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."
Seriously. Most anti-virus software is worse than getting a virus.
"Trust"? I don't know about that. But I at least thought it would satisfy the minimal needs I have for such a product. I'd been using AVG for years under XP - maybe I'll install that again.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Seems pretty good to me, and doesn't bug you to buy the full version like AVG does.
... wait, what?
Seriously, does anyone actually trust Security Essentials? I'd rather have any of those other free AV products mentioned.
(shades of MSAV here)
Haven't you seen the comments here on slashdot? MSE IS THE BEST?! Only MSE works ... I have been using Windows for 5 years and with MSE I am AV free etc.
I have never seen it promoted as much all over the web as the best more secure AV product. Clearly it is not. It is one one of the lighter ones though compared to older versions of Norton and McCrappy.
http://saveie6.com/
Try Avast? It is much lighter and is free with registration. I like the gaming mode where it shuts up and doesn't bug and that is a plus. I quit using MSe over a year ago after it showed dissapointing results.
http://saveie6.com/
I stopped using AVG when they changed their license terms to unilaterally audit the location where the software is being used and gave themselves the right to unilaterally share my information with whomever they choose. - no thanks. See sections 9b and 12 of their license: - http://www.avg.com/us-en/eula-avg-2013-all-1-0
There was a scandal last year when OBL was killed and hackers found a way to infect your system just by doing a search OBL dead pics. You did not even have to click on anything. THe code ran through Google redirected through clever javascript hacks. So if your daughter does a search for puppy pictures she is instantly infected!
I am surprised it was mentioned only midly on slashdot as it took a few weeks to fix this and infected tens to hundreds of millions of pcs.
http://saveie6.com/
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.