Cisco reveals its Internet of Everything router

Cisco Tuesday unveiled its Internet of Everything router, a device intended to address the growth in Internet traffic brought about by cloud, mobile, video and machine-to-machine communications.

The Network Convergence System (NCS), which was expected, is the culmination of three years of work by 450 engineers and $250 million in funding, Cisco says.

[ Also on InfoWorld: Teach your router new tricks with DD-WRT. | Get expert networking how-to advice from InfoWorld's Networking Deep Dive PDF special report and Technology: Networking newsletter. ]

NCS includes a new network processor Cisco introduced two weeks ago: the nPower X1.

The system is not a core router like the Cisco CRS, or a successor to the CRS, the company says. Rather, it is a network fabric designed to scale CRS cores and ASR 9000 edge routers in service provider networks from centralized systems to distributed architectures able to accommodate the growth of Internet connected "things," like cars, homes and machines.

[BUT DIDN'T THEY JUST ANNOUNCE...New Cisco core router boasts 10X capacity of original]

Cisco expects trillions of these device-driven events to come online in the next decade, a situation the company refers to as the Internet of Everything.

Cisco says it plans to equip the CRS systems with the nPower chip as well to improve scale and introduce programmability into the platform for core routing requirements.

Cisco says the NCS can transport the entire NetFlix library in less than one second in a full multi-chassis deployment. It converges IP and optical networks in the service provider realm with Cisco Unified Computing System (UCS) server and Dynamic Fabric Automation networking in the data center to serve as a "central nervous system" for a programmable infrastructure founded on the nPower chip and onePK APIs in Cisco operating systems.

This "central nervous system" is designed to shift and redirect data center, core, edge and optical resources in real-time to speed service rollouts and reduce operational cost and complexity, Cisco says. This is enhanced through virtualization capabilities in system software that elastically scale up and down network and compute resources, and manage multi-chassis configurations as a single system.  

If system scale is exceeded in one part of the network, NCS moves control plane functions onto UCS servers in the data center, Cisco says. NCS can also harness distributed Network Functions Virtualization (NFV) and other Cisco virtualization mechanisms to enable cross domain function orchestration and service placement where required, the company says.

Analysts say the fabric and programmability of NCS will turn up the competitive heat with Juniper's PTX and Alcatel-Lucent's 7950 XRS routers.

View the original article here

McAfee Internet Security 2014

Pros CleanBoot rescue CD solved many installation problems. Very good score in our hands-on malware blocking test. SiteAdvisor toolbar identifies and blocks dangerous websites. Smart firewall won't hassle you. Accurate spam filter can even process webmail. Mozy-powered backup. Shredder, remote management, vulnerability scanner, system tuneup.

Cons So-so score in our hands-on malware cleanup test. Antispam processing noticeably slowed email download. Parental control system is limited and awkward. Bottom Line With its smart firewall, effective malware blocking, and accurate spam filter, McAfee Internet Security 2014 can be a good security suite choice. Just don't rely on it for parental control.

By Neil J. Rubenking

The 2014 security suites just keep rolling in, many accompanied by a standalone antivirus and a feature-packed mega-suite. McAfee Internet Security 2014 ($79.99 direct for three licenses) comes equipped with all the expected suite features as well as a few interesting bonuses.

Like McAfee's entry-level antivirus, the suite features a main window dominated by big, touch-friendly buttons. In fact, the only real difference in layout is that the suite adds a button dedicated to the parental control system. Also like the antivirus, the suite offers a separate Navigation Center, a simple list with links to all security components. Other Navigation Center links let you view reports and security history, manage your subscriptions, and view security information on McAfee's website.

McAfee's entry-level antivirus includes quite a few security features more commonly found in suites. For full coverage of those features, please read my review of McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2014. I'll summarize my findings here.

Better Malware Blocking than Cleanup
On over half of my dozen malware-infested test systems, McAfee ran into installation problems. The impressive CleanBoot rescue CD fixed those problems. Post-scan difficulties on two systems required lengthy intervention by tech support, though.

