McAfee Internet Security 2013 Review: Proficient antimalware, super-quick installation

Sarah is a freelance writer and editor based in Silicon Valley. She has a love/hate relationship with social media and a bad habit of describing technology as "sexy."
More by Sarah Jacobsson Purewal

McAfee Internet Security 2013 ($40 for one year of protection on up to 3
computers, as of 12/19/12) didn’t manage top marks in our security suite tests,
but it’s still a fairly proficient antimalware program that will keep you relatively
well-protected. This security suite, which boasts a simple user interface and
a super quick installation process, scans your system quickly and efficiently.
However, McAfee’s uninspired design and average performance makes it a less
attractive choice compared to its competition.

In our real-world attack test, McAfee was able to completely block 94.4 percent
of attacks. Unfortunately, this means that it did let through 5.6 percent of
attacks, allowing our test system to get infected. This test indicates how well a
product will be able to block brand new malware attacks as it encounters them
in the wild—and of the nine security suites we tested, only two let such a large
percentage through.

That said, McAfee was competent at cleaning up malware infections once they
were already on the system. In our system cleanup test, the program detected
and disabled 100 percent of infections, and fully cleaned up 70 percent of
infections. Five of the nine security suites we tested performed better than
McAfee in this test, completely cleaning up at least 80 percent of infections.

McAfee had an excellent false positive percentage: It didn't flag a single safe file
(out of over 250,000 files) as malicious. It also did a very good job at detecting
known baddies: in our malware “zoo” detection test, it managed to detect 99.9
percent of known malware samples.

McAfee adds just a little extra weight to your system, performance-wise. In our
PC speed tests, the program added a little less than one second to startup time,
and about four seconds to shutdown time. McAfee’s scan times are slightly
higher than average: It takes one minute and 35 seconds to complete an on-
demand (manual) scan, and five minutes for an on-access scan (the automatic
scan that happens when you open or save a file to a disk). In both cases, that's
about average for the suites we tested.

Installing McAfee Internet Security 2013 is a breeze. There are just three screens
to click through, the program doesn’t try to install any extras (such as toolbars) or
change any of your settings (such as your default browser search), and it doesn't
require a restart is required.

McAfee’s user interface, though uninspired, is simple and easy to understand. It’s
not very attractive (the main window is gray with green and blue accents), but it
does have a large banner at the top that shows your protection status, along with
four small modules so you can quickly access important security areas. These
areas include virus and spyware protection, Web and email protection, updates,
and your subscription information. There are also three smaller modules that let
you quickly access McAfee’s other services, including data protection tools, PC
home and network tools, and parental controls.

On the right side of the main window are links to navigation and help. The
navigation section is where you’ll find the main settings, as well as information
about each of the suite’s features. You can also click the modules on the main
window to access settings for individual features. The settings menus are a
little difficult to navigate, but McAfee does offer up simple explanations for each
area, as well as a “Learn more” link that takes you to the a relevant online help
document.

McAfee offers decent protection and a user-friendly interface, but overall it’s
just average—nothing about it is too impressive, but it’s also not terrible. Its
protection, performance, and documentation are mediocre, while its user
interface is bland and uninspiring (though easy to navigate and understand). It’s
not a bad program, but there are better security suites out there.

From PC World. Shop computer and accessories from Amazon here

Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 Review: Effective Antimalware Performance

Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 ($80 for one year and three PCs as of January 25, 2012) ranked fourth in our 2012 roundup of security suites. Although it finished outside the top three, it's a solid all-around suite that will do an effective job at keeping you safe.

In our real-world malware blocking tests, Kaspersky's suite fully blocked all samples that it encountered. This result means that it should do very well in protecting you from brand-new, as-yet unknown malware. In addition, it detected 99.34 percent of known malware samples in more-traditional signature-based detection tests. On its own, that's a great showing--but believe it or not, that's merely an average result this year due to the overall strength of 2012's suites.

False positives are largely a nonissue: Kaspersky’s product misidentified only one safe file out of a pool of 250,000 files as dangerous. And the suite was effective at disinfection, detecting and disabling all sample infections on our test PC. It removed all traces of malware 60 percent of the time, performing slightly above average in that regard.

