The answer I was given was as follows: Scheduled scans are no longer an option but there will be FAQ's issued shortly on the Support Website that will cover that. The new engine scans in a different manner so no need for concern regarding the apparent difference in results.
I might add that ExBrit is quite correct in his statements. Us Mods are still conversing with the 'Powers to be' to reintroduce the (Scheduled Scanning Feature). As Peter mentioned there is no degradation in protection or performance.
It is simply due to the way the Next Generation Scanning Engine functions.
The new McAfee anti-malware strategy is built around the idea that protection does not have to slow you down.
Therefore, instead of having regularly-scheduled full scans which can have an impact on PC performance, our security software now looks at files only when you open or execute them.
The new LAM architecture is built on On-Access scanning, where our security software looks at files only as they are executed or accessed.
This way, it prevents infection without having to regularly scan every file on your PC making it as safe as (or safer) than the Real-Time Scanning feature, but with better performance.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
"The new LAM architecture is built on On-Access scanning, where our security software looks at files only as they are executed or accessed"
In respect of on-access, McAfee should ensure that when a manual scan is requested of a file, that it nevertheless identifies and removed malware. I mention this because I had a recent support case where there was an MS Office file with malicious macros, i.e. a Trojan downloader, that are no longer detected on manual scans, yet Webadvisor still identified them as suspicious and they also appear under McAfee on Virustotal. I was told by support that this was now normal behaviour. Ouch!
It is important for users to have the ability to manually scan and have the malware identified and removed immediately, otherwise the product will end up like Webroot (which I also use on some PCs and have problems with) that are in my opinion over-confident in their assumptions, then sometimes get it wrong and don't block malware, and as a consequence the users may get infested with Locky and / or move on elsewhere. Also, users don't like known malware sitting on their hard drives, waiting until it is executed, even if it only is a problem when executed because they could inadvertantly pass it on to another user not knowing it is malware and McAfee missed a chance to identify it earlier and block it.
On access needs to cover these kinds of scenarios, if not already, certainly when requesting a manual scan it needs to be as accurate at Virustotal McAfee and Webadvisor. If this could be fed back to the design team, assuming I have understood any "limitations" of the new LAM. Thank you. Otherwise, the new LAM is light and appreciated.
Update: I've also noted that when using Outlook and downloading an attachment with suspected malware, McAfee no longer identifies it. Then a manual scan does not identify it either. Same attachement downloaded using webmail in FF or Chrome, Webadvisor immediately pounces on it and kills it! I believe this is likely related to the on-access issue / new LAM.
Great, thanks guys.
If it helps, although it's not solely limited to the issue that I reported to support, that particular service request number was: 2136711353
1 of 1 people found this helpful
You are perfectly welcome We always value a User's input/feedback. Please know I indeed just added it to the meeting.
In case it's needed, just for context if they feel it might be helpful, I've been a business and home user of PCs for 30 years. In that time I am sure I have used over 90% of the AVs out there. Used McAfee a good few years back at home and work, but was too slow. Now I recently returned and I really like what I see, very good product, on the right track in my humble opinion, just needs a few tweaks and try not to repeat the mistakes made by some other leading edge AVs who got too smart