Case project assignemnt

Comparing Antivirus Software al affiliation Comparing Antivirus Software The basic features of Kaspersky Antivirus that are differentfrom other vendors’ products include fast virus detection, high-speed scanning, and proactive defense component. Kaspersky Antivirus is fast at detecting malware because its signature files are updated after every hour. According to Dennis Technology Labs (2013), Kaspersky Antivirus has a detection accuracy rating of 97%. The detection rate considers how the antivirus differentiates malware from legitimate applications. Kaspersky Antivirus is also the best in terms of preventing threats from compromising a computer. In this case, Kaspersky Antivirus can prevent up to 99% of malware from affecting files or applications in a computer (Dennis Technology Labs, 2013).
Despite the good functionality, Kaspersky Antivirus has some major weaknesses. For example, it reduces the performance of a computer once it is installed. The antivirus runs automatically when the computer is turned on. The antivirus software is designed in such a way that it monitors any changes on all installed programs in a computer. If the user opens any applications, the antivirus scans them before they can run. In the process, it compares the performance of the application from the time it was updated with its present state. Thus, the background scan significantly reduces the processing speed of the device (Dennis Technology Labs).
In addition, Kaspersky Antivirus is unable to block certain content from the web (Dennis Technology Labs, 2013). Kaspersky Antivirus is also among the most expensive antimalware software. For example, in Amazon, one-year subscription for three computers costs $34. 23. The cost is significantly high compared to BullGuard, which sells at $18. 81.
Because Kaspersky Antivirus is fast in terms of virus detection, I would recommend it to someone. It is better to work with a slow device than the one that is fast but with high risks.
Comparing Personal Firewalls
The Windows, ZoneAlarm Pro, and Comodo firewalls are some of the common firewalls available to individuals. They all filter outgoing traffics. Once they are integrated into the operating system, they monitor networks without the configurations of the user. They also have streamlined updating features (Khoeid & Redd, n. d.).
The Windows firewall monitors incoming connection requests that initiate the computer to connect to outbound networks. Whenever an outbound network prompts UDP or TCP communication that the user has not initiated, the firewall blocks the connection automatically. Comodo firewall blocks unwanted connections or content from accessing a clean device in a similar way. It works by monitoring application signatures and comparing them with previous versions. If there are changes, Comodo firewall can detect using its Sandbox technology. The ZoneAlarm Pro also has the ability to detect changes in essential applications such as browsers. For instance, if a user runs a fake version of a browser, the firewall automatically stops any connection to the internet (Herzog, Köpsén, & Nilsson, 2006).
Although they work in a similar manner, the three firewalls differ on the way they monitor outbound traffic. For example, the Windows firewall does not monitor outgoing traffic. Thus, if malicious software in the device prompts connection to the internet, the Windows firewall will stay passive. Conversely, the ZoneAlarm and Comodo firewalls filter incoming and outgoing traffic and also provide helpful popup dialogues when connecting to the internet (Scarfone & Hoffman, 2009).
Because Comodo is free and effective, I would recommend to someone. It can also operate in stealth mode. For instance, it drops connections instead of denying them, reducing the number of popups.
References
Dennis Technology Labs. (2013). Enterprise anti-virus protection. Retrieved November 10, 2014 from http://dennistechnologylabs. com/reports/s/a-m/2013/DTL_2013_Q2_Ent. 1. pdf
Herzog, A., Köpsén, K., & Nilsson, M. (2006). Security and usability of personal firewalls. Linköping University. Retrieved November 16, 2014 from http://www. ida. liu. se/~iislab/projects/firewall-comparison/
Khoeid, M. & Redd, C. A. (n. d.). Comparison of personal firewalls security and performance. Retrieved November 10, 2014 from http://khaledelleithy. org/Journals/J15_ComparisonOfPersonalFirewallsSecurityAndPerformanceIssues. pdf
Scarfone, K. & Hoffman, P. (2009). Guidelines on firewalls and firewall policy. Retrieved November 10, 2014 from http://csrc. nist. gov/publications/nistpubs/800-41-Rev1/sp800-41-rev1. pdf