Microsoft Bombs Antivirus Tests Yet Again

[ohim]

I don`t know about protection but performance windows defender should be on top of everything, this program does not affect system performance in any way. Also i haven`t used an AV in years (only from time to time to check briefly my drives).

The most important AV is the user, and it has 10 / 10 performance and not to say costs .

 

[cats_Paw]

HAHAAH, I use Avira free and have been using it for 2 years now.
Ill never understand why people are surprised that Microsoft blows in security.
Its an OS, not an antivirus!
Its like asking your car to make an expresso.... you want a coffe? get a coffe machine, not a car.
Microsoft is the most vulnerable OS since it is the most used OS (the increasing amount of viruses for iOS systems coming up prove that its a matter or "is it worth it to spend my time creating a virus for an OS that only 1% of the population uses").

Thats why I pay no attention to those security efficiency claims, especially when its a marketing trick, a false flag event or something similar (I do love malwarebyte videos thou, especially the ones where they talk with scamers over the phone) 😀.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

Strange, i installed Qihoo 360 just fine and i live in Finland. Anyone else who actually TRIED it instead of just repeating the bs found in the good old interwebz?

There are two versions of Qihoo 360. One uses Qihoo's own malware-detection engine and is available only in mainland China. The other uses a third-party malware engine and is available outside China. Both are free. I believe Tencent does the same thing.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

I hate to be the guy that says this, but, don't you feel like the title is.... I dunno. Misleading? Incorrect? Click-bait?

Microsoft is a household name. Bitdefender, Kaspersky and Qihoo are not. What headline would you give it?

 

[x3style]

One has to understand the role of Windows Defender. It is there by default the first time you connect, much like IE it gives you the possibility to install something better but gives you protection to a certain degree until you do so.

Windows Defender should never be a replacement for an AV software it should be a default protection until you get your AV. And while not perfect the fact that by default Windows protects itself from 77 percent of threats without even having an AV is a huge step in the right directions from the days where you had 0 protection. WinXP could be hacked in 5 seconds after it connected to the internet. If you didn't slipstream patches or preinstalled from a CD or Flashdrive a protection software, you'd be hacked and ready before you could click download on any AV software. Microsoft does not invest and does not have a priority in developing high priority and high quality AV products.

 

[koss64]

While I know the Windows Defender isn't perfect to me its better than putting system hogs like Avast or Norton on my machine.Windows Defender is there to at least have something on my system and malwarebytes for everything else.

 

[Vlad Rose]

These scores seems to be random... The Kaspersky should be No.1 and then Nod32, ALL CHINESE PRODUDTS ARE RUBBISH AND MUST DIE! You can get better "protection" with no AV, but don't use Chinese shit.

A little racist are we? Maybe you should actually have experience with a product instead of just assuming it's good or bad; especially when the reason is based on where it came from.

 

[NeatOman]

Best defence is just creating an Admin account and only use it as a system password like on Linux or OS X by FAR!!

 

[daglesj]

As MS say, its the baseline for AV on Windows. Its the main AV that the malware writers have to crack so its going to do poorly compared to the more obscure AV suites. However, blocking scripts, dumping Java, Flash and being careful what you install negates the need largely for the more complex suites. Slap on EMET if you want to improve the strength.

 

[MSCHEIN]

uh who gets viruses anymore? Malware protection is where its at.

 

[Kadathan]

No mention of how many false positives the anti virus programs give, I would imagine that the table would be up sided down, also MSE scores the highest for useability, which is why I use MSE, hassle free and ease of use.

I've used Kaspersky for years, and the only times I need to even go near the software is when I want to. The firewall is very smart about my needs, and for those times when I end up getting ads with driveby kits in them(in spite of adblock), it pops up to let me know that some piece of @#$% just tried to screw with me and failed, then slides out of sight.

I guess, I can see that when I do delve into the menus it can be a little circular maybe, but we're all adults here, we can click on things that sound like they're what we're looking for. So usability is a bit of a crock, imo.

It's all well and good that so many people here seem to think that security essensials is all you'll ever need and all, because who clicks on dumb stuff anyways, but while you can exclusively use a browser with scriptblock and adblock and never see a compromising link in your life, you cannot guaruntee the same for your spouse/children/parents/relatives.

There are ignorant people using the internet, and they would like to continue being able to do so without needing to get a certification in itsec. Stop claiming that MS Defender is all you'll ever need since you're only serving to mislead people into thinking it's a viable solution.

 

[p05esto]

To be honest I don't really think this is a fair and real test. I would go so far as to say it's shady and biased. In the real world I use MSE and simply do not get viruses on any of my computers. Adware, sure, but MSE really doesn't clam to go after that junk (I wish it did). Plus MSE is free, which is a huge plus, and integrated so nicely. Just saying, I swear by MSE and have no complaints.

 

[eldridgep]

The issue I have with these tests is they include Chinese products but fail to include Trend and Sophos products two of the most widely installed business products in the western world is it just me or is this a glaring omission?

 

[Alpha3031]

Strange, i installed Qihoo 360 just fine and i live in Finland. Anyone else who actually TRIED it instead of just repeating the bs found in the good old interwebz?

I have Qihoo 360 too and I'm in England, so as usual they haven't even bothered to look at it.

Well, there are two versions, and the last time I checked, only the IS (score: 17) suite had a english interface. They could have updated the other one though.

 

[Alpha3031]

uh who gets viruses anymore? Malware protection is where its at.

Lots of people call malware Viruses, to the point where most other people stopped trying to correct them.

