Product review: McAfee VirusScan Plus 2010

Be the first to comment | 6I like it!
November 24, 2009, 06:20 PM —  PC World — 

McAfee VirusScan Plus ($40 for a one-year, single-PC license, as of 11/19/09) does well with traditional, signature-based malware detection, but it delivered a large number of false positives and fumbled on essentials like proactive protection and scan speed. Overall, it ranked tenth out of the 11 products in our roundup of stand-alone antivirus programs.

When put up against AVTest.org's huge cache of spyware, Trojans, and other malware, McAfee's program successfully identified an impressive 99.9 percent of samples, which earned it a second-place rank in that category behind G-Data. Then again, most of the programs we tested handled basic signature detection well.

However, the apps we tested differed greatly in their ability to proactively protect against new malware that didn't yet have a full signature. Here, McAfee's offering disappointed. In heuristic tests that use two-week-old signature files and newer malware, the program detected only 56.8 percent of AVTest.org's samples. Six other programs did a better job.

VirusScan Plus mitigates that lackluster heuristic detection with its ability to check unknown files against online servers, which means that the latest available signatures will always be used. And the company proved quick in providing those signatures, usually within two hours of any given outbreak. Only Symantec was as nimble in its outbreak response.

But online crooks devote a great deal of effort to evading signature detection, and VirusScan Plus lacks any ability to identify malware based solely on behavior. Behavioral analysis provides a strong extra layer of proactive protection; VirusScan Plus, however, wasn't able to block any malware in behavioral tests.

The program also fared poorly in disinfection tests. Every other app we evaluated was able to detect and disable all of the test malware infections, and while McAfee disabled what it found, it failed to detect one of the ten.

The bad news continued with scan speed. The app's data throughput for automatic scans that occur when you save or copy a file, for instance, was a pokey 7.06MB per second. Only Trend Micro Antivirus + Antispyware was slower. And McAfee made the most mistakes when it came to putting up false alerts about harmless files. Its 15 incorrect results was more than twice as many as the next worst showing (Kaspersky had 6).

McAfee does offer some nice extras with its app. For one thing, subscribers get all future program updates for free, with no need to pay extra for new software versions. Also, the company doesn't offer any antivirus programs without a firewall, so you'll get one with VirusScan Plus (we didn't test the firewall for this roundup, however).

VirusScan Plus is also relatively easy to use, and its warning pop-ups display plenty of information when it finds a threat. But some good features and a decent user interface can't outweigh a poor job at many critical protection tasks.

» posted by ITworld staff

PC World

Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world

I like it!
Close

On Twitter now

Antivirus

Powered by Twitter
You are logged in | Sign out
Sign in and post to Twitter

What are you thinking?

Cancel Tweet sent

On Twitter now

Post a comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
peer-to-peer

Brian Proffitt
Microsoft/Novell: Breaking Down the Coupon Numbers

Esther Schindler
Drupal's Dries Buytaert on Building the Next Drupal

Tom Henderson
Top Ten General Operating Systems Rants

pasmith
PS3 motion controller delayed; goes up against Project Natal

sjvn
Neolithic Windows security hole alive and well in Windows 7

claird
Perl source code comparison makes for good reading

James Gaskin
Learn How To Print Pages In Order with Ink Jet Printers

mikelgan
Cell phones don't create stress or interrupt much

Sandra Henry-Stocker
How to: The Unix Interview

 

Where Google Chrome security fails: the password
I heard mention that the Chrome OS will have some sort of encryption available a la bitlocker. If it's possible to encrypt personal data using another password or key, then it may have potential for very secure data.... And Ubuntu has an 'encrypt home directory' option, perhaps google should follow suit.
- Dann

Join the conversation here

The Daily Tip

The Daily TipQuick, practical advice for IT pros. Made fresh daily.

Hot tips:

Want to cash in on your IT savvy? Send your tip to tips@itworld.com. If we post it, we'll send you a $25 Amazon e-gift card.

Newsletters

Subscribe to ITWORLD TODAY and receive the latest IT news and analysis.

I would like to receive offers via email from ITworld partners.
By clicking submit you agree to the terms and conditions outlined in ITworld's privacy policy.
Marketplace