Iobit Malware Fighter 5 1 Free

By | 26.01.2019
Iobit Malware Fighter 5 1 Free

New ransomware protection engine performed well in testing. Clean, attractive user interface. Cons No test results from independent labs.
iobit malware fighter 5 1 free

IObit Malware Fighter 5 Pro

Iobit Malware Fighter 5 1 Free

New ransomware protection engine performed well in testing. Clean, attractive user interface. Cons No test results from independent labs. Mediocre to poor scores in testing. Simultaneously identified malware samples as both safe and malicious.

Dismal antiphishing score. Scans slow in testing. Bottom Line IObit Malware Fighter 5 Pro boasts an attractive user interface and an effective new ransomware protection engine, but the antivirus labs don’t test it, and it failed some of our hands-on tests. IObit Malware Fighter 5 Pro comes from China, but you wouldn’t know it, except for an occasional oddly translated turn of phrase.

The new ransomware protection is a nice addition to the software, but it can’t make up for the product’s total lack of independent lab tests and poor showing in my own hands-on tests.

View All 10 Photos in Gallery The program’s dark gray main window features a big, green status indicator in the middle, with some simple information about protection status. Green icons at bottom right reflect the status of the product’s three protection engines—more about those in a bit. A column of five icons at left expands to a full left-rail menu when you point to it with the mouse. It’s a slick, simple user interface. The fifth, named Action Center, is a bit different. It’s just an advertisement, an invitation to install trial versions of four other IObit utilities.

That sort of upsell is something I expect to see in a free antivirus; Comodo Antivirus 10 is a good example. It’s less common in commercial antivirus utilities. No Lab Results I follow test reports from five major antivirus testing labs. When an antivirus product appears in the reports from one of the labs, it means two things: Few companies participate with all five labs, and even fewer earn top scores across the board. Bitdefender and Kaspersky Anti-Virus are among that chosen few, with results from all five labs and 9.

It doesn’t participate in testing with any of those five labs. It does include an anti-malware engine licensed from Bitdefender, so you might expect its results to track closely with the excellent scores earned by Bitdefender Antivirus Plus However, the labs state very clearly that their results apply strictly and only to the product under test. And indeed, I’ve seen wildly different results between licensed antivirus engines and the original product. As far as lab tests go, we have no information about Malware Fighter.

Before starting those tests, I enabled all of Malware Fighter’s features. Upon initial installation, the product installs as its feature-limited free edition, with only IObit’s own antivirus engine. Activating the premium product with your license key makes the ransomware protection engine and the licensed Bitdefender engine available, but does not actually enable them.

If you choose to install this program, you absolutely must turn on those two engines. I’d prefer to see the engines activate automatically. This test begins when I open the folder containing my malware samples. Some antivirus products spring into action immediately, taking less than a minute to wipe out all the samples they recognize. Real-time protection in others doesn’t kick in until you click on the file, or until just before launch.

Initially I had the impression that Malware Fighter belonged to one of the latter two categories, because nothing happened right away.

However, after a while it started slowly chipping away at the sample collection. It took 10 minutes before I was sure it was done. At that point, 21 percent of my samples remained. Malware Fighter’s full system scan also proved to be extremely slow. The initial full scan of my standard clean test system took over two hours, longer than almost any competing product. The current average for a full scan is 45 minutes. On completion, it exhibited one of those odd turns of phrase that I mentioned: I launched the remaining samples, noted Malware Fighter’s reaction, and used my hand-coded analysis tool to check how thoroughly it prevented malware installation.

In the end, it detected 89 percent of the samples and earned 8. I gathered and analyzed a new collection of malware samples just over a month ago, and this is the first time I’ve used it for real-time antivirus testing. I did use these sampled to test the cleanup-only FixMeStick , but that was a completely different process. Because the sample collection is new, Malware Fighter’s results aren’t directly comparable to those of products tested with the previous collection, but even so, its scores don’t look good.

Malware Blocking Results Chart The sample URLs I use to test an antivirus product’s ability to prevent malware downloads are different every time, because this test aims to challenge antivirus tools with the very latest malware. I launch each URL in the browser and note whether the antivirus steers the browser away from danger, eliminates the malware during download, or does nothing at all. That’s not what I got.

Malware Fighter steered the browser away from exactly one dangerous URL, which means the test took a long, long time. I had to wait for each malicious executable to download, and then wait seconds for Malware Fighter’s verdict. It blocked 79 percent of the downloads, which is a hair above average. But Norton protected against 98 percent of the samples, and Avira Antivirus Pro managed 95 percent.

In a very unfortunate turn of events, Malware Fighter exhibited signs of what I can only call antivirus schizophrenia. For 17 percent of the samples, it simultaneously displayed a threat warning from the antivirus component and a “file is safe” notice from the download protection module. That’s not something that encourages a user’s trust. Poor Phishing Protection Phishing attacks aim to steal your login credentials by masquerading as legitimate secure websites.

