Is
forced to use heuristic scanning looking for certain instructions or
commands within a program that are not found in typical application
programs. As a result, a heuristic engine is able to detect potentially
malicious functionality in new, previously unexamined software such as
the replication mechanism of a virus, the distribution routine of a worm
or the payload of a trojan.

Heuristic detection capabilities-
Look at it this way, If a new polymorphic backdoor trojan/Trojan
downloader, and/or keylogger was released tomorrow (and they take
screenshots nowadays too-i.e, Spy Lantern Keylogger* ), that captures
your Credit cards, Online bank account and log-in passwords and
transmits the data daily to some remote server in Russia (or Nigeria),
or a self replicating Virus that has the ability to overwrite Windows
directories, documents or emails was released, do you want to have a
program that stops it cold, or lets it run amuck on your pc damaging it
for a week before a definition for it is released? At that point the
damage is done, even if it is then detected and removed you are left
with corrupted documents, pictures, files, or even a system that will
not boot or crashes constantly, and If you didnt have the foresight to
backup or image the pc beforehand, the data is irretrievably lost, and
Windows has to be painstakingly reinstalled along with all the programs,
etc.


_*Regarding_the_High_detection,_and_high_false_Alarms_of_AV's*_
::“To better evaluate the quality of the detection capabilities, the
false alarm rate has to be taken into account too. A false alarm (or
false positive) is when an antivirus product flags an innocent file to
be infected when it is not. False alarms can sometimes cause as much
trouble [just] like a real infection.” ::
::Most will assume it is a legit virus, worm, trojan and let the
antivirus app \"clean\" or remove it. This can in itself cause
data/Windows/Program corruption, thus causing the same damage as if it
were a real malware infection. Leading to Windows/Program Instability or
crashes and damaged/corrupted data that becomes useless.::


Source:


--
rive0108

 

Milo;1055313 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Are you sure of EastCoast Lab? or was it West Coast Lab....
>
> and what particular product you've done test on personally? and when
> identifying flaws of product be particular with specifics. People read
> such
> for reference maybe it would help the community better decide more if
> you
> give link and details.
>
> because I did check out the report and see that not all Trend Micro
> product
> is as what you say referencing the actual testing company reports so
> maybe
> you may need to be specific
>
> 'Trend Micro Smart Protection Network provides security that can’t be
> beat! - Trend Micro USA'
> ()
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

The westcoast lab review that you referenced is for Spam. Not malware.
Perhaps we have a different view on the purpose of an antivirus Internet
security app.



Here is the full WestCoast Lab Trend Micro Test report against Symantec
and Mcafee:



--
rive0108

 

Trend Micro VB100 test results (image):
*36 ENTRIES, 11 FAILURES*
'Virus Bulletin : VB100 results - Trend Micro'
()


+-------------------------------------------------------------------+
|Filename: Capture.jpg |
|Download:
+-------------------------------------------------------------------+

--
rive0108

 

Milo;1055313 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
> Are you sure of EastCoast Lab? or was it West Coast Lab....
>
> and what particular product you've done test on personally? and when
> identifying flaws of product be particular with specifics. People read
> such
> for reference maybe it would help the community better decide more if
> you
> give link and details.
>
> because I did check out the report and see that not all Trend Micro
> product
> is as what you say referencing the actual testing company reports so
> maybe
> you may need to be specific
>
> '_Trend_Micro_Smart_Protection_Network_provides_security_that_can’t_be_beat!_-_Trend_Micro_USA_'
> ()
>
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->


Av-test.org Labs Trend Micro Internet security test results:
'_AV-Test.org_·_Tests_of_Anti-Virus-_and_Security-Software_'
()
'_Virus_Bulletin_:_News_-_AV-Test_release_latest_results_'
()

*Malware on Demand:*
91%

*Adware/Spyware On demand:*
88%


--
rive0108

 

Milo;1055313 Wrote: <!--coloro:blue--><span style="color:blue <!--/coloro-->
>
> and what particular product you've done test on personally? and when
> identifying flaws of product be particular with specifics. People read
> such
> for reference maybe it would help the community better decide more if
> you
> give link and details.
> <!--colorc--><!--/colorc-->

_As_for_me_This_these_are_the_particular_products_I_use:_
UAC and Hardware DEP enabled
*Fully configured outbound Vista Firewall*
*SPI Hardware firewall*
*NOD32 4 x64*
*Windows Defender* (set to notify for software not yest classifed for
risks, and changes made to the system by software permitted to run)


--
rive0108