DOCSLIB.ORG

Vendor Comparison Matrix Example – Comparison of Antivirus Software

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Vendor Comparison Matrix Example – Comparison of Antivirus Software Vendor Comparison Matrix Example – Comparison of Antivirus Software https://protectourpower.org/best-practices/pop-bp-vendor-comparison-matrix-example-antivirus.pdf In summary, this paper provides and discusses a cut-and-paste of a Wikipedia antivirus matrix into the PoP analysis matrix and provides the resultant Vendor Comparison Matrix. Introduction The Protect Our Power (PoP) Best Practices in Cybersecurity for Utilities Project has 2 Goals: 1. Provide organized and comprehensive information to the electric Utilities related to specific actionable subsets (Topics) of cybersecurity. 2. Provide an analysis of suppliers for each Topic that allows a Utility to understand better which suppliers are more related to each Utility’s interest in using best practices. The first Goal is addressed via a literature search specific to the Topic under consideration. The second Goal is addressed via a Vendor Comparison Matrix. These represent two of the Work Products expected for each Topic. The Topics and associated Vendors are contained in the Taxonomy. Educational Institutions are used to complete all Work Products and have final authority to ensure an independent analysis. Companies like Forrester and Gartner produce analyses of Vendors related to specific software areas – but are not targeting specific Utility needs. The Vendor Comparison Matrix in Protect Our Power’s Project can be thought of as like a Magic Quadrant or other analyses of vendors sometimes produced by such companies. Wikipedia, interestingly, provides a “Comparison of Antivirus Software.” It is unusual to locate such an analysis – and we use the data here to populate a PoP Vendor Comparison Matrix and furnish the result. Although such an open source comparison is rare, it provides an opportunity to simply cut-and-paste the data into the PoP Vendor Comparison Matrix for testing and demonstration purposes. We have done that, and the results are included in this paper. This allows for the demonstration of additional features of the analysis matrix. Wikipedia’s Comparison of antivirus software The Wikipedia site shows a different matrix for Windows, macOS, Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, Android, iOS, Windows Phone, Symbian, and BlackBerry – i.e. an antivirus vendor matrix for each of these operating systems. In this demonstration, we take and cut-and-paste only the data for the Windows operating system into the PoP software. There are 24 Vendors listed in this matrix – starting with AhnLab and ending with Webroot. However, there are 51 rows in the Wikipedia/Windows matrix because some companies have more than one product that are differentiable enough where multiple rows are used, and an “Info” Column is used (see the “Software Description” column) for the information that specifies the actual product that the specific row addresses. An “Info” column in the matrix is one of the three Types of columns – the others are “Binary” and “Score.” The columns in the matrix are various Criteria of interest and PoP has a separate document that discusses Criteria. The only changes to the Wikipedia matrix are the addition of an additional Column (Criterion) for a “Score” kind of Criterion) and a weights row to weight all the Criteria – all of which are “Binary” Criteria. The “Score” column is only added for demonstration purposes (there could be many “Score” Criteria in a different situation). The “Info” Columns are not used in any calculations, but are provided for the potentially valuable information they contain. The Resultant Vendor Comparison Matrix The Wikipedia data (rows and columns) were copied into the PoP software (an Excel Workbook with Macros), a Weights row was added (green), a Types row was added (blue) under the Criteria names. Otherwise, entry into the PoP Workbook was a straightforward cut and paste. (see the three Sections of the Matrix starting on the next page) The Weights (must add to 100%) provide the user (a Utility