These attacks are insidious; they can be very convincing. Even major corporations have been fleeced by phishing frauds. Malware Fighter’s Network Protection aims to protect against phishing, but after its pitiful performance against malware-hosting URLs, I didn’t hold out a lot of hope.

For this test, I search the web for the newest reported phishing URLs, those too new to have been analyzed and blacklisted. I launch each simultaneously in a browser protected by the product under test and in another protected by Symantec Norton AntiVirus Basic , a long-time winner in the antiphishing realm.

I also check the built-in phishing protection in Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer. However, in several cases it displayed its standard Threat Found popup, with “phishing” in the reported threat name.

I generously counted those as hits, adding them to the rare cases where Malware Fighter displayed an antiphishing alert page in the browser. Trends and types of phishing URLs vary over time, so rather than report a hard number, I report the difference between the product’s detection and Norton’s. Malware Fighter’s detection rate was a dismal 76 percent lower than Norton’s, and the built-in protection in all three browsers scored significantly better.

If for some reason you must use this product, make sure you don’t turn off your browser’s phishing protection. When enabled, it protects specific file types against any unauthorized access, even read access. That’s similar to what Panda Global Protection offers, but Panda reserves this feature for its top-of-the-line suites.

Not all file types are protected by default with Malware Fighter. In particular, text files and many image file types aren’t checked for protection. I suggest you dig in and enable protection for all types that are important to you. For testing purposes, I enabled protection of text files. To test this module, I first ran a very simple ransomware simulator that I wrote myself. All it does is go through text files in the Documents folder and perform a reversible XOR encryption on them.

Malware Fighter detected my test program, popping up a query asking whether to allow the access. I checked the Remember box and clicked Block. However, it didn’t remember my choice. I had to respond to the popup once for every single text file in the Documents folder. On a repeat run, Malware Fighter handled the test program automatically. Next I tested it against real ransomware. I turned off the Bitdefender engine, so it wouldn’t wipe out the samples.

However, I didn’t find any way to turn off Malware Fighter’s own engine, so the antivirus detected the samples, I allowed them to run. For both samples, it detected the initial attempt to encrypt files. This time when I blocked the attempt, I didn’t get additional warnings. Ransomware is tricky; it’s very likely that upon being foiled once, the malware stopped trying.

I also tested what happens when an unauthorized program tries to just read data from a protected file. For this test, I used a tiny text editor that I wrote myself, something that no antivirus would have on its whitelist.

Malware Fighter correctly warned about the program’s access attempt and prevented it from even opening a text file. The RanSim ransomware simulator from KnowBe4 simulates 10 different real-world ransomware behaviors, acting on files it creates itself several folder levels below the Documents folder. Malware Fighter popped up more than a dozen warnings when I ran RanSim, and I chose to block access and remember the choice every time. Even so, Malware Fighter failed all 10 of the tests.

On a repeat test, I got no more warnings, but it still failed. The designers of Cybereason RansomFree , which watches for ransomware behavior, point out that RanSim acts only on files many folder levels below the Documents folder, something real ransomware doesn’t do.

RansomFree also didn’t pass the RanSim test. However, Malware Fighter doesn’t try to detect ransomware behavior; it just protects files, regardless of location.

Repel and destroy any malicious software

IObit Malware Fighter PRO is an enhanced edition of free. FREE DOWNLOAD The latest version BUY NOW (Only $) 1 Year Subscription / 1 PC. IObit Malware Fighter. for. Windows. 4ravind.me 1 About this version. License: Free. Op. System: Windows. Requires Windows: XP and up. Category. Remove over million threats with anti-malware & anti-virus engines; Anti- ransomware engine to protect your files; Up to % faster scan to save your time;.

IObit Malware Fighter 5 RC

There are some new functions and changes in user interface. Send us your feedback 2. IObit Malware Fighter 5 forum 3. Send us your feedback in the program. Added anti-ransomware engine and optimized IObit anti-malware engine to detect and remove more threats thoroughly for higher security, thus protecting your important files from malicious attacks and illegal access by third-party programs.

No Lab Results

The software is supposed for both professional photographers and beginners, independently to the fact that they are simply shooting, the critical condition is the occurrence of 1 of the DSLR cameras. In case the camera is at a distance from the PC and is not easy to get at, there surely are ways to turn the camera on or off.

VIDEO: IObit Malware Fighter 5 Pro Pioneer PDPHD – Review – PCMag Australia

IObit Malware Fighter. for. Windows. 4ravind.me 1 About this version. License: Free. Op. System: Windows. Requires Windows: XP and up. Category. Buy IObit Malware Fighter 2 FREE [Download]: Read 52 Software Reviews – 4ravind.me Download time: 1 minute on broadband, 1 hour, 0 minutes on dial-up. Detect and Remove Infections and . out of 5 stars. out of 5 stars . Remove over million threats with anti-malware & anti-virus engines; Anti- ransomware engine to protect your files; Up to % faster scan to save your time;.

Iobit Malware Fighter 5 1 Free

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *