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."
NOP
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?
Even the best AV is barely more than snake oil. The primary purpose of running AV software, at least in a business setting, is to have a ready made scapegoat for when security is breached.
I have Avast, which scored way better and guess what... It's free as well. Go figure...
Oh and to your analogy, it's like comparing Paint with Gimp.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Ahem: "For comparison, the other free antivirus software, including Avast, AVG and Panda Cloud did". You know, there is not just the title.
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.
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/
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.
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.
By running Windows, you are already placing trust in Microsoft. Using MSE seems like a entirely logical extension of that.
That is to say, why bother yourself about one program from MS when you are using an entire OS made by them?
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law
RL Vaccinations are an example of human intelligence triumphing over at least semi-stupid self replicating DNA chunks.
AV software is developed by humans trying to stop other humans, a much much more intractable problem, especially when the Virus developers always have the first move. The Virus developers can trivially test their software against the AV, with almost no effort. The AV developers have to expend tremendous effort to even try to catalog the threats, let alone combat them.
Most likely the very fact that Security Essentials is faring so badly, is due to the fact that the Virus writers are being especially sure to find ways around it before launching new malware.
This is not surprising to me, and why I've always said the MSE is only for geeks that aren't going anywhere dodgy and thus at little risk to start with. For normal folks there is Avast Free and Comodo Internet Security. Avast is good, but a little chatty but some people like chatty, and Comodo is good and pretty customizable but has a bit of a learning curve since it has sandboxing but if you stick with the defaults other than the occasional sanbox question it works good without getting in your way.
But I have taken machines I've got to wipe and refurb anyway at the shop and thrown different AVs on them and went to the kinds of sites I've seen the most bugs from, usually the "look at teh tittez" dodgy clip porn sites like redtube and the usual toplists and MSE was the ONLY one that never stopped a page loading, even ones that were obviously filled with malware, the rest would at least block most and keep the embedded malware scripts from running but not MSE, MSE seems to be more of a "scan a downloaded file" kind of protection rather than any good for dealing with modern nasties.
Oh and for those that need to clean up an infected box? May I suggest Comodo Cleaning Essentials as its a great tool to have to clean up an already nasty PC. You can run it from a flash or CD, no need to install, and its damned good at getting the nasties out. as you can see it got 4 and a half stars and is free, so if you have to clean up any infected machines its best to have both the 32bit and 64bit on a keyring ready to go.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I would agree that 3/4 of AV success is avoiding "dodgy" sites. However, I have never had any problems with malware on any porn site. The sites I have had problems with malware on were like pics of celebrities on Google Images, and you get a redirect to a malware driveby site, or, you lick on an ad that promises things free that should not be ... that kind of thing. I Used to AVG 2012, but when it went to 2013 it refused to activate, so I switched to Avast, and have not looked back. Higher rated and better protection.
Don't explain computers to laymen. Simpler to explain sex to a virgin. -- Robert A. Heinlein
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/
Free AV software included with operating system scores significantly lower than competitor products that cost money. Shocking!
I remember back in the day, Netscape ruled the web, and internet explorer was a piece of crap that, while bundled with the operating system, nobody ever used. I remember when Microsoft first released mplayer, its first video player; Which looked sad and pathetic next to QuickTime. I remember how under Windows NT, the only method of defragmenting the filesystem was to reformat and start over, unless you bought Norton. I remember when Word Perfect was the only word processor anyone in the industry would recommend for professionals, and Microsoft Office was little more than notepad with a bag on the side. And I remember the first software firewalls by ZoneAlarm and others, compared to the pathetic XP firewall.
Yes, I'm probably older than you. Yes, you can laugh: But I have a lot of memory to draw on, and all you have is sarcasm. In every case, Microsoft steadily improved their own offerings, and the market for those products imploded. Today, anti-virus built-in to windows sucks but if history is anything to judge by, it won't stay that way for long. Now get the f*ck off my lawn, and take your iPhones with you. Some of us work for a living.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
It is refreshing to have a mature comment/conversation about surfing internet porn. Shame I have no mod points right now ;).
P2P torrent/ed2k porn is pretty safe to if you stick to avis/mpegs or other non-code-executable video files.
I used AVG2012 as well until the license died, then switched to Avast on my XP box, but left the Win7 box & laptops on MSE/Win7 F/W *shudder*.
Ok, it's not that bad, but I would really like a decent FREE AV/FW product that doesn't require a whole lotta attention, IYKWIM. AVG was ok until about 2 versions ago when they turned it into corpobloat & I left my old company that I got the licenses from in any case. We use F-Secure here, which I have no idea if it's good, bad or indifferent.
Is this MSE story just FUD, or is there really a compelling reason to abandon it on inet/download heavy Win PCs...?
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.
However, if an AV can bring the OS to its knees something is wrong.
You have obviously never installed mcaffee before
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 hadn't heard of that, and when I looked into it, the truth appeared to be different from what you claimed. It looks like you had to click on the picture, and then click to download and then install the malware. One of the sites had malware pretending to be a VLC update, the others were peddling fake anti-virus software.
Then again considering the source... Bill Gates lying about Google? Why am I not surprised?
Fanatically anti-fanatical
Then again considering the source... Bill Gates lying about Google? Why am I not surprised?
There is just an outside chance that the slashdot user "Billly Gates" isn't, in fact, the multi-billionaire former CEO of Microsoft.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it