Maximum Security: 2010 Internet Security Suites

[Lite]

The year 2009 was a bad one for PC security: Online attackers created more malware last year than in the previous 20 years combined. Clearly, this means that in the realm of computer security, the rules have changed, and you can no longer rely solely on traditional definition-based antivirus software and firewalls to protect your PC. Instead, to meet this new breed of threats, you need a new breed of security.

Over the past few years, security suites have been improving, thanks both to the enhancement of traditional detection methods and to the addition of behavioral analysis. The latter technology detects malware based exclusively on how it acts on your PC--a good way of catching threats so new that security vendors haven't yet made definitions to identify them.

And many suites now have cloud-computing features that compare questionable programs and files against online databases to better identify the latest threats. With these cloud features working alongside behavioral analyses, suites can better detect malware they've never seen before.

Almost all the security suites we tested this year also in­­clude some form of antirootkit technology. (Rootkits--a kind of stealth malware used to hide infections--were once the concern only of big businesses, but they have gradually become more commonplace.)

All these changes mean that security suites are detecting and blocking malware faster than ever.

Nonetheless, we found some significant differences in just how well security suites protect your PC. We tested 13 suites in all. Norton Internet Security 2010 took the top ranking, owing to its strong overall malware detection. Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 was a close second. AVG Internet Security 9.0 placed third for its malware detection and speedy system performance. Closely following the top picks was a competitive middle tier of suites from Avast, BitDefender, McAfee, Panda, PC Tools, Trend Micro, and Webroot. The suites from Eset, F-Secure, and ZoneAlarm lagged, due to acceptable, but not great, malware protection.

For antimalware testing, PCWorld contracted the services of AV-Test.org, a respected security testing company. We looked not only at traditional signature-based detection but also at how well the suites cleaned infections, removed rootkits, and detected malware based on behavioral analysis.

But what if the suite slows your system performance to a crawl? This year we added a battery of tests to measure such drag: changes in boot times, application launch times, and the time to create or open a batch of documents, among other tests, both with and without the security suites running (see "The Performance Hit" below).

All the suites we reviewed had antivirus, antispyware, and antispam components, plus a firewall. Some, such as Eset Smart Security 4 and PC Tools Internet Security 2010, had little beyond those core functions. The rest offered extra capabilities, such as parental controls, online backup, and Internet browser protection.

Source

At a Glance

[chlorophyll]

Kaspersky Internet Security 2010 was a close second.

:party:

[spootnack]

Cool.

Symantec and Kaspersky are really the best ! (Especially Kaspersky :P )

Btw, it's strange to see AVG and PC Tools IS at the 3rd and 4th places !

++

[donizme]

I just took the behavioural results from the source and posted them below. Norton got a perfect 100%, kaspersky wasn't too far behind, Eset was shockingly poor.

Behavioural Detection results:

Norton Internt Security 2010:

Norton was the only suite we tested that achieved a perfect score in detecting, disabling, and removing malware using behavioral scanning (detecting new and unknown malware based solely on how it acts on a PC). This is a good test for judging how well a product can detect and disable brand new, unknown malware.

Kaspersky Internet Security 2010:

Kaspersky was above average in detection and disinfection of malware through behavioral scanning (detecting malware based solely on how it behaves on a PC). It detected 87 percent of malware samples through behavioral testing, disabling 73 percent, and fully removing 60 percent. Here, only Norton Internet Security received a clean sweep, but other top performers disabled over 90 percent of samples. This test is a good indicator of how well an antivirus application can handle brand new malware threats for which no virus signature file exists.

Eset Smart Security 2010:

Eset Smart Security 4 scored very poorly in dynamic behavior-based tests (that is, detecting malware based solely on how it behaves--useful for detecting brand-new threats); it detected, disabled, and removed only 20 percent of the samples, which was one of the worst showings we saw. By comparison, although only Norton's suite had a perfect score for each part of this test, the other top performers were able to detect and disable over 90 percent of malware samples.

[HX1]

Sad ver saud indeed.. ESET may not be my choice any longer..

[marshall39]

Av comparative doesn't say the same about Eset... :P

[majithia23]

what ever happened to eset :doh: .

its slowly dipping / failing every test ...:doh:

thinking of changing my setup...<_<

[HX1]

Things is I have watched quite a few do the exact same thing.. Up and down the list .. and you have to watch the versions that are actually being tested as well..

Your best defense is always you... Then you have .. well I guess what I am waiting for is something that actually smokes them all.. in everything.. and can do it on no CPU resources.. :think: Like everything else I want.. doesn't exist.. LOL

[donizme]

Av comparative doesn't say the same about Eset... :P

For me a good security suite will perform very well in pretty much every review, which has happened with Norton.

An average security suite will perform good on some reviews and bad in others, an example being Eset.

[motograter]

eset has a behavior blocker?

[spootnack]

Av comparative doesn't say the same about Eset... :P

For me a good security suite will perform very well in pretty much every review, which has happened with Norton.

An average security suite will perform good on some reviews and bad in others, an example being Eset.

+1000

Exactly agree with you ! ^_^

Therefore, to date, I recommend only Symantec Suite and Kaspersky Suite !

++

[reclard]

Symantec and Kaspersky are really the best ! (Especially Symantec )

[Viid]

Kaspersky are really the best

[Peace_Angel]

I am a user of Kaspersky. It is a very decent Security application, but I am a bit concerned about the lags it causes to every PC I install it on. V8 ie Kaspersky 2009 was a winner, V9 ie 2010 is a dog concerning speed, but the firewall is far more efficient. Now V10 i.e 2011, we'll have to see when it is released. It is still in Beta btw.

Peace.

[chlorophyll]

Now V10 i.e 2011, we'll have to see when it is released. It is still in Beta btw.

Peace.

hey.2011 version is not v10.

2011 version at present is 11.0.0.198

[bashar]

weird tho , i have seen 400 Mb installer for the last Beta 198 of KIS 2011

wonder what's going on with KS :unsure:

[chlorophyll]

weird tho , i have seen 400 Mb installer for the last Beta 198 of KIS 2011

wonder what's going on with KS :unsure:

hhmm.no,no.its just 100 mb only.where did u get that 400 mb installer???

i think u got da wrong file???

[befire]

bitdefender is the best

[foreroes]

I agree!

[AEK21]

Why nobody mentioned avira :unsure: