PROTECT
PROTECTsTAR ProtectStar Big Comparative TestInternet Security Suites 2009TABLE OF CONTENTS:Page 2Table of ContentsPage 3A.) Tested Products and VersionsB.) General Explanation of the Testing ProcedurePage 4C.) Assessment criteriaPage 5D.) Test: SECURITYPage 61.) THE FIREWALL – external protection2.) THE FIREWALL – internal protection3.) MALWARE DETECTION4.) PROTECTSTAR RECOMMENDATIONPage 8E.) Test: USER FRIENDLINESS & PERFORMANCEPage 15F.) Test: SCAN TIMES (short test)Page 16G.) Test: VALUE AND FEATURESPage 17H.) CONCLUSIONPage 19I.) CONCLUSION II (Recommendation)Page 20Suggestions, criticism and donationsPage 20Contact & Copyright2
PROTECTsTAR A.) Tested products and versionsPublisherName of productRelease / VersionAVGInternet Security 8.08.0.169AviraPremium Security Suite 20098.2.0.247BitDefenderInternet Security 200912.0.10.3BullGuardBullGuard 8.5n/aESETSmart Security 3.03.0.672F-SecureInternet Security 20099.00 build 148G DATAInternet Security 200919.0.0.49KasperskyInternet Security 20098.0.0.454McAfeeInternet Security 200913.0.218*MicrosoftLive OneCare 2.52.5.2900.15NormanSecurity Suite7.10R06SteganosInternet Security 20098.0.170SymantecNorton Internet Security 200916.1.0.33ZoneLabsZoneAlarm Internet Security 20098.0.59.000n/a not applicable, not known since not shown in the program* tested without Active Protection (Artemis)B.) General Explanation of the zones. We tested what happens when we examined the performance of theTesting Procedurea LAN computer is already infected or security suites on a range of systems:Testswerecarriedlaboratoryandoutreala guest computer acts as an “attacker”.under The comprehensive determination andconditions. analysis of the malware detection ratesbothIn the area of SECURITY, the focus is was carried out in cooperation with theboth on the internal and external protection non-profit organization AV-Comparativesprovided by the personal firewall integrated e.V. (www.av-comparatives.org).in the internet security suites. The focus is onthe default settings, meaning the condition The term “malware” refers to viruses,in which the security suite is delivered. worms, trojans, and other harmful programs.Technical specifications of the testsystems (lowest and highest)Operating System: Windows XP with SP3 and/or Windows Vista with SP1CPU: 566MHz [single core] – 2400 MHz[quad core] (average: 1.8 GHz dual core)Ram: 256–4096 MB SD RAM and DDRRAM (average: 1024 MB DDR RAM)a With regard to the aspect of USERsituation in which the security checks FRIENDLINESS, the primary focus wasHard drive: 10–1000 GB, IDE and SATAare performed on a computer which on the installation, deinstallation, clarity of : (average: 120 GB SATA hard drive)is directly connected to the internet. messages and the configuration options,“Externalprotection”referstoboth during the installation and active use.An example would be a computer which is Another criterion was the understandability In addition, we also assessed theconnected to the internet via a DSL modem of the manual (which was sometimes minimum hardware requirements set by(not a router or a hardware firewall, etc.). supplied in print together with the software), the publishers of the security suites. The“Internal protection” refers to a situation the online help and any FAQs provided. main focus of attention in this regard waswhere security checks are performed byon the user friendliness of security suites.a personal firewall on a computer which The last question examined in thisis connected to a LAN. Many firewalls segment was whether or not a bootable RATIO OF VALUE TO FEATURES:only have low security settings for LANs rescue CD/DVD was either available How do the price and the features of a(e.g. home or company networks), or could be created by the user. security suite match up? What additionalsincetheseareconsideredtrusted InthesegmentPERFORMANCE software such as backup, tuning, etc. are3
PROTECTsTAR provided to the user and how many licenses equal value is already included with the recognition. Finally, 10 additional points areare included? In addition, we compared security suite he purchased. The same is allocated for other security features suchthe price of the box and download versions true for programs of system optimisation as the quality of the warning messages,of the publisher and the “street price” and child safety. For these reasons, value log files, intrusion prevention systems, hostcharged by the online retailer Amazon. and features only account for ten percent protection, multiple anti-virus scanners,of the total evaluation.behaviour blockers, etc.C.) Assessment criteriaThe security experts of the ProtectStar A total of 60 points are allocated forAll security suites we tested promise Test Lab established the following point the aspects user friendliness andprotection against the dangers of today’s system with a total of 200 points as the performance. In each of these areas aworld such as hackers, trojans, viruses, basis of the evaluation:maximum of 30 points may be achieved.root kits, key loggers, phishing andpharming attacks.For value and features up to 20 pointsOf the total of 200 points, the aspect may be earned by the security suites.security accounts for 120 points. In thisBecause these are security products, category, 40 points are allocated for thethe main focus is inevitably the protective external protection provided by the firewallD.) Test: SECURITYfunctions offered by the respective suite. and 20 points for the internal protection.However, in addition to security, both A maximum of 50 points may be given forTHE FIREWALL - externalprotectionthe user friendliness as well as the malware detection. Of these 50 points, 25performance are also essential in practical points may be achieved for on-demand Each security suite assessed by theuse. For this reason, both aspects each recognition and another 25 points for ProtectStar Test Lab features anreceive equal consideration in the final retrospective (heuristic) recognition. For d malware recognition we incoming and outgoing connections. Thesubtracted 2.0 points for every percentage firewalls were analysed with their defaultLess essential for the security provided point of malware which was not detected settings, with the configuration in whichby a product, but still of interest is the and for the retrospective recognition they are provided to the user.ratio of value to features. A modern of malware, we subtracted 0.1 pointssecurity suite should provide a maximum for every percentage point of undetected As already mentioned in “Generalof protection regardless of its higher or malware. The retrospective recognition Explanation of the Testing Procedure”, thelower price. In this regard, the user should can be considered as an addition to the firewalls were analysed in two regards:not be influenced in his purchase decision malware engine.External protection (attacker - internetby additional features such as tuning or- test computer) and internal protectionbackup programs or additional licenses. On An additional point may be earned (attacker - LAN - test computer).the other hand, the user may save money respectively if the products have veryif he is not forced to buy a separate backup few or few false alarms (false positives) The firewalls integrated in the securityprogram because a backup solution of for on-demand and proactive malware suites mastered all 15,632 different attackand security tests (this is the total of allknown possible attacks at the time thetests were performed in November 2008).We tested the known types of denialof-service (DoS) attacks as well as theweak points of the operation systems,applications, brute force, CGI abuses,useless services, backdoors and securitychecks. All of the three threat levels (low,4
PROTECTsTAR medium, high) were tested in the area of could be improved for some products, or happens if a computer system is attackedDoS attacks, for example in the “Microsoft the attacks could be sorted according to directly from within the “trusted zone” – theSMS Client”, “ping of death”, “RPC DCOM their priority. A port scan, for example, is LAN?Interface DoS”, “MS RPC Services null really not an attack and the user shouldpointer reference DoS” and “WinLogon. only be informed about a port scan if, for To find this out, the security experts fromexe DoS”. In the area of Microsoft example, it originates from the trusted the ProtectStar Test Lab analysed theBulletin and Windows attacks, examples zone.of what was tested include “Buffer Overrunfirewalls at their default settings with regard(Q326886)” etc.applications, brute force, CGI abuses,to the protective effect in the LAN within Messenger Service (828035)”, “Buffer BitDefender,BullGuard,F-Secure, different attack and security tests. TheOverflow in Windows Troubleshooter Kaspersky and Symantec performed in tests included the currently known types ofActiveX Control (826232)”, “Windows an exemplary manner at default settings denial-of-service (DoS) attacks as well asNetwork Manager Privilege Elevation with regard to warning messages and the weak points of the operation systems,alerts.useless services, backdoors and otherIn the default setting, standardised port The firewalls