Qihoo 360 Total Security vs Norton 360

DukiNuki

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
59
0
18,590
1
i know i'm comparing Free software with paid one and Norton might win for sure but how close can Qihoo Perform to Norton 360 ? Let me ask you this way . what Norton Does that Qihoo cant do ?

Qihoo uses Bitdefender and Avira's Engines , has some nice tools , cool appearance , nice reviews . is it enough for Protecting me from

-Getting Malware from internet and External Storage Devices ?
-Getting Attacked and hacked ?


 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36
In reality, no software will keep you safe from either of the points you mentioned; let's just clear that up. Norton, Bitdefender, Avira, Qihoo, AVG, Webroot... any software you trust with computer security will fail at a certain point. In reality, the best method of protection from malware and remote attacks/hacks is to not use the internet. Again, just making that clear.

Will Qihoo protect you from known attacks? From my research, it looks like they do a pretty good job. Have I tested it personally? Not entirely. There is one thing I do not like about its live protection methods, though; it does not detect text file viruses automatically. The fact that I've had to manually scan text files to find viruses knocks off some points. Scans do well, but live protection seems somewhat lacking. The integrated sandbox is also a semi-disappointment, as it seems like you have to manually select to sandbox an installer (even though it claims to auto-sandbox installs). Could be user error, but this would be the first software that requires some special voodoo to make it auto-sandbox.

Would I recommend Norton? No. Norton has a dirty history, and I wouldn't recommend going with them because of it. I would recommend Kaspersky, Webroot, or Bitdefender for paid software. Bitdefender also has a free AV software, and you can use other programs to help keep your system clean at the same time. HitmanPro and Malwarebytes are common tools to supplement AV software, and Comodo offers a quality firewall. Not an all-in-one solution, but it's free software.

In the end, it really comes down to what you do, and how you do things. Security software should be your last line of defence against vulnerabilities, so pick carefully.
 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36
In reality, no software will keep you safe from either of the points you mentioned; let's just clear that up. Norton, Bitdefender, Avira, Qihoo, AVG, Webroot... any software you trust with computer security will fail at a certain point. In reality, the best method of protection from malware and remote attacks/hacks is to not use the internet. Again, just making that clear.

Will Qihoo protect you from known attacks? From my research, it looks like they do a pretty good job. Have I tested it personally? Not entirely. There is one thing I do not like about its live protection methods, though; it does not detect text file viruses automatically. The fact that I've had to manually scan text files to find viruses knocks off some points. Scans do well, but live protection seems somewhat lacking. The integrated sandbox is also a semi-disappointment, as it seems like you have to manually select to sandbox an installer (even though it claims to auto-sandbox installs). Could be user error, but this would be the first software that requires some special voodoo to make it auto-sandbox.

Would I recommend Norton? No. Norton has a dirty history, and I wouldn't recommend going with them because of it. I would recommend Kaspersky, Webroot, or Bitdefender for paid software. Bitdefender also has a free AV software, and you can use other programs to help keep your system clean at the same time. HitmanPro and Malwarebytes are common tools to supplement AV software, and Comodo offers a quality firewall. Not an all-in-one solution, but it's free software.

In the end, it really comes down to what you do, and how you do things. Security software should be your last line of defence against vulnerabilities, so pick carefully.
 

DukiNuki

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
59
0
18,590
1
All the the things you said are so true man . but users feel little safer with some anti virus installed . if there is no true protection against all these stuff then why paying for security suit ? i guess free software is good too .

donno but today i felt that Qihoo slows down my internet . this might be weird but as soon as i uninstalled it . my download speed got back to normal . there were no updates in progress .