In general the Kaspersky suite has a low impact on PC performance, though it did slow our test machine a fair amount when we copied files over a network: It took 3 minutes, 34 seconds to complete this test, landing well behind the average of 3 minutes, 2 seconds.

It was faster than average, however, at scanning. It completed an on-demand scan (which runs when you manually click the 'Scan Now' button) of 4.5GB of data in 1 minute, 11 seconds--the third-best showing, and a considerably better result than the average of 1 minute, 59 seconds for the suites we looked at. It wrapped up on-access scanning (which kicks off when you open or save a file) of 4.5GB of data in 4 minutes, 40 seconds, about 8 seconds faster than average.

On the rest of our speed tests, Kaspersky finished either around average or above average as compared with its competition.

Kaspersky gave its software a face-lift in 2012, abandoning the curiously divided interface in last year's suite. While the new interface is fine, it isn't outstanding. Kaspersky uses a fairly standard multistep wizard installer that's fairly painless, but some of the other suites we looked at this year have one-click installation processes. Once the package was installed, we navigated its screens fairly easily. The main screen gives a clear indicator of your protection status, with buttons along the bottom to adjust settings for the suite's major components. Some parts still could use a redesign, though. For example, a few panels open in the main window, while others spawn new windows, which can be a little disorienting. And from a purely aesthetic perspective, I wasn't a huge fan of the teal-and-white theme--but that's picking nits.

Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 falls a little short of the absolute top competitors, mainly because of the all-around strength of this year's suites. Nevertheless, Kaspersky’s latest offering is worth a look.

From PCWorld. Visit Amazon Computer and Notebook Center here

Panda Internet Security 2012 Review: An Acceptable but Poky Antimalware Suite

Panda Internet Security 2012 ($70 for one year, three PCs as of January 29, 2012) finished 12th in our 2012 roundup of Internet security suites. Panda is an acceptable package for detecting and blocking malware, but its abysmal scan speeds--along with other speed issues--keep it toward the bottom of our ranking.

In malware detection and blocking, Panda's product is decent, but it isn't outstanding next to its competition. It fully blocked 92.3 percent of malware samples in our real-world detection tests, which indicate how well a security product can block brand-new malware. Historically, that is a good result, but for this year's class of security suites it was slightly below average. It detected 99.42 percent of known malware--about average among this year's suites.

False positives are not a major problem with Panda's suite: It misidentified only two known safe files out of over 250,000 as potentially malicious.

The Panda software didn't do poorly in cleanup either, but it wasn't great relative to its competition. It detected all malware infections on our test PC, and successfully disabled 80 percent of infections. That would have been a great showing last year, but most of the 2012 products we tried successfully disabled all malware infections in our tests. Panda's suite was able to eliminate all traces of malware 60 percent of the time--slightly better than average.

Ultimately, system speed problems proved to be Panda's undoing. This security suite was one of the worst offenders in slowing overall system performance in our tests, especially when we copied files. It added 1 minute, 22 seconds to the time required to copy files on our test PC's hard drive (as compared with our test PC without antivirus software installed); that was the second-worst result in this test. It also added about 3.5 minutes to the time necessary to copy files over a network--the third-worst outcome among the suites we tested.

Scan speeds were even worse relative to the competition. Panda's on-demand scanner (which runs when you manually start a scan) completed checking 4.5GB of files in 5 minutes, 36 seconds, coming in dead last--by a wide margin--among the suites we reviewed, and landing 4 minutes, 37 seconds behind the best performer. Its on-access scanner (which runs when you open or save files to disk) took 8 minutes, 20 seconds to complete--again, dead last. In contrast, the top performer completed the task in 2 minutes, 4 seconds.

Panda's interface is usable, but it's a bit rough in spots. Its installer, a fairly standard wizard, requires you to enter your email address when you register. That isn't a huge issue, but be forewarned: You'll be added to Panda's email marketing list unless you uncheck the box for that option (it's checked by default). The main interface is nicely designed and arranged, with a clear status indicator and a button that lets you fix any issues with a single click. Some of the wording in the interface is awkward, though, and one of the settings screens was never translated from Spanish into English. Oops.