BitDefender and BullGuard security checks.scans checked for open TCP and UDP are particularly praiseworthy with regardports. All ports (0 – 65535) were scanned. to their configurability. Both products allow Most of the products showed someAs a second step, the firewall was the user to configure even the smallest weaknesses – very much in contrast to thesubjected to a SYN port scan (half-open), detail. However, the user should have otherwise excellent external protection.the so-called stealth scan.sufficientexperienceandknowledge In order to satisfy the increasing demandsregarding IT security before he manually for more user friendliness, some publishersIn addition, the personal firewalls were modifies rules or defines new ones.subjected to 33 special types of attacksconfigure their firewalls as “user friendly”by default for the trusted zone. This, foragainst firewalls. All personal firewalls It would be ideal if in the future the security example, enables computers to exchangeblocked the attacks successfully. suites were able to recognize the specific data over a network, to use a commonThe port scans (tcp-connect and syn/ nature of attacks in more cases and to printer and to access shared folders,half-open) did not find any open ports or notify the user of the attacks. As already without requiring the user to configure theunnecessary services which commonly mentioned, the majority of the security firewall manually.create security problems. Both the suites we analysed only notified the userautomatic test sequence of the hardware- of port scans and simple forms of attack. Because of this, the firewalls of somebased in-house ProtectStar Security Special brute-force attacks and denial-of- manufacturers protect the ports (tcp)Scanner, which carried out an additional service attacks were blocked, but the user 135 (msrpc), 139 (netbios-ssn) und 44511,226 (as of November 2008) safety was not notified of these kinds of attacks, (microsoft-ds) only insufficiently.checks and attacks, as well as the manual even if they continued indefinitely. Onlytests were not able to find any weak points the firewalls of the suites BitDefender, The firewalls of AVG, F-Secure, G DATA,or security risks.Kaspersky and Symantec showed some McAfee, Microsoft, Norman, Steganos,improvements in comparison with their Symantec und ZoneLabs have theseThe firewalls also successfully passed the earlier versions.weaknesses at their default settings.penetration test which lasted for severalhours, without any significant decreaseinperformance.NofirewallshowedTHE FIREWALL - internalprotectionThe security suites of Avira, BitDefender,ESET, Microsoft und ZoneLabs solve thisany weakness in the area of externalproblem differently: after the installationprotection. Only the warning messages, The preceding test showed that all process, these products enable the userlog files and warnings via pop-up, which firewalls offered sufficient protection to choose whether or not the computerare displayed to the user during an attack, against attacks from the internet. But what is supposed to communicate with other5
PROTECTsTAR computers over LAN. The mentioned tcp directly via LAN”). It should be noted that risks mentioned above - TCP Sequenceports are then either protected by the “port forwarding in the LAN” or open ports Prediction und IP ID Field Predictionfirewall or left open. Avira, for example, in the trusted zone are not security risks in Vulnerability at their default settings, insofarasks the user during the installation whether the conventional sense of the word. Only as the user chooses the respective networkor not he wants to allow external access experienced internet security specialists option after the installation. The productsto shared resources such as directories or are able to gain information through open from BitDefender, BullGuard, Kasperkyprinters, bypassing the Avira firewall.ports which may serve as a basis for and Symantec get a bonus point in thefurther attacks. For example, threats such category “internal protection offered by theThe products from Avira, BitDefender, as TCP Sequence Prediction and IP ID firewall” because of their good warningESET, Microsoft and ZoneLabs are thus Field Prediction Vulnerability may result. messages and log files.exemplary in this regard. Other publishers This means that the TCP/IP stack is notshould consider this option. If a firewall has fully protected. The consequence could be As already criticized in the test “Internetthis function, inexperienced users do not that an attacker is able to predict or guess SecuritySuites2008”(http://www.have to block ports manually after installing the sequence number and thus manipulate protectstar-testlab.org/award/protectstarthe product.existing connections.iss2008test eng web.pdf),weagainnoticed that some products notify the userThis option is somewhat difficult to find In addition, an attacker might gain of an attack from the internet, but not if thein the Norton Internet Security 2009 information such as the domain name, the attacks originate from the LAN.by Symantec. Here the user has to click MAC-address, the name of the workstation,“Show home network”, then “Change etc., enabling him to launch further specific Positive exceptions are the suites ofnetwork details” and finally he has to attacks. This however requires the attacker BitDefender, BullGuard, F-Secure, Gchange the security setting to “Restricted”. to be within the trusted zone (LAN) and have Data, Kaspersky and Symantec. TheThe protective effect of the different security the necessary know-how. The products of following table presents an overview of thelevels in the Symantec product are shown Avira, BitDefender, BullGuard, Eset, risks found in the security suites (internalin the following test (see table: “Attacks Kaspersky and Microsoft do not have the and external protection).Attacks directly via internet(ranked by level of risk and number of risksfound)PublisherAVGAttacks directly via LAN(ranked by level of risk and number of risksfound)High / Medium / ure0-011G /07/1/0ADEFZoneLabs0-00/42/8GDate : November 2008Number of attacks (internet):15.632 11.226 26.858Number of attacks (LAN):11.226Product analysed in:Default settingsCaption:AFirewall blocked the attacksB1x “low level” security risk because of “remote system answers to PING command”CShows the difference between the options “strict control” and “allow sharing” which can be chosen after the installation of the product.DPorts 912 (tcp) and 49152 (tcp) [VMware] were recognized as unprotected on the test computerEShows the difference between the levels SHARED/PROTECTED/RESTRICTEDFHelpful log files and warning pop-ups during the attack phasesGShows the comparison between “block zone” and “allow zone”6
PROTECTsTAR MALWARE DETECTION(on-demand/on-access) provided by the functionsbutonlytheretrospectivemalware scanners (as of August 2008). detection rates on the basis of heuristic andThe malware detection rates of the suites Some products offer further additional generic detection.The malware test set forwere determined in cooperation with the protection mechanisms which are, for the on-demand detection consisted of 2.3independent and renowned test centre example, able to detect a virus on the million and the test set for the retrospectivebasis of its behaviour (proactive protection) detection consisted of about r it has been executed by the user. malware programs. This is respectivelyThebehaviour-baseddetectionand divided into Windows viruses, macroIn order to determine the exact detection protection mechanisms (e.g. behaviour viruses, script viruses, worms, backdoors,rate, all products were updated on a blockers, HIPS, etc.) are not evaluated bots, trojans and other malware.certain date and then “frozen”, thus in the retrospective test, because suchmaking an automatic update of the mechanisms only take effect when malware It should be noted that BullGuard is basedproducts impossible. The products were is executed.on a malware engine from BitDefender,also configured to an optimal setting inSteganosononefromAVGandorder to find as many malware programs The retrospective test in Table 2 ZoneLabs on an older anti-virus engineas possible. Table 1 shows only the “Retrospective” [as of November 2008] from Kaspersky. These are the results andsignature-based and heuristic protection therefore does not show the proactive detection rates:Table 1: “On-Demand isherAviraG DATASymantecKasperskyAVG SteganosESETBitDefender e positivesmanymanyfewmanymanyfewmanyfewfewmanyvery fewvery fewOptimal detection rate99,6 %99,5 %99,0 %97,6 %97,3 %96,6 %96,4 %95,8 %95,7 %94,5 %92,6 %92,5 %Captionvery few0 –4 false positivesfew5–14 false positivesmany15 – 100 false positivesNote: status August 2008: wetherefore tested the currentprogram versions of themanufacturers at that time.Table 2: “Retrospective Test”:Pos.manymanymanyfewDetection rate(over one week)71,0 %71,0 %66,0 %54,0 %Detection rate(over four weeks)67,0 %60,0 %59,0 %51,0 %many51,0 %46,0 %very fewfewmanyvery fewmanyfewfew47,0 %44,0 %43,0 %37,0 %25,0 %20,0 %18,0 %44,0 %44,0 %40,0 %29,0 %25,0 %9,0 %8,0 %PublisherFalse positives1.2.3.4.AviraKasperskyG DATAESET5.BitDefender BullGuard6.7.8.9.10.11.12.MicrosoftSymantecAVG SteganosMcAfeeNormanF-SecureZoneLabs7
PROTECTsTAR PROTECTSTAR RECOMMENDATIONOn the basis of the tests we performed on password protection should be activated and does not wish to share folders, files,the security suites, ProtectStar makes by the user. The password should have at printer, etc. with other computers in thethe following general recommendations:least eight characters, comprised of letters, network, he should protect the netbiosnumbers and special characters.In order to improve the security of a securityservices (e.g. port 139, 443, etc.) with thefirewall.suite, every solution should be password This prevents attackers from deactivatingprotected. All of the reviewed products or even deinstalling the complete suite orhave such a feature, which, however, is parts of it such as the virus scanner or thedeactivated in the default settings. The firewall. If a user has a (home) network,E.)Test: USER FRIENDLINESS & PERFORMANCEIn the tests carried out by the ProtectStar test lab, the results for user friendliness andthe performance of the security suites were as follows:AVG Internet Security 8.0 Steganos Internet Security 2009:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) good and reliable control of the product(-) no boot medium(-) extremely convoluted settings menu(-) updates only downloaded every four hours at the default settingPERFORMANCE:( ) good overall performance(-) slower on-demand scan8
PROTECTsTAR Avira Premium Security Suite 2009:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) user-friendly configuration already during installation( ) clear user interface( ) well thought-out default settings both for home users and professionals( ) “expert mode” allows user to adjust a multitude of settings( ) easy creation of a boot medium( ) good manual( ) game modus adjustable(-) update only 3-5 minutes after system startup(-) no HIPSPERFORMANCE:( ) very good performanceBitDefender Internet Security 2009:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) clearly structured user interface with useful activity display( ) great number of setting options for experienced users( ) good integration of the spam module( ) fingerprint technology( ) good reports( ) comes with emergency boot medium( ) features game mode(-) http scan deactivated by defaultPERFORMANCE:( ) performance increased compared to the previous version(-) under Vista, system is booted with great delay9
PROTECTsTAR BullGuard 8.5:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) good and reliable firewall program control( ) excellent live support chat( ) good factory settings( ) good integration of the spam module(-) confusing user interface and total overview(-) Windows firewall is not automatically deactivated,therefore unwanted dual operation of the two firewalls(-) poor help texts(-) no emergency boot mediumPERFORMANCE:(-) slow virus scanEset Smart Security 3.0:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) very good update performance( ) clearly structured user interface( ) very good retrospective detection (advanced heuristics“)( ) suited for beginners and experienced users (via Advanced mode)(-) no feedback t o suspicious files that are sent in(-) few additional features(-) few warning messages when firewall fends off attacks(-) no bootable emergency CD available, neither any option tomanually create itPERFORMANCE:( ) test winner in the area of overall performance( ) excellent and fast anti-virus scanner10
PROTECTsTAR F-Secure Internet Security 2009:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) detailed and good log files and warning pop-ups in case of attacks( ) clearly structured user-interface( ) good help windows( ) helpful live security information( ) elaborate setting options for home-users and professionals( ) via Advanced, a great number of configuration options are available( ) good boot medium( ) simple installation( ) very good http scanner(-) up-date frequency not selectable(-) no history of the scan reports(-) http scan activated by default(-) spam filters difficult to configurePERFORMANCE:( ) increased performance compared to the previous version(-) still resource-hungry compared to competing productsG DATA Internet Security 2009USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) clearly structured and modern user interface( ) excellent and secure default settings in the AV scanner area( ) user-defined installation( ) very good help texts and manual( ) good reports with history( ) simple creation of rescue media( ) IMAP accounts are supervised( ) features game mode(-) rescue media available with only one scan engine (no double scan)(-) excellent protection in trustworthy zones only via manual modificationof the firewall rules(-) insufficient information regarding the firewall in case of attacks(-) integration of the anti-spam module in Outlook onlyPERFORMANCE:( )increased performance compared to the previous version(-) deinstallation takes unusually long(-) http scanner slows down on pages with extensive graphics11