McAfee and Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2014 both detected 75 percent of my pre-installed malware samples, which is on the low side. McAfee scored 5.9 points overall, beating Trend Micro's 5.8. Bitdefender Internet Security (2014) earned the best score among products tested with this malware collection, 6.6 points. For a detailed explanation of my malware removal test, see How We Test Malware Removal.

McAfee Internet Security 2014 malware removal chart

McAfee was a lot more successful at blocking malware attacks on a system that started out clean. Like Trend Micro, it earned 9.2 points in my malware blocking test. Of all products tested with my current sample collection, only two scored higher. AVG Internet Security 2014 and Ad-Aware Pro Security 10.5 tied at the top with 9.4 points. To learn more about how I test malware blocking, see How We Test Malware Blocking.

McAfee Internet Security 2014 malware blocking chart

McAfee participates in testing with all the labs that I follow and gets generally good marks. It averaged 14.25 of 18 possible points in the latest two tests from AV-Test and rated ADVANCED in recent tests by AV-Comparatives. If you'd like to know more about the labs and their tests, see How We Interpret Antivirus Lab Tests.

McAfee Internet Security 2014 lab tests chart

View the original article here

Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2014

Pros Very good score for malware-blocking. Accurate spam and phishing detection. Firewall Booster aids Windows Firewall. Checks social media privacy settings, links. Can block transmission of private data. Secure deletion.

Cons Hard to install on malware-infested systems. Too-rigid behavior-based detection blocked valid programs. Somewhat limited parental control. More performance impact than many. Bottom Line Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2014 offers more features than many suites, but not all components are top-notch. It displayed more of an impact than many in my hands-on performance test.

By Neil J. Rubenking

There's a trend among some security vendors to enhance their entry-level antivirus product with features more commonly found in a security suite. Of course, doing so raises the bar for the company's actual security suite. Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2014 ($59.95 direct; $79.95 for three licenses) definitely rises to the challenge. It takes the full range of features found in Trend Micro's standalone antivirus and adds a significant collection of additional security components.

The main window for this suite summarizes your security status with a great big icon, in most cases a green checkmark indicating full protection. If there's anything wrong with your security configuration, you just click a button to fix it. This window also summarizes recent security activity; additional tabs offer access to more security features. Three tabs labeled Privacy, Data, and Family house most of the suite-specific features.

If the product's appearance isn't to your liking, you can replace the main window's background. The product comes with eight widely varied background images, flowers, clouds, stars, and more. Or choose an image of your own to truly personalize the installation.

This suite shares the same antivirus protection found in Trend Micro Titanium Antivirus+ 2014, along with quite a few other security features. You'll definitely want to read that review for full details. I'll summarize my evaluation of the shared features here.

Better Defense than Cleanup
Getting Trend Micro installed on twelve test systems for malware removal testing took hours of back-and-forth with tech support, including quite a bit of remote control diagnosis and repair. Trend Micro earned two stars for installation experience and 5.8 points for malware removal. The best scores among products tested with my current malware collection went to Bitdefender Internet Security (2014), AVG Internet Security 2014, and Norton Internet Security (2014). For a full explanation of how I test malware removal, see How We Test Malware Removal.

Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2014 malware removal chart

With 94 percent detection and 9.2 points, Trend Micro fared much better in my malware blocking test. Only AVG and Ad-Aware Pro Security 10.5 scored better against the same malware collection. Trend Micro also did a great job blocking access to malware-hosting websites. To learn just what goes into this test, please see How We Test Malware Blocking.

Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2014 malware blocking chart

Like Symantec, Trend Micro downplays the value of old-fashioned static malware detection tests and praises dynamic, real-world tests. Trend Micro's technology took the highest rating in the whole-product dynamic test by AV-Comparatives, and it also did well in AV-Test's three-way certification test. To learn more about the testing labs summarized in the chart below, please read How We Interpret Antivirus Lab Tests.

Trend Micro Titanium Internet Security 2014 lab tests chart

View the original article here

AVG Internet Security 2014

Pros Very good scores in PCMag's hands-on malware removal and blocking tests. Encrypted storage plus secure deletion protect sensitive data. Accurate spam filtering. Smart firewall handles program control itself. Tiny performance impact.