Norton had horrible past but i think its doing just fine now . no slow downs n good protection . i had it for long but just wanted to get some free protection . because as you said : there is no real protection against such things . any way thanks alot man ;)
 

DukiNuki

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
59
0
18,590
1
you know why its so damn hard to choose the right software ? because all the benchmarks differ from one site to another . one site offers AVG as the best . another one says Avira . and so on .

its not like Graphic card benchmarks that every one knows that GTX 980 is faster than GTX 970 .

if you ever found a trusted site for true Antivirus free/non-free review and bench marking , please let me know :) .
 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36
I just don't like trusting companies with a chequered history. Even still, I think they face a lot of scepticism with their actual security measures; so I'd stay away from them. When the guys at the DEFCON and Black Hat conventions start recommending Norton, then I'll start recommending them haha. I also wonder what many people say when they have "good protection" when they run a single AV software. Are you getting a second opinion from another quality software? How do you actually know you're protected? It's a paranoid mindset, but it's the most realistic one. I have a saying that I don't repeat too often, because it either goes ignored, or it scares the user: If your AV software catches one virus, there's a fair chance that there is another that it didn't catch, and you have no idea. While some might say, "Maybe there are some that none catch," that isn't the point; if you want to look at it that way, don't use the software lol. Still, I think it helps put things into perspective. Many people think that "catching" an infection is proof of it working... but that's kind of dumb. Catching an infection means, to me, that all other methods of security have failed. I don't want to see my AV software ever catch a virus, because that means my user habits are a hazard.

Qihoo does seem to slow down some activity, and I think it does some funky things with Adobe Flash (the auto-hide play/title bars don't go away while I'm in full screen viewing). I'll play around with it, but that didn't happen when I first installed Qihoo... minor oddities I've experienced, but I think that's partially because it's Chinese. The Chinese are like the Japanese, in the sense that they understand the importance of copying work in order to improve how it works. The downside is they aren't at the level the Japanese are at yet, so we'll see what happens over time with Qihoo.

I will say that some publications are a bit sketchy for reliable reviews, and others are legit. The downside for AV software reviews is that major publications don't really give you a review; they give you a summary with a rating, and base recommendations on subjective matters. The real issue with that is you don't get the facts out, and you don't really know what their testing methods are. I read these "reviews" and feel like I've lost IQ points. Then again, the audience they are playing to needs everything dumbed down heavily; and, usually, if they include detailed results, people like me will come along and find something that screws up their rating process (thereby exploiting who pays them for reviews/etc.). If you want some places to check out for security software ratings/speed tests, check out AV-Comparatives, AV-Test, and Virus Bulletin. Virus Bulletin isn't really aimed at the consumer so much, but they are still a decent source for testing. If you ever find a "certified" or "approval" stamp for something, on any of these websites, just ignore them; it's usually just means of saying, "It's good enough at doing something, but that's about it." Make your decision on what you read, not what someone might "certify." Certifications are usually pretty lax, in some way.

I'll probably make a post, at some point, that lines out reputable comparison websites, provides some links to quality software removal tools, and all that fun stuff. I'll see what I can work up over the next month or two.

My favourite place, for right now, is AV-Comparatives, as they release PDF copies of their testing and results for the nerds to read through. I really like that, because I can actually see what is going on, and why a certain software sucks. Most people rely on "catching viruses" to say how well a software works, like PCMag... or the TSA... but that's none of my business.
 

DukiNuki

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
59
0
18,590
1
Oh man Thanks A lot for all these info . Anyway its hard to fully trust Qihoo because its new and as you said : its chinese . but if chinese people are good hackers then they might also make good products .

anyway . do you think i should keep using Qihoo ? i'm little worried about that internet slow down that i had while Qihoo was installed . if you ever found another bug or weird things goin on with it , please let me know :) .
 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36
Like I said before, it just seems to be buggy. If you would prefer to use something else, then there's no real reason to stick with Qihoo. There are other programs that will give you quality protection and not impact overall performance too hard. The primary reason I would suspect for slower internet speeds is because it is a security suite... not just an AV. Since it's trying to be an internet security suite (kind of is, kind of isn't), it will have to run some of your internet traffic (if not all of it) through Qihoo, in order to make sure your internet traffic is safe. Comodo's firewall/live protection really impacts your speeds, so Qihoo is pretty light by comparison. I think it will get better over time, especially because of its high popularity in China, but it will take a while to really get all the bugs sorted out. I'd give it a couple years before it's really on par with the software coming out of California.

Aside from having poor auto-sandbox implementation, and not picking up text file viruses automatically (requiring a manual scan), I don't have any real complaints... but there are certain things I am questioning how effective they really are (webcam, USB, and keylogger security options). Aside from bugging my system, I don't have a real method of using it; although, I will definitely test these once I have a new primary computer.

You can always switch to the free Bitdefender, or Avast (wouldn't recommend Avast, but it's an option). That will help you maintain an extra layer of security.
 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36
Blackbird- I would like to see the proof that Norton is "top notch," and according to whom. I've seen you say that a lot, but I want to know where you get that information; especially because there is better software out there.

DukiNuki- Personally, I would never trust Norton, or any variant of Symantec, as they have a poor reputation with the hacker community. The software may be good, but they have whitelisted intelligence agency software/malware; and, in retrospect, that is a horrible thing for security. I don't know if their past whitelisting has been patched (it was a long time ago), but Symantec in general doesn't have the best reputation for security. They even have a spotty history on Wikipedia... that kind of says something.

In relation to the Qihoo engines, I don't know what you're really asking. I did run the 360 IS version, not Total Security, so I only had a single local engine. Would enabling them change the update size of the program itself? I'm not entirely sure, but I would doubt it; usually databases are downloaded independently. Will enabling them increase the size of updates for the engines? Naturally.
 

DukiNuki

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
59
0
18,590
1
the thing you said about norton . why these cons are not being mentioned widely so people will know what are they dealing with?

all these secret cons and pros should be reviewed and mentioned .
 

DukiNuki

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
59
0
18,590
1
by the way . Qihoo TS has Avira and bitDefender engines aside from its own engine . and has an option to enable them all at the same time .

1.Is it Really a good feature and does this feature make this product a wow one ? free software with three AV engines ? isn't that hard to believe thing ?

2.Do i really need to enable the other 2 engines for extra protection ?

 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36


1) It really is unusual to have all these databases available in a free software, so it really is pretty impressive.
2) Do you need to enable them? That's up to you. I haven't seen a standalone test on Qihoo's databases alone, just yet, so I'd keep them enabled. Bitdefender is probably going to be the best of the BD/Avira choices, but you could run either/both with little noticeable difference, if noticeable at all. There may be a performance decrease using all of them, as it has to check everything across each database, but it's nice to have three opinions on a single file...

Comparing Qihoo's scanning speeds to other free software I've used: about average, maybe a little faster than some. Compared to Webroot's scan speed (the only paid software I've ever used): I can feel my pubes growing. That said, Webroot does everything pretty damned quick, so I wouldn't say it's a quality comparison. Qihoo has what I would call "average" scanning speeds for free software, though; and that's running everything through three engines, opposed to the average of one. I'd say that's impressive, in retrospect.


The reason this isn't a real 'factor' in the independent security testing/reviews is because their job is to rate the performance of the software with known infections/malware. Their place isn't to create speculation, or to potentially scare people away from buying a product; their job is to report facts that they have on hand. Honestly, the real reason it's so "secret" is because most people just don't care about it. It doesn't make dramatic enough headlines (most of these things are old headlines anyway), and people easily forget about corporate deals before the deal is officially signed. Most people prefer to pick a software, install it, and just believe it works; at least, that's the impression I've been given by the crowd here, as well as most of the people I've worked for/with. John Doe doesn't give a damn about how well his TV works, as long as he gets the "best" picture for the big game- right? Me? I quibble over what resolution the screen is, what resolution I'm streaming to the screen, the exact audio settings... I've tuned the damned room better than a fucking IMAX when I'm done. I care about what my end result is; whereas the typical person just wants something that "works," and is the "best," but they don't really care much about anything else. Their definition of "works" and "best" is relatively minimal, and mine isn't. If you're not interested in security beyond a certain extent, a lot of this stuff just sounds like mumbo jumbo... so it quickly becomes something that most people disregard.

To each their own, of course; I'm just going to do my research before I blindly believe that something is "quality" or "secure" because somebody has said so. I'll also keep throwing out the fact that there's a wide lack of evidence to many positive claims for a lot of software, just in case someone wants to throw some links my way... you just never know when you'll come across new info. Otherwise, I'll take the sceptic's route, because I know just how crazy this stuff gets, and that the for-profit corporations have a lot of temptation to leave certain things alone for the sake of "national security" and as favours to the NSA/GCHQ/etc.. I tend to be hard on security software because, if you want to actually judge software properly, you have to be hard on it. I'll always mark a company down points for cooperating with the government, press releases that look more like marketing-based journalism than hard facts, and especially for not forcing HTTPS on the webpage (just to give examples). Oh yeah... I forgot to check the force encryption bit with Qihoo earlier... they do not do that. Major demerit. Sad, too, because they have a lot going for them.

If you're looking for a paid software, Webroot is only $4 to try out right now for a 1 year/1 PC license (I believe they cap you at 5 licenses per account on Newegg)- http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16832296083. I have some gripes about their software, though; so don't take it as a full-on endorsement. I accidentally blocked my best encrypted messenger from having internet access, and the GUI won't allow me to unblock it... waiting on Customer Service to figure this out. If I had a few skills, I'd probably be able to unblock it manually; but I don't have those magical powers, and it's a software that is still in alpha testing... so, yeah.

Just be careful when picking a software company, mate. Every one of them will have some major flaw; you just need to pick which flaw you can put up with. Cost? Performance? Customisation? Company bends over for the feds like a crack whore for $5? Take your pick. I'll deal with crap customisation, high costs, or whatever you'd label my Webroot mess as, if we're going to talk about paid software. Free software is another league altogether. There's little quality competition with Bitdefender's free AV, for just AV software. You can get other free software to fill in the gaps, which can be annoying to some, but that's the price of free software.
 

DukiNuki

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
59
0
18,590
1
Thanks for info man . that was useful but i still cant decide one thing .

1.Qihoo 360 has no FireWall yet it says Internet Security and or Total Security . so how will it protect me from Internet vulnerabilities ?

2.Qihoo 360 + Extra Engines on vs Norton 360 . which one has bigger update size ? is there a site which i can check these things ?

3.Having More Engines is definitely better than less engines but sometimes Original Engines are strong enough . i just cant decide about using or not using those 2 extra engines that come with Qihoo 360 .

4.What are your final suggestions for Free and Paid Softwares ? and why they are better than Current Norton 360 and Qihoo 360 TS ?

5.Does 360 IS have more protection than TS ?
 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36

It's difficult to say what exactly you are protected from. Since I didn't want to mess around too much on my primary computer, I didn't test Qihoo 360 IS too much. Even with a quality firewall, I wouldn't rely on it to protect me from anything. Firewalls, no matter how high of quality they are, can be broken through. There is a reason good companies have 24/7 IT guys to keep an eye on network traffic, or keep them on call 24/7.

Regardless of how well it protects you, I'd say to treat your internet browsing like you have no protection. Grab a decent browser (Aviator and Iron are my go-to picks), and use ad-blocking software (AdGuard is my only recommendation, AdBlock+ is decent if you absolutely need a substitute, and I've also heard some good things about Ghostery). If you don't need Java for work/etc., then disable all Java plug-ins and remove Java from your computer entirely. In the beginning of last year, even the Department of Homeland Security recommended disabling Java, because of security problems. While there may have been numerous patches released since then, I'd treat it just like Norton; until someone from the hacking community supports it due to new updates, avoid it like the plague. Java is known for being weak in security, and script kids love it... just ditch it entirely.