PROTECTsTAR Kaspersky Internet Security 2009:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) excellent overall impression( ) good and user-defined installation( ) very good elaborate factory settings for home users aswell as professionals( ) detailed warning messages via pop-ups in all security areas( ) very good anti-spam filter and „content filtering“( ) very good update performance( ) excellent and user friendly anti-spam filter( ) scan on weak points in the system( )IMAP accounts are supervised( )Gamer modus (full screen image)( ) good mail protection module with integrated preview of themails on the serverPERFORMANCE:( ) effective „fingerprint“ technology (see F. scan times)( ) little influence on system performanceMcAfee Internet Security 2009:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) simple and user-defined installation(-) old-fashioned user-interface (GUI), which has remainedunchanged for years(-) insufficient log entries(-) excellent protection in trustworthy zones only via manualmodification of the firewall rulesPERFORMANCE:( ) good overall performance12
PROTECTsTAR Microsoft Live OneCare 2.5USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) clearly-structured configuration options for the firewall( ) comfortable access to Windows functions and system optimizations(-) few setting options for the anti-virus scanner(-) user takes some time to get used to(-) insufficient log entries(-) no warning pop-ups in case of attacks from the trustworthy zonePERFORMANCE:( ) good overall performance(-) slow on-demand malware scannerNorman Security Suite:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) good introductory wizard including detailed explanations( ) clearly structured and neat user interface( ) good and reliable firewall program control( ) intelligent screensaver scanner( ) powerful sandbox technology( ) „de-installation protection“ via code entry.(-) OutBreak Mode deactivated by default(-) few configuration options for advanced users(-) advanced setting options for the firewall are too hard to find(-) 24 hours as update interval, smallest possible setting 6 hours(-) no boot medium(-) no spam filterPERFORMANCE:( ) good overall performance( ) good performance of the real-time performance(-) slow on-demand scan13
PROTECTsTAR Norton Internet Security 2009:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) great number of improvements compared to the previous version( ) excellent and user friendly anti-spam filter( ) very well suited for technically unversed users( ) excellent update performance( ) features game and silent mode( ) good detection of attack types( ) excellent online help and support options( ) user friendly program control( ) simple installation and product activation( ) clearly structured and modern user interface( ) bootable rescue medium(-) sufficient configuration options only in the heuristics and quarantine areas(-) log files cannot be deletedPERFORMANCE:( ) quick installation( ) quick anti-virus scanners (on-demand)( ) excellent performance properties( ) effective „fingerprint“ technologyZoneAlarm Internet Security 2009:USER FRIENDLINESS:( ) home-user friendly configuration options( ) good log files and warning messages( )good detection of attack types(-) no setting option, e.g., to download updates every hour(-) few configuration options for the anti-virus scannersPERFORMANCE:(-) slow on-demand malware scanner14
PROTECTsTAR F.) Test: SCAN TIMES(short test)In this brief test, we analyzed the scan this case consisted of the scan times on documents, MP3 files and pictures andtimes or scan speeds of the malware a computer system (Core2Duo E 6300, an additional 155 GB of SystemImages).scanner integrated into the respective 2048MB Ram, WD-Sata hard drive) The entire test files were checked by eachsecurity suite. In the process, each product whose hard drive was occupied by 265 malware scanner three times in a row inwas manually configured with the highest GB altogether (of these, 16GB consisted each case. The table below displays thesecurity settings. The test criterion in of system files, 94GB of user files such as scan times for scans 1-3:Pos.Publisher1st scan2nd scan3rd cAfee00:46:42uvuv7.BullGuard00:52:37uvuv8.G DATA01:17:4301:17:0100:52:019.AVG 7:05uvUvuc unchanged or identical with 1st scanRegarding this brief test of scan times, it modifications are performed on a product’sshould be borne in mind that these times configuration settings or if many differentmerely represent a snapshot and are files and, above all, file formats are totherefore included in the overall result be scanned, scan times are accordinglywithout being rated. If, for example, manual shorter or longer.15