in PoP’s case) with the ability to customize the matrix to address their particular situation. In this example, weights were simply randomly assigned. The “Info” columns should always have zero weights. The Score column in this case has been assigned a zero weight as it has no non-zero data. The Vendor Scores (in red in column 3) are calculated using the values in the matrix interior weighted by the green weights (that add to 100%). Then the matrix was sorted by Vendor Score with the products rising to the top that do best given the user’s (Utility’s) needs (as expressed in the Weights for each Criterion Column. This promotes movement to best practices (that still allow for individual utility circumstances.) While the actual Workbook can be downloaded and examined, it is manually divided into three sections and included here as Section 1, Section 2, and Section 3 below. Each Section includes the Company List and Vendor Score columns for better reader continuity and movement from section to section. Please note that Protect Our Power in no way endorses the Wikipedia data or any ranking of Vendor products here based on random weights. The production of this matrix is provided solely for demonstration purposes. Section 1 demonstrates that multiple products from the same Vendor can be added into the matrix simply by adding an “Info” column titled (Software Description). The other columns in Section 1 are all “Binary” as that is the kind of data furnished in the Wikipedia example. Blanks (in the body of the matrix) are not used in any calculations. Section 2 repeats the first 3 columns for continuity and includes an additional 9 Criteria. One of those Criteria is “Sandbox”, but that column has many blank entries so it is a candidate for a zero weight (not enough data) which the matrix reflects. Finally, Section 3 includes the remainder of the columns – many of which are “Info” in the Types row (row 3). “Info” columns are not used in any calculations. Section 1 On- On- Boot- Vendor dema Heuri Cloud Firew Criteria Names > Software Description acces time Score nd stics AV all s scan scans scan Types > Info Binary Binary Binary Binary Binary Binary Companies V 100% 0% 14% 6% 5% 11% 5% 12% 1 Dr.Web 6.0 Dr.Web Security Space Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 Kaspersky Lab 5.8 Kaspersky Total Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 3 ESET 5.8 ESET Smart Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 4 Comodo Group 5.8 Comodo Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 5 Symantec 5.5 Nrton Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 6 Sophos 5.5 Sophos EndUser Protection Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 McAfee 5.5 McAfee Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 8 Kaspersky Lab 5.5 Kaspersky Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 F-Secure 5.5 F-Secure SAFE Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 Dr.Web 5.5 Dr.Web Anti-virus Y Y Y Y Y Y 11 Bitdefender 5.5 Bitdefender Antivirus Plus Y Y Y Y Y Y 12 Bitdefender 5.5 Bitdefender Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 13 AVG Technologies 5.5 AVG Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 14 Quick Heal 5.5 Quick Heal Total Security Y Y Y Y N Y 15 AhnLab 5.3 AhnLab V3 Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 16 Comodo Group 5.0 Comodo Antivirus Y Y Y Y Y N 17 G Data Software 4.9 G DATA InternetSecurity Y Y Y Y Y Y 18 Avast 4.9 Avast Premium Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 19 Panda Security 4.6 Panda Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y Y 20 Check Point 4.6 ZoneAlarm Extreme Security Y Y N Y Y Y 21 Sophos 4.4 Sophos Anti-Virus Y Y Y Y Y Y 22 Webroot 4.2 SecureAnywhere AntiVirus Y Y N Y Y Y 23 Webroot 4.2 SecureAnywhere Internet Security Y Y N Y Y Y 24 Panda Security 4.1 Panda Antivirus Pro Y Y Y Y Y Y 25 Panda Security 4.1 Panda Antivirus Free Y Y Y Y Y Y 26 Avast 4.0 Avast Free Antivirus Y Y Y Y Y N 27 ESET 3.9 ESET ND32 Antivirus Y Y Y Y Y N 28 Avira 3.9 Avira Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y N 29 TrustPort 3.8 TrustPort Antivirus Y Y N Y N Y 30 TrustPort 3.8 