Do you really need a stand-alone firewall? Not really... I ran without any software firewall on my computers for many years, and had zero problems. It's a good idea to use one, but lacking it won't be too detrimental to a smart/seasoned user.


Again, you need to define "update size." I can speculate on what you are asking, but I have no idea what you really are asking. Updates for the entire program? Updates for the engines? If you want to know if the engines are going to be larger in update sizes, that's kind of an obvious answer; naturally, with multiple engines, your database updates will be much larger in size. Will the updates for the software alone be larger? I guess it depends on how Qihoo wants to update their software. Kind of answered this one a few posts back; but, without a clear definition of what you're asking, I can't give you a straight answer.


Having more engines is not to be confused with having better engines... don't kid yourself with this one. The more checks something has to go through, the more likely you have a chance of catching infections. On the flip side, this kills performance, and it also makes things heavily redundant. You know how I tell people to "pick one AV software, and stick with it"? I would say the same with engines; pick one, and stick with it. For software that uses multiple engines, I'd simply run the best one available, and switch the others off. If I want to do a full scan, then I would switch them back on for that scan, and then off again once the scan is finished. Multiple engines is a redundancy that most people don't need. I see it as more of a selling point to entice buyers, honestly. If I see a software that uses multiple engines, my automatic thought it, "Okay, they know their own engine is crap, so they use another one to supplement." If you need to supplement for daily use, either your original engine sucks, or your browsing habits don't merit you owning a computer; that's just how I look at security. Unless you're a prime suspect for surveillance, you don't need that kind of excess.

Switch off whatever supplemental engines you can, and stick with one you trust. Personally, I would use the Bitdefender engine, and switch whatever else I can to the off position, for daily use.


I can't really say too much about Qihoo, so I won't say whether something is better/worse than it. You already know my stance on Norton: don't trust Symantec software; period. For paid, I would only be able to recommend Bitdefender as of right now. Bitdefender has a really good reputation, from what I've seen, and they have a very lightweight program that does a nice job. Free AV software: Bitdefender, again. If you want a firewall, I'd use Comodo, as their free firewall is identical to their paid version (minus customer support). Their firewall isn't too difficult to learn, but expect to spend a full weekend tweaking it, if you don't know what you're doing.

I am currently using Webroot, and don't have any major complaints. Would I recommend it? It's hard to say, at this point in time, as I've had some trouble with it in certain areas, and loved it in others. If you can get it below the $10 mark for AV software, it's what I'd consider a "disposable" software license. If you don't like it, or if you find out it sucks, you're not going to be out $50. Testing out paid software like this is also a nice way to find one you like; buy them cheap, use them for a month or so, and do thorough removals when you're going to install a new software. When you find one you like, then you will feel more comfortable paying full price for license renewals (if you wanted to).

Use any of what I recommended, with the browser combo I mentioned above, and you should have a computer that only an idiot can infect... well, by my standards ;)


QIhoo's 360 TS is the more complete version, while 360 IS is more of a specialised tool. If you want to pick one of the two for "complete" protection, use 360 TS; that will give you more options and features for overall protection. I can't truly comment on effectiveness, as I haven't seen any genuinely in-depth reports on what it does/doesn't protect you from, and so on; however, based on the current published reports, it appears they have their security software pretty well made. Depending on what their software is a rip-off of (typical for Chinese companies to copy and remake, just like the Japanese), it could be a very impressive software that I just haven't seen the potential of. Would I completely trust it? For my own use, with my current situation... yes and no. I wouldn't go to the most infected websites known to man, but I wouldn't be afraid of the internet by any means with Qihoo's software as my only protection. If I were to advise you to avoid any software of their's, avoid the browser; I've read that it can be a real bitch to remove, if you don't like it.