PROTECTsTAR G.) Test: VALUE AND FEATURESPrice(Box)PriceAmazon(Download) priceLicensesContents(Software)POINTSmax. 20AVG-------69,99--53,993x1xAV, FW, AS, WF11sufficientAvira-----59,9539,9544,95---3x1xAV, FW,AS, KS, BP17goodBitDefender-----49,9539,9540,95---3x1xAV, FW, AS, KS,ID, DS18very goodBullGuard-----69,95--------3x1xAV, FW, AS, BP15satisfactoryEset--49,9579,9549,95-----3x1xAV, FW, 0,503x1xAV, FW, AS, KS16goodG Data59,9539,9553,9535,9549,9529,953x1xAV, FW, AS, WF,DS18very goodKaspersky59,9539,9559,9539,9544,9528,453x1xAV, FW, AS, WF,KS, ID18very goodMcAfee54,9534,9554,9534,9530,9523,993x1xAV, FW, AS, KS,DS, BP19very goodMicrosoft-----49,95---31,40---3x1xAV, FW, ID, ST,BP17goodNorman-----49,00--------3xxAV, FW, , FW, AS, 7,953x1xAV, FW, AS, KS,ID, WiFi18very goodZoneLabs-----49,9529,953x1xAV, FW, AS, KS,ID,17goodRatingPrices in eurosLegend: AV antivirus scanner / FW firewall / PC parental control / BP backup / ID identity protection / WF Web filter / DS data shredder / ON onlinescanner / ST system tuner / WiFi WLAN protectionAs far as the relation of value and features Therefore, it always pays to compare to check whether an online mail-orderis concerned, it is striking that there ar
AVG Internet Security 8.0 8.0.169 Avira Premium Security Suite 2009 8.2.0.247 BitDefender Internet Security 2009 12.0.10.3 BullGuard BullGuard 8.5 n/a ESET Smart Security 3.0 3.0.672 F-Secure Internet Security 2009 9.00 build 148 G DATA Internet Security 2009 19.0.0.49 Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 8.0.0.
Go Fishing (Largemouth Bass) Helping Sea Turtles Survive . Indian River Lagoon Protect Florida Springs Protect Florida Whales . Protect Our Oceans Protect Our Reefs Protect the Panther . STATE WILDFLOWER Protect Wild Dolphins . Save Our Seas Save the Manatee . 6.
CI8605AU INFINITE PROTECT CURLING TONG Use & Care Instruction Manual Thank you for purchasing the new Remington Infinite Protect Curling Tong. The Curling Tong features the Infinite Protection Technology that helps protect your hair for long lasting vibrancy & shine. KEY PARTS 1. Advanced ceramic coating infused with Shea Oil and U.V. Filters 2.
When I grow up you will see, just what I want to be, there are many jobs in my community! WhooHoo! Police protect and serve yes they do! Police protect and serve yes they do! Police protect and serve, Police protect
automatically covered by the Asset Protect policy for a base cover of 15,000 maximum per claim. Clubs should complete this application form if: 1. You are affiliated with the SANFL or AFL NT and require Asset Protect cover; or. 2. Your club qualifies for Base Level Asset Protect Cover and wishes to increase the sums insured above 15,000.
DESERET PROTECT This summary plan description, or SPD, outlines the major provisions of Deseret Protect as of January 1, 2022. . Your annual out-of-pocket maximum is 5,600 per person or 8,400 per family. Due to Deseret Protect's low premiums, some services are not covered, including acupuncture, allergy testing, injections .
Singtel_Home_Protect_FAQ_Dec 2022 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Singtel Home Protect Policy Number: F0239635 Product Coverage 1. What is Singtel Home Protect? Singtel Home Protect is a household contents insurance plan underwritten by Great Eastern General Insurance Limited ("GE") and offered specially to customers of Singtel. 2.
do Pto help protect your property. Protect your property Your property is probably your most valuable asset. As such, it can be an attractive target for fraudsters, which is why you need to do what you can to protect your ownership. HM Land Registry is a government agency that maintains the register of property ownership in England and Wales .
Note: "Protect" option is only available in Adobe Acrobat Pro version. For other versions, there may be a subscription fee to use the service Password protection for your electronic signed pdf documents Open the PDF document with Adobe Acrobat Pro/Reader DC or XI application. On the right side, click "Protect" to open the "Protect .