Cons Tough time installing on malware-infested test systems. Dismal score in antiphishing test. Average scores from independent antivirus labs. Tune-up feature requires separate purchase. Bottom Line Getting AVG Internet Security 2014 installed on malware-infested systems was a challenge, but it did a good job in the end. A smart firewall, accurate spam filtering, and useful encryption system make up for less-than-stellar protection against phishing frauds.

By Neil J. Rubenking

Different security suites include different collections of security features, but they all must have antivirus and firewall protection. Most include spam filtering and parental control, though not all users need these components. AVG Internet Security 2014 ($54.99 direct; $69.99 for three licenses) includes all of the usual components except parental control, and adds tools to protect your sensitive data.

The product's colorful main window looks almost identical to that of AVG's free standalone antivirus product. All of the same buttons are present: Computer, Web Browsing, Identity, Emails, and Firewall. The difference is, they're all fully functional in the suite. As in the free antivirus, a second row of buttons links to other products from AVG, most of which require a separate purchase.

AVG includes built-in links to a variety of support options. You can get simple questions answered by Julia the chat-bot, or go to the AVG Community forums for help from other users. If that's not enough you can contact support via phone, email, or live chat. And if you're willing to pay a little extra, you can help for any tech problem from AVG's Tech Buddy experts.

Antivirus Protection
The antivirus component in AVG's suite is exactly the same as what's found in AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014, so I'll just summarize my findings here. You can read the antivirus review for full details.

Getting AVG installed on my twelve malware-infested test systems was quite a chore. All but two ran into some degree of difficulty, and a few needed days of back-and-forth with tech support before I managed to install the product and run a full scan.

Once I got past installation hurdles, the product proved to be an effective malware remover. Its 6.4 point score beats Norton Internet Security (2014) by a tenth of a point. Only Bitdefender Internet Security (2014), with 6.4 points, scored higher among products tested with the same samples. For a full explanation of my hands-on malware removal test, see How We Test Malware Removal.

AVG Internet Security 2014 malware removal chart

AVG was particularly effective at keeping malware from getting a foothold on a clean system. With 9.4 points for malware blocking, it tied with Ad-Aware Pro Security 10.5 for top score among recent products. Tested with my previous malware collection, Webroot SecureAnywhere Internet Security Plus 2013 earned a near-perfect 9.9 of 10 possible points. The article How We Test Malware Blocking explains in detail how I conduct and score this test.

AVG Internet Security 2014 malware blocking chart

AVG doesn't participate in testing by ICSA Labs or West Coast Labs. In the last ten tests by Virus Bulletin, it missed receiving VB100 certification just twice. In both cases it didn't miss any malware from the test set, but it identified one valid program as malicious. In tests by AV-Test and AV-Comparatives, AVG earns scores that are good but not outstanding. To learn more about the independent labs whose reports I follow, see How We Interpret Antivirus Lab Tests.

AVG Internet Security 2014 lab tests chart

Both the suite and the antivirus install AVG's toolbar for browser protection. The toolbar offers safe search, flags dangerous websites, and can optionally block ad networks from tracking your online activity.

View the original article here

Norton Internet Security (2014)

Pros Excellent blocking of malicious and fraudulent websites. Links to Identity Safe password manager and Norton Family parental control. Network Map monitors other Norton installations. Startup manager. Powerful, intelligent firewall. Accurate spam filtering. Minor impact on system performance.

Cons Some difficulty installing on malware-infested systems. Not compatible with some antivirus tests. Full-powered parental control requires separate purchase. Bottom Line All of the components in Norton Internet Security (2014) work well. The intelligent firewall and accurate antiphishing component especially stand out. Norton remains an Editors' Choice for security suites.

By Neil J. Rubenking

Back in days of yore, computer hobbyists would lovingly assemble a collection of best-in-breed security components, picking this company's antivirus, that company's firewall, and so on. But who has time for that these days? Modern users want one stop shopping, an all-in-one security suite that covers the whole gamut of security needs. Norton Internet Security (2014) ($79.99 per year direct for three licenses) is a perfect example—it does everything you need, and all of its components are effective.

Just looking at the main window, the only way to tell the difference between this product and Norton's standalone antivirus is by the window title. Both products feature big buttons to launch a scan or check for updates. Another button switches to the advanced view, which offers easy on/off control of security components as well as links to important features. If you prefer the advanced view, you can pin it in place as the default.

The main window also links to a variety of other Norton products and services. You can click to get a mobile security QR code, or download the free Norton Zone file sharing tool. Another click will take you to Norton's online management tool. If you have a Norton Backup account you can quickly connect with it. And you can link to Norton Family, the source of this suite's parental control protection.

This suite's antivirus protection is exactly the same as what you get in Norton AntiVirus (2014), and the two products share a number of other features. I'll summarize my findings here; you'll want to read the antivirus review for full details.

Shared Antivirus Protection
Getting Norton installed on my twelve malware-infested test systems was a mixed experience. The product solved a few problems on its own; help from Norton Power Eraser and the Norton Bootable Recovery Tool solved others. But two systems ended up unbootable after malware cleanup. Getting those back to normal took hours of remote-access diagnostics and repair by tech support.

As far as independent lab testing, Symantec rejects many current test methodologies, static detection testing in particular. Norton includes layer upon layer of protection; they feel an accurate test should rate all layers. In fact, Norton earned an excellent score in the latest test by AV-Test, which includes both static and dynamic elements. The chart below summarizes recent results. For more about the labs, see How We Interpret Antivirus Lab Tests.

Norton Internet Security (2014) lab tests chart

Norton also did well in my own hands-on malware removal test. It detected 81 percent of the samples and earned 6.3 points. Of products tested using my current malware collection, only AVG AntiVirus FREE 2014 and Bitdefender Internet Security (2014) have scored higher. The article How We Test Malware Removal explains how I conduct this test and score the results.

Norton Internet Security (2014) malware removal chart

My malware blocking test relies in part on a product's ability to recognize static malware samples; just the kind of test Norton doesn't like. I do launch all the samples that aren't killed on sight, but to exercise the full range of Norton protection I'd have to start from the beginning by downloading and launching each sample, and that's not a test I can repeat on demand. Norton's Web-based detection did block every current sample whose URL is still valid, which is a good sign. Overall, though, its score of 8.5 points for malware blocking isn't the best. AVG and Ad-Aware Free Antivirus+ 10.5 scored best among current products, with 9.4 points each. For details on my hands-on malware blocking test, see How We Test Malware Blocking.

Norton Internet Security (2014) malware blocking chart

View the original article here

NASA's lunar mission could lead to Internet in space

Computerworld - With the launch of NASA's lunar mission tonight, the space agency is taking a big step in an effort to create an outer space Internet.

"This is akin to the fact that you have a fiber-optic connection into your house and you get faster downloads. We want to get faster downloads in space," said Don Boroson, principal investigator for NASA's lunar mission and a Laboratory Fellow at MIT's Lincoln Laboratory. "We're told by scientists that they have cameras to send to Mars, but they're stuck because radio systems are not capable of sending much of the data and images collected there back to Earth. With higher download speeds they could send all of their data back. They could do much more with more downloads."

At 11:27 p.m. ET, NASA is scheduled to launch its Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) observatory from the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island, Va.

NASA will provide live coverage and commentary on the LADEE launch beginning at 9:30 p.m. ET tonight on NASA TV.

The robotic space probe's main mission is to study the moon's atmosphere.

However, it also has another mission.

About a month after launch, the spacecraft will begin a limited test of a high-data-rate laser communication system. If that system works as planned, similar systems are expected to be used to speed up future satellite communications, as well as deep space communications with robots and human exploration crews.

Don Cornwell, Lunar Laser Communications Mission Manager at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, told Computerworld that this will be the space agency's first laser communications test.

In 2017, NASA is expected to launch a Laser Communications Relay Demonstration, which is expected to run tests for two to five years.