TrustPort Internet Security Y Y N Y N Y 31 TrustPort 3.8 TrustPort Total Protection Y Y N Y N Y 32 AVG Technologies 3.7 AVG Antivirus Y Y Y Y Y N 33 Check Point 3.5 ZoneAlarm PRO Antivirus + Firew Y Y N Y N Y 34 Qihoo 360 3.4 360 Total Security Y Y Y Y Y N 35 Avira 3.4 Avira Antivirus FREE (formerly An Y Y Y Y Y N 36 Trend Micro 3.2 Titanium Internet Security Y Y Y Y Y N 37 Bitdefender 3.2 Bitdefender Antivirus Free Y Y Y Y Y N 38 McAfee 3.1 McAfee Antivirus Y Y Y Y N N 39 Kaspersky Lab 3.1 Kaspersky Anti-Virus Y Y Y Y N N 40 G Data Software 3.1 G DATA AntiVirus Y Y Y Y N N 41 F-Secure 3.1 F-Secure Antivirus Y Y Y Y N N 42 FRISK Software 3.1 F-PROT Antivirus Y Y Y Y N N 43 AVG Technologies 3.1 AVG Antivirus FREE Y Y Y Y N N 44 Fortinet 2.9 FortiClient Y Y Y N N Y 45 Trend Micro 2.9 Titanium Antivirus Plus Y Y Y Y N N 46 NANO Security Ltd 2.8 NAN Antivirus Y Y N Y N N 47 ClamWin 2.6 ClamWin Y Y Y Y N N 48 Cisco (originally Im 2.2 Immunet Y Y N N Y N 49 Symantec (origina 1.7 Spyware Doctor with AntiVirus Y Y N N N N 50 Microsoft 1.7 Windows Defender Y Y N N N N 51 VirusBlokAda 1.2 Vba32 AntiVirus Y Y N N N N Average > 6.0 6.0 4.6 5.4 3.9 3.4 Section 2 Email Web Macro Live Vendor Sandb AntiS Suppo Criteria Names > IDS IPS Securi prote prote Updat Score ox pam rt ty ction ction e Types > Binary Binary Binary Binary Binary Binary Binary Binary Binary Companies V 100% 5% 10% 0% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 1 Dr.Web 6.0 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 2 Kaspersky Lab 5.8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 3 ESET 5.8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 4 Comodo Group 5.8 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 5 Symantec 5.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 6 Sophos 5.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 7 McAfee 5.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 8 Kaspersky Lab 5.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 9 F-Secure 5.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 10 Dr.Web 5.5 Y Y N N N Y Y Y Y 11 Bitdefender 5.5 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 12 Bitdefender 5.5 Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y 13 AVG Technologies 5.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 14 Quick Heal 5.5 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 15 AhnLab 5.3 Y Y Y N
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 360 Antivirus for Pc Free Download Full Version
    360 Antivirus For Pc Free Download Full Version 360 Antivirus For Pc Free Download Full Version 1 / 3 2 / 3 Windows Defender is improving, but you still shouldn't rely on Windows 10's security ... Kaspersky Security Cloud Free offers full-scale malware protection and even some ... Bitdefender Antivirus Free Edition includes the same core antivirus ... The free Qihoo 360 Total Security 8.6 comes with a ton of bonus tools, but its core .... Integrating award winning antivirus systems including 360 QVMII, 360 Cloud Engine, Avira or BitDefender to offer you with the ultimate in virus detection and .... 360 Total Security Download Free Antivirus Cloud-based technology this software can detect most of the new virus ... Total Security Download Full Version ... This software is a complete security package for your PC, laptop or mobile device.. Download 360 Total Security 10.6.0.1223. Keep your PC safe with five antivirus engines. Protecting your PC is a day-to-day essential, as it's becoming ever .... 360 Total Security is an unified solution for your PC security and performance. ... 360 Total Security - Free Antivirus & Internet Security Software for PC 8.0.0.1046 ... With Full Check, you can examine the overall condition of your computer within ... Starting from version 9, users of 360 Total Security are able to upgrade to .... Download 360 Total Security Premium 10.6.0.1223 for Windows. Fast downloads of the latest free software! ... QIHU 360(Full Version) ... edge antivirus protection, which is powered by 360 Heuristic Engine, 360 Cloud Engine .... Download 360 Total Security 2020 offline installers for free and safe for your Windows PC.
    [Show full text]
  • Parker Review
    Ethnic Diversity Enriching Business Leadership An update report from The Parker Review Sir John Parker The Parker Review Committee 5 February 2020 Principal Sponsor Members of the Steering Committee Chair: Sir John Parker GBE, FREng Co-Chair: David Tyler Contents Members: Dr Doyin Atewologun Sanjay Bhandari Helen Mahy CBE Foreword by Sir John Parker 2 Sir Kenneth Olisa OBE Foreword by the Secretary of State 6 Trevor Phillips OBE Message from EY 8 Tom Shropshire Vision and Mission Statement 10 Yvonne Thompson CBE Professor Susan Vinnicombe CBE Current Profile of FTSE 350 Boards 14 Matthew Percival FRC/Cranfield Research on Ethnic Diversity Reporting 36 Arun Batra OBE Parker Review Recommendations 58 Bilal Raja Kirstie Wright Company Success Stories 62 Closing Word from Sir Jon Thompson 65 Observers Biographies 66 Sanu de Lima, Itiola Durojaiye, Katie Leinweber Appendix — The Directors’ Resource Toolkit 72 Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy Thanks to our contributors during the year and to this report Oliver Cover Alex Diggins Neil Golborne Orla Pettigrew Sonam Patel Zaheer Ahmad MBE Rachel Sadka Simon Feeke Key advisors and contributors to this report: Simon Manterfield Dr Manjari Prashar Dr Fatima Tresh Latika Shah ® At the heart of our success lies the performance 2. Recognising the changes and growing talent of our many great companies, many of them listed pool of ethnically diverse candidates in our in the FTSE 100 and FTSE 250. There is no doubt home and overseas markets which will influence that one reason we have been able to punch recruitment patterns for years to come above our weight as a medium-sized country is the talent and inventiveness of our business leaders Whilst we have made great strides in bringing and our skilled people.
    [Show full text]
  • Forescout Counteract® Endpoint Support Compatibility Matrix Updated: October 2018
    ForeScout CounterACT® Endpoint Support Compatibility Matrix Updated: October 2018 ForeScout CounterACT Endpoint Support Compatibility Matrix 2 Table of Contents About Endpoint Support Compatibility ......................................................... 3 Operating Systems ....................................................................................... 3 Microsoft Windows (32 & 64 BIT Versions) ...................................................... 3 MAC OS X / MACOS ...................................................................................... 5 Linux .......................................................................................................... 6 Web Browsers .............................................................................................. 8 Microsoft Windows Applications ...................................................................... 9 Antivirus ................................................................................................. 9 Peer-to-Peer .......................................................................................... 25 Instant Messaging .................................................................................. 31 Anti-Spyware ......................................................................................... 34 Personal Firewall .................................................................................... 36 Hard Drive Encryption ............................................................................. 38 Cloud Sync ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • CODASPY'17 ~ Decompression Quines and Anti-Viruses
    Decompression Quines and Anti-Viruses Margaux Canet Amrit Kumar Cédric Lauradoux Inria Inria Inria Univ. Grenoble Alpes Univ. Grenoble Alpes Mary-Andréa Reihaneh Safavi-Naini Rakotomanga University of Calgary Inria Univ. Grenoble Alpes ABSTRACT compression bombs also known as the zip of death exploit Data compression is ubiquitous to any information and com- the efficiency of compression algorithms to mount denial- munication system. It often reduces resources required to of-service (DoS) attacks. They often target web servers store and transmit data. However, the efficiency of com- and anti-viruses. Unfortunately, despite the fact that these pression algorithms also makes them an obvious target for threats have been known for years, some security products hackers to mount denial-of-service attacks. In this work, still remain vulnerable [9, 13]. we consider decompression quines, a specific class of com- The common definition of a decompression bomb found in pressed files that decompress to themselves. We analyze all the NIST guide [10] or the textbook [11] considers a small innocuous compressed file that decompresses to a gigantic the known decompression quines by studying their struc- 1 tures, and their impact on anti-viruses. Our analysis reveals file. A typical example of a decompression bomb is 42.zip that most of the anti-viruses do not have a suitable architec- (≈ 42 Kilobytes) that expands to 4.5 Petabytes. When a ture in place to detect decompression quines. Even worse, software attempts to naively decompress such a file, it con- some of them are vulnerable to denial-of-service attacks ex- sumes all the available memory and eventually crashes.
    [Show full text]
  • Hostscan 4.8.01064 Antimalware and Firewall Support Charts
    HostScan 4.8.01064 Antimalware and Firewall Support Charts 10/1/19 © 2019 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. This document is Cisco public. Page 1 of 76 Contents HostScan Version 4.8.01064 Antimalware and Firewall Support Charts ............................................................................... 3 Antimalware and Firewall Attributes Supported by HostScan .................................................................................................. 3 OPSWAT Version Information ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Cisco AnyConnect HostScan Antimalware Compliance Module v4.3.890.0 for Windows .................................................. 5 Cisco AnyConnect HostScan Firewall Compliance Module v4.3.890.0 for Windows ........................................................ 44 Cisco AnyConnect HostScan Antimalware Compliance Module v4.3.824.0 for macos .................................................... 65 Cisco AnyConnect HostScan Firewall Compliance Module v4.3.824.0 for macOS ........................................................... 71 Cisco AnyConnect HostScan Antimalware Compliance Module v4.3.730.0 for Linux ...................................................... 73 Cisco AnyConnect HostScan Firewall Compliance Module v4.3.730.0 for Linux .............................................................. 76 ©201 9 Cisco and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. This document is Cisco Public.
    [Show full text]
  • GTC-ONE-Minute-Brief-117.Pdf
    Equity | Currencies & Commodities | Corporate & Global Economic News | Economic Calendar 16 September 2020 Economic and political news Key indices The National Economic Development and Labour Council (Nedlac) As at 15 1 Day 1 D % WTD % MTD % Prev. month YTD % chaired by President Cyril Ramaphosa has agreed to an economic recovery plan for South Africa (SA) and a social compact to mobilise Sept 2020 Chg Chg Chg Chg % Chg Chg JSE All Share 56130.78 -196.27 -0.35 0.08 1.18 -0.44 -1.67 funding to address Eskom's financial crisis. (ZAR) The Matjhabeng Municipality in Free State has agreed to hand over 139 JSE Top 40 (ZAR) 51795.70 -181.12 -0.35 0.16 1.11 -0.28 1.93 farms worth about ZAR2.5bn belonging to the administrative region as FTSE 100 (GBP) 6105.54 79.29 1.32 1.22 2.38 1.12 -19.05 security on the ZAR3.4bn debt it owes to Eskom. DAX 30 (EUR) 13217.67 24.01 0.18 0.11 2.10 5.13 -0.24 According to the Automobile Association (AA), petrol price in SA will CAC 40 (EUR) 5067.93 16.05 0.32 0.67 2.44 3.42 -15.22 drop by between 26 cents and 36 cents per litre and diesel by 88 cents S&P 500 (USD) 3401.20 17.66 0.52 1.80 -2.83 7.01 5.27 per litre in October. Nasdaq 11190.32 133.67 1.21 3.10 -4.97 9.59 24.72 Democratic Alliance (DA) leader John Steenhuisen has requested Composite (USD) President Cyril Ramaphosa to end the curfew imposed in a bid to curb DJIA (USD) 27995.60 2.27 0.01 1.19 -1.53 7.57 -1.90 MSCI Emerging the spread of COVID-19, open all sectors of the South African economy, 1112.62 8.35 0.76 1.91 1.01 2.09 -0.18 and allow for international travel and reintroduce a normal school week.
