- #MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE FOR MAC#
- #MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE SOFTWARE#
- #MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE DOWNLOAD#
- #MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE MAC#
- #MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE WINDOWS#
While the applications do not inflict any damage, they do exhibit questionable behavior. In this segment, there was also an additional test: It was evaluated how the security solutions behave towards "potentially unwanted applications" – or PUAs in short. The result was excellent on the packages for home and business users. For the test, the security packages were required to scan hundreds of applications and monitor the installation of a few dozen programs.
#MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE SOFTWARE#
In an additional segment, the testers evaluated whether the packages detect standard software as perfectly clean, as opposed to falsely classifying it as a threat and blocking it. No false positives when scanning perfectly clean programs That sounds like a lot of time, but it represents merely a 3 to 5 percent heavier load due to the security solution compared to the reference system. For the solution from ESET, it is already up to 7 seconds, and for Sophos it is 10 seconds. The products from SentinelOne and McAfee increase the time factor when copying and downloading in the test by 1 to 2 seconds. Two of the four solutions for business users consistently demonstrated a very low system load on the client. Corporate solutions with a low system load on the client
#MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE DOWNLOAD#
If the so-called web shield is activated by the user, then the download is once again validated immediately, but more slowly. In the new subsequent version, they changed the default setting to validate the download afterwards, which saves lots of time. In response to a query, the manufacturer stated that in the tested version the standard default configuration was still set to immediate validation during download and not after download as is the case with other products. Avast Security did indeed deliver error-free detection, but it slowed down the system in the test procedure by 73 seconds – that is too much. F-Secure and Intego delayed the test procedure by 21 to 35 seconds. Bitdefender and Sophos Home did just as good a job at detection, but required as much as 6 to 13 seconds more time. All these packages also achieved the 100 percent mark in detection. Those levels are actually unnoticeable in everyday use. The security packages for consumer users from Kaspersky Lab, Trend Micro and Symantec added a load of a mere 1 to 2 additional seconds when copying and downloading.
#MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE MAC#
Using this method, it quickly becomes apparent which antivirus solution requires too many resources in everyday use, thereby slowing down a Mac system. The exactly identical copying procedure and the same downloads were then repeated with each security solution installed, and the times were measured. On the reference system, the copying took 147 seconds, and the downloads lasted 56 seconds. In addition, various downloads were performed, and these times were also recorded. In evaluating this criterion, the testers copied a selection of files on a reference system encompassing a volume of 27.28 GB, clocking the time necessary for the operation. The fact that those days are now over can be seen in the test segment on speed. In the past, many Mac security packages demonstrated a conspicuously high system load. Lots of protection with a low system load Likewise, high detection rates among corporate solutions were reached by ESET, McAfee and Sophos. For consumer users, the packages from Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab and Trend Micro demonstrated superb detection rates between 99 and 100 percent. While these are innocuous on a Mac, in a mixed network, malware could thus hide on a Mac – especially when it is used as a server.
#MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE WINDOWS#
In an additional test, the detection performance of Windows files was also evaluated. Endpoint Security from McAfee experienced a minor detection error: 99.6 percent. The security package from Comodo only detected an unacceptable 38.1 percent.Īmong the solutions for corporate users, the products from ESET, SentinelOne and Sophos detected all attackers 100 percent. F-Secure delivered a somewhat weaker performance with 93.8 percent. Intego overlooked a few malware samples, yet still attained a good 99.4 percent. In the test involving packages for home users, a total of 6 out of 9 packages detected the 514 selected MacOS attackers: Avast, Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab, Sophos, Symantec and Trend Micro. High detection rates for many security packages None of the security packages switched off the internal protection functions of MacOS Sierra. The solutions were installed in the test as additional protection for MacOS Sierra. SentinelOne Next Generation Endpoint Security Software 2.0Īll versions were evaluated under identical iMacs running on MacOS Sierra 10.12.6.
#MACOS SIERRA PERFORMANCE FOR MAC#
Kaspersky Lab Internet Security for Mac 18.0
The first 9 on the list are for home users: The laboratory of AV-TEST examined a total of 13 products under MacOS Sierra. Put to the test: 9 products for home users, 4 solutions for business users
0 kommentar(er)