Using a laser for communications, instead of radio systems, would enable robots -- similar to the Mars rover Curiosity -- as well as astronauts to send and receive far greater data loads, whether they're in orbit around Earth, on the moon or a distant asteroid.

The two-way laser communications system can deliver six times more data with 25% less power than what can be done with the best radio systems, according to Cornwell.

He also said that laser communications would use devices that weigh half of what radio devices on rockets, rovers and spacecraft weigh today. When scientists are sending spacecraft into space, weight is a critical factor.

"When you send satellite communicationss up in space, every pound really counts," said Boroson. "You could send a mission very far away but the size of the radio [on the rocket] grows and grows. This is a fraction of the weight... Every ounce counts. The fact that we could be smaller and deliver a much higher deliver rate is very important."

And space exploration is largely about the data. Rovers and astronauts are expected to take measurements, shoot images and video of distant planets and asteroids. However, if they can't get that data back to scientists on Earth, it's scientifically limiting the entire mission.

"Right now, there's often a bottleneck with the radio system," said Cornwell. "Scientists have to pick and choose which images and data they want because it's not optimal to send it all back. With laser systems, they shouldn't have to choose. And as NASA goes further and further out in space, we'd like to... send more of that data back."

He added that the large pipe that laser communications give them will become increasingly important as explorations travel farther from Earth.

Cornwell said that some commercial operations are looking into testing laser communications in an effort to create an Earth-orbiting network of satellites that would speed data transmissions using lasers.

"We're really in the formulation phase," he said.

This article, NASA's lunar mission could lead to Internet in space, was originally published at Computerworld.com.

Sharon Gaudin covers the Internet and Web 2.0, emerging technologies, and desktop and laptop chips for Computerworld. Follow Sharon on Twitter at @sgaudin, on Google+ or subscribe to Sharon's RSS feed . Her email address is sgaudin@computerworld.com.

See more by Sharon Gaudin on Computerworld.com.

Read more about Networking in Computerworld's Networking Topic Center.

Small and midsize businesses are moving to the cloud to host their communications capabilities. Learn how enterprise-quality phone benefits, online management, conferencing, auto attendant, and ease of use are built into a system that is half the cost of a PBX.

Read now.

View the original article here

U.S. appetite for Internet user data not unique

Computerworld - For all the privacy concerns raised by Edward Snowden's leaks about government data collection activities, the U.S. is not alone or even always the most demanding when it comes to law enforcement requests for customer data from Internet service providers.

A whitepaper released by Washington-based law firm Hogan Lovells this week shows that law enforcement agencies in several other countries in Europe and elsewhere have equally, if not even more, voracious appetites for such data.

The conclusions in the whitepaper are based on a review of all the transparency reports released by Google, Microsoft, Twitter, LinkedIn and Skype that detail all requests for customer data made by law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and elsewhere.

In the U.S, at least, requests for the data are typically made in connection with ongoing criminal and other investigations by law enforcement.

Transparency reports do not document national security-related requests for data by the National Security Agency and other U.S. intelligence agencies. Google has been releasing the data for the past three years, Twitter and LinkedIn have done so for the past 18 months while Skype and Microsoft have been at it for one year.

Christopher Wolf, author of the whitepaper and director of the privacy and information management practice at Hogan Lovells, said the data shows that, when adjusted for population size and numbers of Internet users, U.S. demands for customer data are not all that extraordinary.

In fact, in 2012, the rate at which European governments sought access to personal data from major service providers increased faster than the rate of U.S. government requests, Wolf noted.

"Many in Europe right now are under the impression that U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies have a greater appetite for data and access more data than anyone else in the world," Wolf said. But with respect to law enforcement requests at least, the U.S. is at or below the levels in many other countries, he said.

Google's transparency reports, for instance, show that U.S law enforcement agencies made an average of 51.3 requests per 1 million Internet users between 2010 and 2012. During the same period, law enforcement in Hong Kong made an average of 59.05 requests per million users, the United Kingdom had 49.9 requests and France had 50.24 requests.

Even Brazil, which has been vocal in its criticism of U.S. government access to Internet data, had an average of 35.87 requests between 2010 and 2012.