    [Show full text]
  • Security Survey 2014
    Security Survey 2014 www.av-comparatives.org IT Security Survey 2014 Language: English Last Revision: 28th February 2014 www.av-comparatives.org - 1 - Security Survey 2014 www.av-comparatives.org Overview Use of the Internet by home and business users continues to grow in all parts of the world. How users access the Internet is changing, though. There has been increased usage of smartphones by users to access the Internet. The tablet market has taken off as well. This has resulted in a drop in desktop and laptop sales. With respect to attacks by cyber criminals, this means that their focus has evolved. This is our fourth1 annual survey of computer users worldwide. Its focus is which security products (free and paid) are employed by users, OS usage, and browser usage. We also asked respondents to rank what they are looking for in their security solution. Survey methodology Report results are based on an Internet survey run by AV-Comparatives between 17th December 2013 and 17th January 2014. A total of 5,845 computer users from around the world anonymously answered the questions on the subject of computers and security. Key Results Among respondents, the three most important aspects of a security protection product were (1) Low impact on system performance (2) Good detection rate (3) Good malware removal and cleaning capabilities. These were the only criteria with over 60% response rate. Europe, North America and Central/South America were similar in terms of which products they used, with Avast topping the list. The share of Android as the mobile OS increased from 51% to 70%, while Symbian dropped from 21% to 5%.
    [Show full text]
  • Herein After a Reasonable Opportunity for Discovery
    Case 1:21-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 07/13/21 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PEDRO BALDERAS, Individually and On Case No. Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT v. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 360 DIGITECH, INC., HAISHENG WU, JIANG WU, and ZUOLI XU, Defendants. Plaintiff Pedro Balderas (“Plaintiff”), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by Plaintiff’s undersigned attorneys, for Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants, alleges the following based upon personal knowledge as to Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s own acts, and information and belief as to all other matters, based upon, inter alia, the investigation conducted by and through Plaintiff’s attorneys, which included, among other things, a review of the Defendants’ public documents, conference calls and announcements made by Defendants, United States (“U.S.”) Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings, wire and press releases published by and regarding 360 DigiTech, Inc. (“360 DigiTech” or the “Company”), analysts’ reports and advisories about the Company, and information readily obtainable on the Internet. Plaintiff believes that substantial additional evidentiary support will exist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery. NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired 360 DigiTech securities between April 30, 2020 and July 7, 2021, both dates inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to 1 Case 1:21-cv-06013 Document 1 Filed 07/13/21 Page 2 of 29 recover damages caused by Defendants’ violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Security Products Performance Benchmarks (Edition 2) Antivirus & Internet Security Windows 10
    Consumer Security Products Performance Benchmarks (Edition 2) Antivirus & Internet Security Windows 10 January 2020 Document: Consumer Security Products Performance Benchmarks (Edition 2) Authors: J. Han, D. Wren Company: PassMark Software Date: 13 January 2020 Edition: 2 File: Consumer_Security_Products_Performance_Benchmarks_2020_Ed_2.docx Consumer Security Performance Benchmarks 2019 PassMark Software Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................................... 2 REVISION HISTORY ............................................................................................................................................ 3 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 4 OVERALL SCORE ................................................................................................................................................ 5 PRODUCTS AND VERSIONS ............................................................................................................................... 6 PERFORMANCE METRICS SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 7 TEST RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Annex 1: Parker Review Survey Results As at 2 November 2020
    Annex 1: Parker Review survey results as at 2 November 2020 The data included in this table is a representation of the survey results as at 2 November 2020, which were self-declared by the FTSE 100 companies. As at March 2021, a further seven FTSE 100 companies have appointed directors from a minority ethnic group, effective in the early months of this year. These companies have been identified through an * in the table below. 3 3 4 4 2 2 Company Company 1 1 (source: BoardEx) Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did Met Not Met Did Not Submit Data Respond Not Did 1 Admiral Group PLC a 27 Hargreaves Lansdown PLC a 2 Anglo American PLC a 28 Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC a 3 Antofagasta PLC a 29 HSBC Holdings PLC a InterContinental Hotels 30 a 4 AstraZeneca PLC a Group PLC 5 Avast PLC a 31 Intermediate Capital Group PLC a 6 Aveva PLC a 32 Intertek Group PLC a 7 B&M European Value Retail S.A. a 33 J Sainsbury PLC a 8 Barclays PLC a 34 Johnson Matthey PLC a 9 Barratt Developments PLC a 35 Kingfisher PLC a 10 Berkeley Group Holdings PLC a 36 Legal & General Group PLC a 11 BHP Group PLC a 37 Lloyds Banking Group PLC a 12 BP PLC a 38 Melrose Industries PLC a 13 British American Tobacco PLC a 39 Mondi PLC a 14 British Land Company PLC a 40 National Grid PLC a 15 BT Group PLC a 41 NatWest Group PLC a 16 Bunzl PLC a 42 Ocado Group PLC a 17 Burberry Group PLC a 43 Pearson PLC a 18 Coca-Cola HBC AG a 44 Pennon Group PLC a 19 Compass Group PLC a 45 Phoenix Group Holdings PLC a 20 Diageo PLC a 46 Polymetal International PLC a 21 Experian PLC a 47
    [Show full text]
  • Nessus and Antivirus
    Nessus and Antivirus January 31, 2014 (Revision 4) Table of Contents Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 3 Standards and Conventions........................................................................................................................... 3 Overview .............................................................................................................................................. 3 A Note on SCAP Audits ................................................................................................................................. 4 Microsoft Windows Defender ............................................................................................................. 4 Kaspersky Internet Security 2012 ...................................................................................................... 4 AVG 2012 ............................................................................................................................................. 7 Norton Internet Security 2012 .......................................................................................................... 10 Norton 360 ......................................................................................................................................... 14 Panda Internet Security 2012 ........................................................................................................... 18 Trend Micro Titanium
    [Show full text]
  • Constituents & Weights
    2 FTSE Russell Publications 19 August 2021 FTSE 100 Indicative Index Weight Data as at Closing on 30 June 2021 Index weight Index weight Index weight Constituent Country Constituent Country Constituent Country (%) (%) (%) 3i Group 0.59 UNITED GlaxoSmithKline 3.7 UNITED RELX 1.88 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Admiral Group 0.35 UNITED Glencore 1.97 UNITED Rentokil Initial 0.49 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Anglo American 1.86 UNITED Halma 0.54 UNITED Rightmove 0.29 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Antofagasta 0.26 UNITED Hargreaves Lansdown 0.32 UNITED Rio Tinto 3.41 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Ashtead Group 1.26 UNITED Hikma Pharmaceuticals 0.22 UNITED Rolls-Royce Holdings 0.39 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Associated British Foods 0.41 UNITED HSBC Hldgs 4.5 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell A 3.13 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM AstraZeneca 6.02 UNITED Imperial Brands 0.77 UNITED Royal Dutch Shell B 2.74 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Auto Trader Group 0.32 UNITED Informa 0.4 UNITED Royal Mail 0.28 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Avast 0.14 UNITED InterContinental Hotels Group 0.46 UNITED Sage Group 0.39 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Aveva Group 0.23 UNITED Intermediate Capital Group 0.31 UNITED Sainsbury (J) 0.24 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM Aviva 0.84 UNITED International Consolidated Airlines 0.34 UNITED Schroders 0.21 UNITED KINGDOM Group KINGDOM KINGDOM B&M European Value Retail 0.27 UNITED Intertek Group 0.47 UNITED Scottish Mortgage Inv Tst 1 UNITED KINGDOM KINGDOM KINGDOM BAE Systems 0.89 UNITED ITV 0.25 UNITED Segro 0.69 UNITED KINGDOM
    [Show full text]