In terms of protection, Panda Internet Security 2012 will do an acceptable job, though it has fallen a little behind the competition in the past couple years. That said, Panda needs to address its suite's performance issues; the sluggishness alone seriously hurts the software's ranking, and makes it hard for us to recommend this year's product.

From PCWorld. Visit Amazon Computer and Notebook Center here

G Data InternetSecurity 2012 Review: Top-Notch Antimalware Protection

Our top pick in our 2012 roundup of Internet security suites is G Data InternetSecurity 2012 ($35 for a one-year, single-PC license as of January 25, 2012). Although its interface isn't terribly friendly to beginners, G Data's suite put up some of the best malware detection and blocking scores in the history of our testing.

G Data InternetSecurity blocked all samples in our real-world tests (which assess how well security software can stop previously unknown threats). It also spotted all but five samples in our “zoo” of 108,869 samples of known malware--the best score we’ve ever seen on this particular test.

In addition, G Data's package had a low false-positive rate, labeling only one known safe file out of a pool of more than 250,000 as possibly dangerous; you don't have to worry about it flagging a good file as bad. It rendered all infections on our test PC inert, and it removed all traces of malware 60 percent of the time.

This suite's impact on PC performance was fairly minimal overall, but it did struggle in a few areas. It finished our on-demand scan test (which measures how quickly a suite can scan 4.5GB of files when you tell it to do so) in an above-average 1 minute, 49 seconds, but its on-access scanner (which kicks in when you open or save files) processed 4.5GB of data in a slow 6 minutes, 41 seconds. By comparison, on average the products we tested completed those tests in 1 minute, 59 seconds and 4 minutes, 48 seconds, respectively.

The G Data suite added less than half of a second to startup and shutdown times as compared to a PC with no antivirus software installed--in both cases, the best result among the products we tested. It also produced a good result in our download test, adding only about 1.5 seconds compared to our test PC without antivirus installed. On the other hand, it slowed our test PC considerably when we loaded Web pages, installed software, or copied files over the network.

G Data's interface isn’t too impressive. Its installer is fairly painless, but it forces you to click through a number of screens and requires you to restart the PC before you can use the software. The main screen isn't significantly different from that of last year's G Data suite, which isn't a good thing. Reaching some commonly used features via the main control panel is difficult, since they’re often hidden in menus. And unless you’re an expert, the settings can be confusing--there are just so many of them. That said, the clearly labeled 'Correct' button that appears when a problem occurs lets you quickly and easily fix any issues that prevent you from being fully protected.

This isn't a perfect security suite, but the package excels where it counts most: stopping malware. If you can put up with some interface annoyances and sluggish scan speeds, G Data InternetSecurity 2012 is definitely a top-notch contender and worth your consideration.

From PCWorld. Visit Amazon Computer and Notebook Center here

Check Point ZoneAlarm Extreme Security 2012 Review: A Middling Antimalware Utility

Check Point's ZoneAlarm Extreme Security 2012 ($80 for one year and three PCs as of January 25, 2012) rounds out the top ten in our 2012 roundup of security suites. Like several of the other lower-ranking products we tested, the suite isn’t bad, but it’s merely very good while the top performers are great.

ZoneAlarm fully blocked 92.3 percent of live attacks in our real-world tests, which help determine how well a security suite can stop brand-new malware. That isn't a bad showing, but it does lag slightly below the average for the suites we looked at. It detected 99.17 percent of known malware samples; although that result would have been strong one year ago, this year it's merely average.

This suite wasn’t especially good at cleanup, either: Despite detecting all infections on our test PC, it disabled only 90 percent of them. A year ago, that would have been a great outcome, but most products we tested this time around successfully disabled all test infections. ZoneAlarm removed all malware components just 40 percent of the time, too, tying for last in that test. Fortunately, it didn't flag a single safe file as being potentially malicious.

Even though ZoneAlarm had a moderate impact on system performance on the whole, it added a staggering 24 seconds to our PC’s shutdown time (compared with how long the system took with no antivirus software installed), easily landing at the back of the pack in that particular test. It was also one of the worst performers in our app-installation test--it added 72 seconds to the completion time, which is about 28 seconds longer than the average.

Scan speeds were mixed: ZoneAlarm required 2 minutes, 53 seconds to finish our on-demand test, which shows how quickly a suite can complete a manually initiated scan of 4.5GB. This showing was second-slowest result we saw in the 2012 test group. Its on-access scanner took 3 minutes, 45 seconds to plow through 4.5GB of data, which was the third-best result we saw this year. Since the on-access scanner runs when you open or save a file, it's a little more important than the manual on-demand scan, so we were happy to see that ZoneAlarm performed well in this area, at least.

Check Point did reasonably well on the interface. The main screen gives you a good idea of whether your PC is protected, and sections are nicely arranged and fairly easy to use. It has slider controls that make it easy to toggle features on and off, as well. The settings screens are decent, but inconsistent at times. One in particular--the Antispam settings window--looks like a holdover from an older version of ZoneAlarm software, and it doesn't work the way the other panels do.

On the plus side, ZoneAlarm Extreme Security comes with a few extra features, such as credit report monitoring, which you may find useful. At the same time, though, it lacks some features that are common in other suites, and its support options appear to be scant.

If you already use ZoneAlarm products and like them, you should upgrade to this newest version. Otherwise, while ZoneAlarm Extreme Security 2012 is a good all-around package, you should consider some of the higher-ranking suites first.

From PCWorld. Visit Amazon Computer and Notebook Center here

AVG Internet Security 2012 Review: Respectable Antimalware Capabilities

AVG Internet Security 2012 ($55 for one year and one PC as of January 25, 2012) finished ninth in our 2012 roundup of security suites. It does a very good job of keeping a PC safe, but some other products do an astounding job, which caused AVG to fall in the rankings.

AVG's suite fully blocked 92.3 percent of attacks in our real-world test--which helps determine how well a suite will be able to block brand-new, as-yet-undiscovered malware--and partially blocked an additional 3.8 percent. Those results are nothing to sneeze at, but they rate as mediocre among this year's test group. Historically speaking, the AVG software’s 99.11 percent detection rate of known malware samples is excellent, but given the strength of its competition, that result is actually slightly lower than the average for the products we evaluated this year.

Even though the AVG suite was successful in detecting and disabling all active malware infections on our test PC, it removed all traces of malware only 40 percent of the time, tying for the worst showing in completely purging malware. It also flagged six safe files out of our pool of over 250,000 as being malicious; percentage-wise, that's a very low false-positive rate, but a few of its rivals posted a perfect score in our false-positive test.

The AVG package had a relatively light impact on PC performance, though it added nearly 10 seconds to startup time as compared with our test PC with no antivirus installed (the second-worst result of the group). Scan speeds were uneven: It went from being good in our on-demand scan test (1 minute, 31 seconds, the sixth-best showing of the 14 suites we tested) to not-so-good in our on-access scan test (5 minutes, 5 seconds, the fourth-worst outcome). The former test shows how quickly a security product can check 4.5GB for malware during a manually initiated scan, while the latter test evaluates a scan that runs when the user opens files or saves them to disk.

AVG’s interface, while good, needs improvement. The main screens are fairly straightforward and easy to use: At the top is an indicator that tells you whether any problems need fixing. And AVG's overview pane helps you find all of the suite's features quickly and easily. That said, the settings seemed downright intimidating to me. Settings live in either the Advanced settings window or the Firewall settings window. The Advanced settings screen is especially hard to navigate: You have to deal with a three-level-deep hierarchical list to find the options you want to adjust. This complexity makes the AVG suite feel like a product designed for advanced users; it wouldn't be a bad idea for AVG to give its interface an update in next year's product line.

At the end of the day, AVG Internet Security 2012 doesn't do a whole lot wrong, but it doesn't do much to stand out from the crowd, either.

From PCWorld. Visit Amazon Computer and Notebook Center here