The data also showed that Microsoft received significantly more requests for data from other governments than it did from the U.S. Because of Microsoft's broader global footprint and the fact that it has been around for longer than Google, foreign governments appear to be more used to making information requests from the company, the Hogan Lovells paper noted.

In 2012, the only year for which data is available from Microsoft, the government in Taiwan made 248.13 requests for data per 1 million Internet users, Turkey had 342.39 requests, the United Kingdom had 167.69 requests, while France made 157.77 requests for data per 1 million Internet users. In contrast, the U.S. had 43.33 requests per 1 million Internet users. A similar pattern is apparent in data from Skype.

U.S. law enforcement agencies however were well ahead of their counterparts in other countries in their requests for data from Twitter. The average number of annual requests for Twitter data per 1 million Internet users was 6.28 compared to the next highest number of 1.85 requests per million in Qatar.

The U.S. did not stand out from the pack even when Internet-user data requests were combined for Google, Microsoft, Skype, Twitter and LinkedIn, Wolf noted. In fact, the United States ranked No. 7, behind countries like United Kingdom, France, Germany, Australia and Taiwan, in the number of law enforcement request for Internet user data, he said.

"Every country requires both law enforcement and national security access to Internet data," Wolf said. The uproar caused in the U.S. by Snowden's leaks reflects the level of concern that exists in the country over privacy violations he said. He noted that since Snowden's revelations, steps are being taken to add more controls and increase transparency over government data collection activities. "We haven't seen similar procedural protections in Europe or elsewhere," he said.

The privacy blog Pogowasright.org was the first to report news of the Hogan Lovells whitepaper.

Jaikumar Vijayan covers data security and privacy issues, financial services security and e-voting for Computerworld. Follow Jaikumar on Twitter at  @jaivijayan or subscribe to Jaikumar's RSS feed . His e-mail address is jvijayan@computerworld.com.

See more by Jaikumar Vijayan on Computerworld.com.

Read more about Privacy in Computerworld's Privacy Topic Center.

Small and midsize businesses are moving to the cloud to host their communications capabilities. Learn how enterprise-quality phone benefits, online management, conferencing, auto attendant, and ease of use are built into a system that is half the cost of a PBX.

Read now.

View the original article here

Kaspersky Internet Security (2014)

Pros Excellent antivirus lab test scores. Good score in hands-on malware removal test. Accurate phishing detection. Excellent spam filtering. Intelligent firewall blocks leak tests and exploits. Parental control system more complete than many suites. Safe Money feature adds layers of protection for sensitive online transactions.

Cons Just average score in hands-on malware blocking test. Some difficulty installing on malware-infested test systems. No remote management or monitoring with parental control. Bottom Line The 2014 edition of Kaspersky Internet Security includes everything you'd expect from a security suite, and all of the components work as they should. It doesn't score as well in my hands-on antivirus tests as in independent lab tests, but it's a good choice for protection.

By Neil J. Rubenking

The point of getting a security suite rather than a collection of individual security components is to have all elements of your security protection working together. Kaspersky Internet Security (2014) smoothly combines antivirus, firewall, phishing protection, antispam, parental control, and more. The components all do a good job; no slackers in this bunch! Do note that "(2014)" isn't actually part of the name, as Kaspersky has gone number-free. I include it simply to distinguish this version from others.

The product's main window looks very, very similar to Kaspersky's standalone antivirus. It reports basic security status and offers quick access to four important components. The real visible difference comes when you click the up-arrow at bottom right to see the full component list; now you can see that the suite does more, a lot more.

Shared Antivirus
Kaspersky's protection against viruses, spyware, Trojans, and all other types of malware is the same as what you get in the standalone Kaspersky Anti-Virus (2014), so you'll want to read my review of that product for full details. I'll briefly summarize my findings here.

Getting the product installed on my twelve malware-infested test system took quite a bit of back-and-forth with tech support. It stretched into several days due to time-zone differences. In the end all of the problems were solved by use of Kaspersky's own ancillary security tools, which is good.

Kaspersky detected 81 percent of the malware samples and scored 6.1 points for removal. The best product among those tested with the same collection of samples was Bitdefender Internet Security (2014), which detected 83 percent and scored 6.6 points. For a full explanation of my hands-on malware removal test, see How We Test Malware Removal.

Kaspersky Internet Security (2014) malware removal chart

In my malware blocking test, Kaspersky scored lower than many, with 86 percent detection and 8.2 points. That's decent, but Ad-Aware Pro Security 10.5 beat all others tested using this same sample set with 94 percent detection and an impressive 9.4 points. For details on how I perform the hands-on malware blocking test, see How We Test Malware Blocking.

Kaspersky Internet Security (2014) malware blocking chart

Kaspersky always seems to score better with the independent labs than in my hands-on test; I give it credit for those good ratings. It earned top ratings in all the tests that I track from AV-Comparatives and averaged 15.8 of 18 possible points in AV-Test's three-fold evaluation. Only Bitdefender has earned consistenly higher scores. To learn more about the independent antivirus labs and their tests, please see How We Interpret Antivirus Lab Tests.

Kaspersky Internet Security (2014) lab tests chart  

Other Shared Features
The same Web Anti-Virus technology that prevents accidental access to malware-hosting websites also serves to keep users away from fraudulent (phishing) websites. Like all truly effective antiphishing solutions, Kaspersky uses a combination of cloud-based lookup for known phishing sites and heuristic analysis of unknowns. When I tested it using extremely fresh phishing URLs, Kaspersky's detection rate was just one percentage point behind that of consistent phishing champ Norton Internet Security (2013). For an explanation of how I locate the newest phishing URLs and perform this test, see How We Test Antiphishing.

Kaspersky Internet Security (2014) antiphishing chart

As with the standalone antivirus, Kaspersky's suite builds tech support right into the product. Both also offer a useful collection of security-related bonus tools, including a bootable Rescue Disk, a vulnerability scanner, and tools to wipe traces of computer and Internet use.

View the original article here

Internet Explorer takes the lead -- as most error-prone browser

There is good news and bad news for Microsoft in a report by Sauce Labs about browser reliability. The bad news is that Microsoft Internet Explorer has fared the worst overall in recent years. The good news is, Internet Explorer keeps getting better and better with each release.

Sauce found Internet Explorer's overall error rate to be 0.25 percent, with an error defined as a browser failing to start. While this is still a lot less than even 1 percent, the number is significant for application testers who may have to perform thousands of tests, notes Santiago Suarez Ordonez, lead back-end engineer at Sauce. The study, released Tuesday, was based on tallies of errors recorded in Sauce's Selenium, a browser behavior automation tool available in the cloud. More than 55 million tests over several years were gauged.

Findings courtesy of Sauce Labs

In Microsoft's case, errors have been reduced from IE7's rate of 0.29 percent to just 0.05 percent in IE10. "They've gotten their act together," Ordonez says. This positive trend for Microsoft could be the result of improvements in both the browser and the accompanying Windows OS, he adds. IE7, for example, was run on Windows XP, while IE10 was tested on Windows 8, Microsoft's latest version of Windows. Microsoft declined to comment on Sauce's findings.

Ordonez emphasizes that failing browsers could serve to complicate application testing if not factored in during development; tests should be prepared with this variable in mind. "The problem with browser crashes is they give you flakey results" with application failures caused by the browser rather than the application itself, he says.

For other browsers, Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome have had the best overall error rates, with Firefox coming it at 0.11 percent and Chrome at 0.12 percent, for the life of the study. "Firefox and Chrome have proved to be extremely reliable," says Ordonez. Safari, meanwhile ranked behind IE, with a rate of 0.15 percent, while Opera registered at about 0.125 percent. Sauce said the study was not sponsored by any vendor.

This story, "Internet Explorer takes the lead -- as most error-prone browser," was originally published at InfoWorld.com. Get the first word on what the important tech news really means with the InfoWorld Tech Watch blog. For the latest developments in business technology news, follow InfoWorld.com on Twitter.

View the original article here