Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Security Essentials Loses AV-Test Certificate
helix2301 writes "Every two months, AV-Test takes a look at popular antivirus software and security suites and tests them in several ways. In their latest test which was performed on Windows 7 during September and October, Microsoft Security Essentials didn't pass the test to achieve certification. Although that may not sound that impressive, Microsoft's program was the only one which didn't receive AV-Test's certificate. For comparison, the other free antivirus software, including Avast, AVG and Panda Cloud did."
"Although that may not sound that impressive"
Yellow yellow
NOP
Seriously, does anyone actually trust Security Essentials? I'd rather have any of those other free AV products mentioned.
(shades of MSAV here)
the Gates/Ballmer virus consistently infects Windows machines. and it's persistent.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
So is Avast! any better than the shit pile that is AVG these days?
Seriously. Most anti-virus software is worse than getting a virus.
Free AV software included with operating system scores significantly lower than competitor products that cost money. Shocking!
What's next, Ms paint found to be inferior to Photoshop in comprehensive image-editing software test?
Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
People rely on AVs against 0-day threats?
Oh no! What will both (um, I mean all) of the Windows 8 users do?
I can't even remember the last time I got a virus within 24 hours of it being revealed as existing. Once upon a time I recall seeing a Monkey A virus back in the 90's. If I recall, AV software wasn't even what revealed it, it was something I found on my own trying to fix someone else's busted box. I'll be keeping MSE installed. I've found many of the free AV programs to be cumbersome and slow, and quite frankly annoying about 'protecting my system' and 'staying updated'. Stay out of shady places and avoid file sharing except when necessary and it won't be a problem. Kind of like not raw dogging dirty hookers freely, common sense behavior if you don't want to catch the Cannasyphiliaids virus.
BitDefender Metro uses MSE. This is bad as many people think it is immune to malware because MSE still has a great reputation on the web as the best product. Can you even install AVAST or any other AV software on Windows 8 without it interferring with MSE?
http://saveie6.com/
So the free anti virus runs out of freeness. You need to renew your free licence. Yeah maybe later, I'm watching... something important.
You're no longer receiving virus definition files. Well who needs those anyway, you're still protected right?
Friend sends you a link that looks very legit because you're not sober, your free anti-virus seems to notice something, but you really wanted to see that other important video so you clicked allow.
Seems you needed those virus definition files after all
I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but it seems to me that they forget to mention that MSE doesn't expire?
Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
that certification is worth "zippo", because MSE works much better. (Which is not surprising, considering McAfee has "zippo" access to the Windows (binaries) internals.)
The main reason I use MSE is that it does an adequate job and unlike every one of the competitors free or otherwise, installing it isn't worse than getting infected with Malware. Last time I used either AVG or Avast it was like infecting my PC on purpose. I'll pass up some protection against zero days(which is spotty at best anyway) in exchange for not installing crap.
It regularly detects my mouse driver as malware and disables it. I have to unplug the mouse and move USB ports before I can use the mouse again.
Which part of "Microsoft Product" did I not understand?
Sigh...
We have a number of PCs from a one manufacturer on which Vipre cannot update itself. This has happened with more than one release. It is necessary to not only uninstall, but do a clean-up after uninstalling and then re-install the new version. After doing this on one machine, and then having a later release also fail to install, I won't bother with Vipre again.
On that basis, Vipre should lose points for usability.
Oh, and it also asks unprivileged (non-administrator) users to run the update. What's the point in that?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
A good ad blocker in your browser will be more effective in the long run than any AV software you install. Couple that with the common sense to not download and run every piece of crap you see on the internet and your computer will be fine. Every instance of an infection I've seen involved the person breaking one of those two simple rules.
The last time I tried a third party free AV, it installed its own firewall crap, then for some reason disabled it, leaving the whole bloody machine open to attack.
I'd rather AV software didn't dick around with the firewall and replace the built in one with a giant turd. It's one reason I stopped using Norton AV, well, that and the fact that it used most of my friggin' CPU and kept bleating at me every time anything happened on my PC...
Trust everyone BUT the guys who developed the Windows operating system for heuristic scanning, because they know that it works better than not.
Anytime you have more "paranoid" heuristic scanning, you risk blocking legitimate software. Microsoft takes this seriously - a company that sells a freeware or $60 antivirus program? Not so much.
Many of the vectors of malware these days is through java/flash exploits, I always disable the java plugin in my browser and have flash click to play. I do have MSE on my computers and MalwareBytes for a monthly search and haven't run into any issues in many years. MSE has the least bloat/memory footprint AND the lowest false positive rating http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_fdt_201209_en.pdf puts it at 0, if you're getting hit by 0 day malware you're just not pirating software/being cautious enough with where you browse and no program will 100% save you. For family members I've always installed avast, it's slightly more intrusive but turn on 'silent/gaming mode' and it's not too bad other than putting in an email address once a year.
Anyone who knows anything about the internals of an antivirus research team know what a Joke AV-Test is.
the tests for years have been based on static collections of huge buckets of gathered samples.
The guys running the test have no actual malware analysis experience themselves .. its just a game all the big vendors are playing .. and really some of the the ones that seem to squeeze into top spot among the bigger players are small / tiny products that have no where near the same capabilities as the more mature ones.
Microsofts AV product is EASILY one of the top 3, or even top 2 in some of its features. Kaspersky clearly is the best if you're paranoid about detections.
All three antivirus checkers lose 3 points in just three months? also, "Yes, Windows Defender is enabled automatically when no other antivirus is present, but its technology comes from the Microsoft products that failed the recent tests. Don't rely on it. Install a better antivirus right away." sounds like an ad by one of its competitors
...which doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me as to the integrity of MSE. Maybe there's a good reason the certification was lost.
I dunno about this article. I've used just about everything out there... I used Kaspersky for a very long time, and in my opinion was the best for a long while. I very rarely got an infection. But when I switched to MS Security Essentials I was DONE with virus. I haven't had a single computer in my house (and I have 5) get infected since I started using it. And just so you know I'm not a Microsoft shill, fuck Microsoft, they suck, I pirate their god damned OS... fuck em. Anyways, Security essentials works great. I rutinely still scan with other AV if I'm having any sort of issue just to be sure, but nothing. I really think it comes down to useability. It just works well and integrates with windows well.
The article talks alot about 0-day exploits and such... but really, how many of us are going to get hit with one of those? I mean yes, I'd rather be protected, but at the expense of some of the draconian tactics some other packages lock your computer up in? Install Bit Deffender and then try installing some open source, macroing utility or something and the damned thing goes nuts.
What kind of internal access to "Windows (binaries) internals" does MS have & McAfee not have which would be useful for virus detection?
I use the commercial Kaspersky which always comes out near the top, if not always best in AV tests, but why has no-one mentioned Noscript? I suspect it has saved me from all sorts of nastiness that my AV program never even got a chance to see.
Oh no that could never be, could it?
Is that for the people who plan on being charged with copyright infringement, or who decided they which to go to jail for child pornography.
Here are some tips which no will ever listen too.
1. Don't operate your computer as Administrator unless your doing Administrative task.
2. If you using Microsoft windows 7, and your using any version other then Ultimate YOU NEED TO UPGRADE TO ULTIMATE.
Just these two tips will block 99.9% of all viruses.
You have to ask yourself "why does a company provide a free AV program?" ..}
Answers:
1. To install a program that gathers information about all files on the victims computer.
{This information is sold to Law enforcement, copyright police, and to who ever desires the knowledge of knowing what files are on tens of millions of computers}
2. To nag them to buy the subscription version.
{To have the owner of the computer pay them to sell their information to Law enforcement, copyright police, etc.
And I'll just add this so maybe you'll understand:
For all the people using Windows7{home, basic, pro} upgrading to Windows8 pro is an improvement in your security options.
For all the people using Windows7{Ultimate} it is definitely a down-grade in your choices about securing your system.
One problem with AV is that as detection rate rises, so does false positive rate. So far, nobody has found a way around this. So some products go for heavy detection, Bitdefender being a good example. Fair enough, but it comes at the cost of more false positives (and it still isn't a 100% detection rate).
MS goes the other way. They go for low false positives, and in the last AV Comapritives test they had 0, but at a lower detection rate.
Why? Well because they are going for the mass market, the people who didn't want virus scanners. If the thing bothers them all the time with false positives, they'll turn it off, and then they have 0% detection. So instead they go for a lower detection rate, but with low false positives so people get some protection.
I'm not calling it the right answer, but you can see the logic.
And for that matter, I've found that in the real world, MSE seems to do better than Sophos, which is decidedly not free and very popular in enterprise.
I'll save you the trouble reading. They're idiots. The winner out of all of them was bitdefender? That slows down your system like a damn boat anchor. I've had customers bring in a computer to my shop claiming it had a horrible problem and the only problem was that it had bitdefender. As soon as it was gone, responsive times dropped 10x lower. It's unbelievable how bad that product is. For them to not consider system performance in any way means they obviously have no idea what they're doing. The same goes for Kaspersky. Their new 2013 version is a nightmare for system performance. Norton Internet Security was third so yep, that's how responsible THESE idiots are.
Yes MSSE is not the best anti-virus software out there, but it is one of the only ones i feel safe that it will never ask me to install other promotional products, it will never try to load weird webpages or install spyware. It has no upgrades to a better paid for version that it frequently bugs you to upgrade to. It is probably the last offensive, least obtrusive, least annoying anti-virus software out there. Coupled with being behind a firewall and intelligence enough not to open binaries from questionable sources it works well enough.
http://interserver.net/
I've had a few customers with trojans, from like 2009 and MS Sec. Essentials doesn't detect them with a quick scan. Only after a full scan did it see them.
These machines always had MSE running and up to date.
It's unfortunate that so many software companies write software such that it requires admin access or we could avoid so much of these infections.
Haha, it's funny because it's the opposite meaning of what is actually happening.
MSE is really and truly free. Or, perhaps more accurately the cost of it is included with a license of Windows. They don't want any more money for it, they don't try to upsell you, it does its job and that's that.
The others? They want you to buy the full version, so they have various ways of pestering you, some quite annoying. Heck AVG got to the point where even the paid version was highly annoying (I used to buy AVG, I buy ESET Smart Security now).
As such MSE is really the only free AV I recommend because it is well and truly free. You can do better, but only if you want to pay.
This isn't a very worthwhile mass market test. 0-day detection is an interesting stat, and not worthless, as is proactive testing (AV Comparitives does that, takes a 6 month old AV scanner and sees how it does against current threats) but it isn't really a concern for most people. Computer viruses spread, well, like viruses. Not a lot of people get exposed on day 0. So as long as your virus scanner is updated reasonably frequently, it does a reasonably good job with threats you are actually likely to face.
I've had a few customers with trojans, from like 2009 and MS Sec. Essentials doesn't detect them with a quick scan. Only after a full scan did it see them.
These machines always had MSE running and up to date.
It's unfortunate that so many software companies write software such that it requires admin access or we could avoid so much of these infections.
Sounds like you need better software. I can't remember the last time I ran anything that needed admin rights, with the single exception of Visual Studio when I was doing something that required escalated privileges (loading drivers, etc).
I hadn't noticed any change for the worse in MSE.
For the past two-ish years, I have regarded MSE as the most lightweight and most effective AV option out there. Not to mention that it is fairly unobtrusive when compared to the rest. I haven't seen anything to change that opinion at this time.
As for those that offer up the heinously slow and ineffective AVG; you've got to be kidding!
Google bought VirusTotal? That's news to me. Checking, I see it happened in September. This is the first I am hearing of it!
Jesus H. Christ, Slashdot! That is news I can use. Why is there no report of it even 2.5 months after the fact?
This place is done.
"If you're using Windows 8, take these results as a wakeup call."
This is what this is all about. With MSE being built into Windows 8, these folks are afraid (possilby rightfully so) it'll inhibit adoption of other Windows solutions and they're work will be impacted.
Lump me in w/ folks that believe the MSE product is effective and efficient.
Though compiled code is not my area of expertise, I would think that the ability to dissect the impact of an infection and clean it would be much harder when not knowing the details of the system. And that was just my explanation after the fact when I noticed that the MSE seemed be much more effective, and run much nicer on my system than McAfee.
And speaking in general now, it has long been MS's strategy to block companies who were developing applications to run on Windows from extensive knowledge of Windows' internals, so those applications would under-perform (and thus give MS a competitive advantage to develop similar applications, such as the one in question, though in this case not for direct profit, just prestige).
Just uncheck all that add the toolbar crap with the custom install in fact uncheck any check you see.
Um... can anyone see bullpoop when it is bullpoop??
Usability (Industry average: MS)
Average slowdown of computer- 2x:1x
false detections/scan- 4:0
false warnings during downloads/installs 4%: 0%
false blocking of actions: 4%: 0%
Repair & active detection:
Active detection: 95% : 98%.
removal of all malware components: 85% : 80% (MS worse)
removal of other malicious sw: 60% : 63%
detection of recent developed examples by AV testcompany: 85% v 80% (samples weren't shared w/ms?)
detection of sameday threats 89% v 64% (communication? MS worse)...
so except for recently developed viruses that can easily have been crafted by the company to avoid MS detection algorithms, MS seems to be about as good or better.
And this is a report from a competitor about MS...
Um...to me this looks like a shining recommendation of MS MSE...but what would MS know about what is likely to infect their OS?...*cough*...
I can see this happening, it's not surprising. I had MSE for a while and got quite a few viruses even though it said my computer was clean. I've started using Unthreat ever since and I'm much happier and haven't had a virus since!