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

McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2014

Pros CleanBoot rescue CD solved most installation woes. Very good malware blocking. SiteAdvisor blocks dangerous websites, marks up links in search and social media. Intelligent, hassle-free firewall. Intrusion prevention blocked some exploits. Includes remote management, file shredder, system tuneup, vulnerability scan.

Cons Installation on one test system required hours with tech support. Malware cleanup good, not great. Independent lab results good, not great. Firewall protects some of its services, not all. Antiphishing accuracy down from last year. Bottom Line McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2014 is practically a mini-suite, with firewall, phishing protection, and a variety of bonus features. It's not quite an Editors' Choice, but it's definitely an effective tool.

By Neil J. Rubenking

The line between simple antivirus and full-on security suite continues to blur, as some vendors load up entry-level antivirus tools with features more typically found in a full security suite. For example, McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2014 ($49.99 direct; $69.99 for three licenses) adds a powerful firewall and a number of useful security tools. In testing, it was better at blocking malware attacks on a clean system than at hunting down and destroying existing malware infestations.

McAfee's large main window devotes large panels to four important functional areas: Virus and Spyware Protection, Web and Email Protection, McAfee Updates, and Your Subscription. Smaller panels represent Data Protection and Backup and PC and Home Network Tools. The display is just fractionally misleading, in that this product doesn't actually include backup and the link to "firewall and anti-spam settings" reveals that anti-spam isn't present either. To get those features you'll need McAfee's actual full-scale security suite.

A separate "navigation" view simply lists all of the product's numerous features along with links to settings, reports, and online resources. If you know what you want to do but don't know where to find it in the program's user interface, this view is a godsend.

CleanBoot to the Rescue
On over half of my malware-infested test systems, my initial McAfee installation failed to complete successfully, for one reason or another. Tech support recommended that I run McAfee's CleanBoot rescue disk, a Windows-based bootable antivirus.

For all but a couple of the problem systems, CleanBoot totally did the job. Once I got McAfee installed I ran a full scan. Interestingly, every full scan after a CleanBoot scan found nothing at all, suggesting that CleanBoot incorporates McAfee's very latest technology. I mention this because the bootable rescue systems offered by many vendors run in retro text-only mode, and a subsequent full scan often finds traces missed by the bootable solution.

On one system, a virtual fistfight between McAfee and malware sucked up all the CPU cycles. Tech support took some very detailed diagnostic logs and, after quite a bit of back and forth, supplied a one-off solution. Another system lost all connectivity after its full scan. I supplied diagnostic files requested by tech support and they came back with a fix. Overall I give McAfee three stars for installation experience; it would have been four except for the very lengthy repair process on the CPU-impaired system.

CleanBoot seems to have exactly the malware-fighting power of the McAfee antivirus, packaged in a bootable form that doesn't have to contend with malware running alongside it. That being the case, I'd suggest running a CleanBoot scan before any attempt to install McAfee on a system that's' not guaranteed clean.

Decent Malware Removal
With installation problems solved, I went on to run a full scan on each of my twelve malware-infested test systems. McAfee missed a fair number of the resident samples, and didn't remove all the executable traces of some that it did find. In a few cases, I found a malware process still running after supposed cleanup. With a 75 percent detection rate and 5.9 points overall for cleanup, McAfee is in the middle of the pack, much as it was in last year's test.

It did beat out Trend Micro Titanium Antivirus+ 2014 by a tenth of a point. However, Bitdefender Antivirus Plus (2014) managed 83 percent detection and 6.6 points against the same collection of samples.

Tested with my previous collection of malware, Webroot SecureAnywhere Antivirus 2013 also scored 6.6 points. Top score among that group was 7.1 points, earned by the free, cleanup-only Malwarebytes Anti-Malware 1.70.

Cleaning up the mess when malware has already invaded is clearly a tough task. For an explanation of how I set up this type of test, please see How We Test Malware Removal.

McAfee AntiVirus Plus 2014 malware removal chart

View the original article here