Helpful?
 

DukiNuki

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
59
0
18,590
1
Man i LOVED your answers they are so useful . I really like bitdefender because it has a great reviews and sometimes known as best paid software .

but some people say its heavy on resources . its installation file is already huge . i care too much about performance and don't wanna lose my Gaming Performance .

so here is my Last question . how resource hungry BitDefender is ? for example when i had Norton 360 ( latest version ) i didn't feel its presence while gaming . just wanna know if BitDefender will be that good ( performance wise ) . sorry for the other last question but how about Kaspersky compared to BitDefender ? ( Both Performance and Protection wise ) .

i have 8GB ram and i5 3470 CPU + GTX 760 .
 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36
Glad I can help someone who doesn't want the shortest version of everything... never understood that mindset lol.


I don't know if you accidentally threw in Bitdefender, instead of Qihoo in this question, because Bitdefender is known for being a lightweight software. Qihoo's 360 IS installation is 157 MB, and 360 TS is 30 MB... which is odd, when you know what each one does (I figured 360 TS would be closer to 200 MB). Norton is also known to be fairly lightweight.

I'm curious what you are talking about when you say, "heavy on resources." Norton, Bitdefender, or Qihoo? None of these are really that heavy on your system. In fact, for those running Windows 8, AV-Test rates Qihoo as the top performer of the three, followed by BD, and then Norton (if you look at their comparison page). AV-Comparatives puts Bitdefender as one of their fastest performers, while Qihoo comes in at 8th place... though that isn't a position to shame, as it's still pretty lightweight, and the score is still impressive. Compared to some of the other free programs I've used in the past, Qihoo definitely was a lightweight one. Norton isn't rated on AV-C's performance test, but I have a feeling it would rate somewhere in the middle of BD and Qihoo, which is fairly negligible for comparisons; but that's all speculation, of course. If you're a Win7 user, then I would say you're going to notice less performance differences than Win8 users (less crap going on in the OS).

Bitdefender v Norton: BD has a better reputation for being a lightweight, high quality performer, whereas Norton is trailing behind them. Norton isn't necessarily 10x slower, but it does have lesser performance scores. By direct comparison, there is not a huge difference; however, it is noticeable under the right circumstances. During gaming, this might show, depending on if you are a streamer, have plenty of things running the background, and so on. The difference won't be so much that one is butter smooth, and the other is crap, but one will give you more leeway; and from what I've seen, that would be BD. The rest of the differences between the two (namely features), can be easily supplemented with other programs/tools that are free. That will make your security suite less like the software equivalent to Walmart. I hate software like that; KISS- keep it simple, stupid. The way I see software is also basic: if it does less fancy crap, it should perform better than those that are made to do more. It's a pretty good gauge of things, though not meant to be entirely accurate.

If you're looking for the lightest weight AV software I know of, you might just want to go with Webroot. Webroot is insanely lightweight, and (for me) it barely tickles 5 MB of memory usage with a few programs running... including a torrent client with 6 active torrents (broadcasting availability to trackers, and via DHT), but no live transfers. Considering the amount of network traffic I'm pushing, that is fairly impressive, no matter how you want to look at it. Most software I've used idles around the 30 MB mark with the entire OS idling, and no programs running. The way Webroot is designed is fairly controversial (live scanning only the running processes/etc.), and I would recommend running weekly scans to be sure everything malicious gets picked up, but it definitely has the smallest footprint of any security software I've seen; and that is thanks to how the program is written. Webroot's AV is growing on me, in spite of them having a few things I would like to see improved; although, most of this is for a more user friendly experience, and not from a critical standpoint, like "poor security." For lightweight software, however, I don't think it can be beaten. Just my 2 cents on that. I wouldn't give it my stamp of approval just yet, but I wouldn't actively shove anyone away from it... and that's kind of rare. The deal on Newegg has gone up to $5 now, but it's still a nice price to consider for a "disposable" license (try it, and ditch it with no regrets, if you hate it). If you're on the fence of what to buy, you might want to give it a shot to see what happens... it's only five bucks; and, if you end up keeping it, that's a stupid cheap price for a year license.