To be honest I don't really think this is a fair and real test. I would go so far as to say it's shady and biased. In the real world I use MSE and simply do not get viruses on any of my computers. Adware, sure, but MSE really doesn't clam to go after that junk (I wish it did). Plus MSE is free, which is a huge plus, and integrated so nicely. Just saying, I swear by MSE and have no complaints.

Well, good for you. Maybe there's malware on your system that MSE failed to detect, but since it isn't causing you any problems. Lot's of AV is free.

The issue I have with these tests is they include Chinese products but fail to include Trend and Sophos products two of the most widely installed business products in the western world is it just me or is this a glaring omission?

They only test submitted products.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

One has to understand the role of Windows Defender. It is there by default the first time you connect, much like IE it gives you the possibility to install something better but gives you protection to a certain degree until you do so.

Windows Defender should never be a replacement for an AV software it should be a default protection until you get your AV. And while not perfect the fact that by default Windows protects itself from 77 percent of threats without even having an AV is a huge step in the right directions from the days where you had 0 protection. WinXP could be hacked in 5 seconds after it connected to the internet. If you didn't slipstream patches or preinstalled from a CD or Flashdrive a protection software, you'd be hacked and ready before you could click download on any AV software. Microsoft does not invest and does not have a priority in developing high priority and high quality AV products.

This is exactly right.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

Best defence is just creating an Admin account and only use it as a system password like on Linux or OS X by FAR!!

This is right too. I can't stress enough how important separating admin tasks from daily tasks is to maintaining security.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

As MS say, its the baseline for AV on Windows. Its the main AV that the malware writers have to crack so its going to do poorly compared to the more obscure AV suites. However, blocking scripts, dumping Java, Flash and being careful what you install negates the need largely for the more complex suites. Slap on EMET if you want to improve the strength.

EMET is a great help, but it's not easy to configure. How many home users are going to set it up on their machines?

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

To be honest I don't really think this is a fair and real test. I would go so far as to say it's shady and biased. In the real world I use MSE and simply do not get viruses on any of my computers. Adware, sure, but MSE really doesn't clam to go after that junk (I wish it did). Plus MSE is free, which is a huge plus, and integrated so nicely. Just saying, I swear by MSE and have no complaints.

To rehash what an earlier poster said, how do you know you're not infected? Efficient malware never tells you it's there.

If you'd rather not pay, I recommend Avira Free Antivirus. It's almost as good as the best paid offerings.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

The issue I have with these tests is they include Chinese products but fail to include Trend and Sophos products two of the most widely installed business products in the western world is it just me or is this a glaring omission?

Because Tom's Guide is aimed at the consumer, we didn't report on AV-TEST's separate business-AV round of evaluations. You can find that here, and Sophos and Trend Micro (which was also part of the consumer round) are both on it:
http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/business-windows-client/

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

Strange, i installed Qihoo 360 just fine and i live in Finland. Anyone else who actually TRIED it instead of just repeating the bs found in the good old interwebz?

I have Qihoo 360 too and I'm in England, so as usual they haven't even bothered to look at it.

Well, there are two versions, and the last time I checked, only the IS (score: 17) suite had a english interface. They could have updated the other one though.

AV-TEST evaluated both, as we noted in the story.

 

[daglesj]

The interesting thing is that before MS included MSE/Defender in Windows 8 it always used to score very highly.

Now that it's baked into Windows...it scores very badly in all these 'independent' tests.

Hmmm you'd think some folks would have a vested interest in it scoring badly...

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

The interesting thing is that before MS included MSE/Defender in Windows 8 it always used to score very highly.

Now that it's baked into Windows...it scores very badly in all these 'independent' tests.

Hmmm you'd think some folks would have a vested interest in it scoring badly...

You may be right, but I can't remember it ever performing well. Take a look at this evaluation roundup done on Windows XP in December 2010, in which Microsoft Security Essentials come in near the bottom: http://www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-xp/september-2010/

 

[koss64]

No mention of how many false positives the anti virus programs give, I would imagine that the table would be up sided down, also MSE scores the highest for useability, which is why I use MSE, hassle free and ease of use.

I've used Kaspersky for years, and the only times I need to even go near the software is when I want to. The firewall is very smart about my needs, and for those times when I end up getting ads with driveby kits in them(in spite of adblock), it pops up to let me know that some piece of @#$% just tried to screw with me and failed, then slides out of sight.

I guess, I can see that when I do delve into the menus it can be a little circular maybe, but we're all adults here, we can click on things that sound like they're what we're looking for. So usability is a bit of a crock, imo.

It's all well and good that so many people here seem to think that security essensials is all you'll ever need and all, because who clicks on dumb stuff anyways, but while you can exclusively use a browser with scriptblock and adblock and never see a compromising link in your life, you cannot guaruntee the same for your spouse/children/parents/relatives.

There are ignorant people using the internet, and they would like to continue being able to do so without needing to get a certification in itsec. Stop claiming that MS Defender is all you'll ever need since you're only serving to mislead people into thinking it's a viable solution.

I take it then you have never gotten a support call at 9:00pm from a frantic user who cant browse because Norton decided to randomly block port 80 or an entire campus not being able to browse the internet because Endpoint(yes Norton again, sorry but they have been a thorn in my side most of my adult life) starts blocking the server and random clients from browsing the network and internet. While I agree that enterprise solution may require more than Widows Defender it cannot come at the expense of the sanity of the people who use the computers and the people who have to support them.The solutions at the top very often have steep user requirements and have the stability of a Jenga tower built by a novice just waiting to collapse.

 

[leeashton]

appears this is more a case of personal preference, on my PC dit defender does not even start where avast does!