24 May 2011, 8:59 AM
(11 days ago.)


http://apcmag.com/vipre-tops-anti-virus-test.htm

An anti-malware package called VIPRE has topped one of the key tests performed by the German security testing company AV-Test. But Microsoft’s Security Essentials was disappointing

I happen to use Vipre (over 1 year now) and have had no issues on my PC or Laptop (you almost forget that it is running). They will fix for free any problem that their tool fails to prevent. Certainly, an AV tool worthy of consideration.

I always find it amazing how a reviewer raves about one program - then takes an opportunistic bash at Microsoft. The actual unbiased test report did not bash any particular product. In fact, MSE was "certified" just as Viper and many of the others were. Comodo, a highly regarded security company was NOT certified - why not bash them? McAfee Total Protection was not certified - why not bash them?

This is nothing but shameless MS bashing

And you are right - GFI, formally Sunbelt and the makers of Viper, have been around for years. They were noted for their firewall and AV software. Viper started as a feature in their AV product then evolved into their main anti-malware product. So it is clear that Tony Sarno guy is unprofessional, biased, and does not do, or ignores his homework. I would not trust him.

Personally, I think it is great Viper is able to repair damage well. But how important is that? For damage to occur, the malicious code would have to get past all your defenses coming in, then start wrecking havoc, all the while remaining undetected.

That to me says that Viper would be best for someone who is already infected. That does not mean it is best for everyone, or even most.

It really is not hard to protect our systems from malicious intent. You don't need Fort Knox around you. There are many excellent anti-malware solutions. My recommendation is to select one that is certified, such as MSE, Avast, AVG, Avira, Mcafee, Norton, Viper - any that are certified at respected labs like ICSA Labs, WestCoast Labs or AV-Test.

If you keep it updated, one is as good as the other - assuming you keep your system updated too, and avoid illegal risky behavior.

It is always the user who is the weakest link, not the anti-malware program.

Spotting malware is considered the least demanding test of a given tool. But, now there is a further reported disturbing "point of failure" trend for higher risk faced by even fully patched PCs using MSE:

"Zero-day detection was mediocre, AV-Test.org testing finds"

...has put in a mediocre showing in the latest quarterly tests from German test outfit AV-Test.org, finishing second to the bottom out of 22 products.

According to AV-Test's quarterly results, MSE's performance in this test has also deteriorated quarter-on-quarter, dropping from around 75 percent to Q1's 50 percent.

Microsoft Security Essentials struggles in antivirus tests - Refurbished Computers

And yet,

Security Essentials was in the end awarded a 'pass' certification under the AV-Test assessment for making the grade in at least 11 of the 18 tests, putting it ahead of five products that failed altogether. In addition to CA's suite, these were Norman Security Suite Pro 8.0, McAfee Total Protection 2011, PC Tools Internet Security 2011, and Comodo Internet Security Premium 5.0/5.3.

Certainly, if MSE continues to slide to the point it no longer passes, then it will be time to pass on it.