Your rig isn't that weak. So, unless you do substantial multitasking while gaming, you really don't need to worry about getting the lightest weight AV software possible. Any of the ones I've mentioned should leave you enough headroom for gaming. What games you play (more like how they are programmed) will make the most difference, with your computer, as your AV software processes will only interfere with gaming performance if the computer is heavily loaded with the game to begin with.
 

DukiNuki

Distinguished
Aug 21, 2011
59
0
18,590
1
why is my 360 Qihoo TS only 36 mb ? TS should be better than IS but IS is almost 200MB but TS is this light ?
by the way . i wont go for norton . i Really love BitDefender's 2015 Look . its so cool and its features are so great . PCMag mentioned that this version is very light and Fast and has Very unnoticeable impact on performance .

i heard good things about webroot in PCmag too .

Qihoo as a free software performs so good that makes all decisions a bit harder . Now all i have to do is to choose either Qihoo TS/IS or Bitdefender IS . they both are so cool . i just wish i could get a Protection comparison from both . Thanks for pointing me to right direction bro ;)

 

Skylyne

Estimable
Sep 7, 2014
405
0
5,010
36
I've been wondering the same thing, mate. I have a feeling that Qihoo made their 360 IS version first, then condensed everything when they made 360 TS, and neglected to "fix what isn't broken." Hell, if people aren't using 360 IS very much, if there are few complaints, or if the resources to compress it outweigh the benefits... what's the point for them to bother? I would say it's a practicality thing on their financial end; they just don't want to pay someone to fix something that works as is.

Like I've mentioned before (not in here, but other threads), PC Mag does havea reputation for being paid to downplay their negative reviews of certain software. I don't know how accurate their reviews of any software are, and I'm not entirely sure if the negative reviews are even reliable (someone could, in theory, pay to exaggerate their competition's problems). Since they do have a history of (what I would call) a form of lobbying for positive reviews, I'd take their studies with a grain of salt. After further research, I've noticed some of their reviews are not entirely consistent with independent research; so, obviously, double check their articles. Since there is no real review of Webroot in the independent research area, I'm wondering just how good it stacks up to BD. When it comes to the more basic users, I don't like their on-demand scanner's protection; but it is reliable when scanning the EICAR test files manually.

I'm thinking of doing my own thorough AV testing within the next six months (if resources permit), so I might be able to so some protection testing of QIhoo/BD/Webroot around then. The problem with doing the best kinds of testing is you have to do a mix of both deactivated infections, and live infections (and I'm unaware of any testers who actually use live infections), to get a real sense of the protection quality. Also, It's a bitch and a half to get your test rig back to 100% clean, once you start playing with live infections, outside of a virtual environment... so I need to work out all the bugs before I commit to it (no flash-based medium re-installations of the OS allowed, for obvious reasons). I'll get in touch with my fellow Poindexter, and see if he can help me out with this; he has a background with breaking computer security.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G Antivirus / Security / Privacy 3
B Antivirus / Security / Privacy 3
C Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
C Antivirus / Security / Privacy 4
P Antivirus / Security / Privacy 1
A Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
L Antivirus / Security / Privacy 1
mustafa.islam1548 Antivirus / Security / Privacy 4
R Antivirus / Security / Privacy 10
M Antivirus / Security / Privacy 1
R Antivirus / Security / Privacy 1
S Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
L Antivirus / Security / Privacy 1
M Antivirus / Security / Privacy 1
TStahler Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
S Antivirus / Security / Privacy 2
T Antivirus / Security / Privacy 3
omidelf Antivirus / Security / Privacy 4
M Antivirus / Security / Privacy 4
K Antivirus / Security / Privacy 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY