Microsoft Security Essentials Fails Certification Again

[exfileme]

Microsoft's security suite has failed AV-TEST certification for a second time in a row.

Microsoft Security Essentials Fails Certification Again : Read more

 

[memadmax]

I'm really dissappointed that MS would take a half fast attempt at protecting its own OS...

Oh well, whatever keeps the paid support calls coming in, huh MS?

 

[everlast66]

A lot of guys delude themselves with this, that they are protected ...

 

[Pinhedd]

The best anti-virus is a smart user

 

[wdmfiber]

Microsoft believes in a defense in-depth strategy for antimalware protection that includes using Microsoft Security Essentials / Windows Defender in tandem...

That is a bit confusing and may lead to MSE users downloading Defender. As I understand it you don't run Security Essensial and Defender together.

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/protect/forum/mse-protect_start/windows-defender-and-microsoft-security-essentials/5309cb8d-02e1-40e8-974f-0dcedb9ab9fd

 

[internetlad]

I've been using MSE on my home and both work PC's regularly and I've had nary a problem with it. It's caught enough possible infections on the PC I hook infected hard drives (so as to transfer data) to at work to gain my trust.

I don't quite understand how they can "fail" MSE but give Bloaton 360 a big ol green checkmark. In my opinion McAfee and Norton should be completely overhauled and re-introduced to the market. Symantec makes good tools, but their AV suite needs some fat trimmed.

 

[sinfulpotato]

Microsoft Security Essentials is getting poor ratings because it doesn't waste computer resources by using aggressive heuristics and machine learning techniques to identify viruses. Microsoft Security Essentials instead relies primarily on definitions. This means that anything Microsoft hasn't provided a definition for will not be caught by Microsoft Security Essentials, but it also means that Microsoft Security Essentials is a lot faster than most other anti-virus programs, and that Microsoft Security Essentials almost never gives false positives.

With that said, I use Avast!.

 

[ericlw]

i know it wont catch the conflicker virus.

 

[LEXX911]

Don't blame Microsoft for people pirating softwares/games and executing stupid exe keygens and all the unsafe hacks they don't know about.

 

[snemarch]

[citation][nom]internetlad[/nom]I don't quite understand how they can "fail" MSE but give Bloaton 360 a big ol green checkmark.[/citation]Follow the money trail

 

[thecolorblue]

Kasperskey... the king of antivirus

 

[popatim]

The only people I know of in the past 3 years that have gotten a virus have all used MS SE. Its garbage.

 

[internetlad]

actually looking at this website the ratings they give the antivirus are completely non-indicative of the effectiveness. The lowest score it receives is for zero-day attacks, where it catches 71/100 infections. 2-3 month old infections it catches 92/100 and for widespread infections it catches 100/100.

How this merits a 1.6/6 is absolutely beyond me. It makes it appear that it fails to catch over 70 percent of all viruses with that ranking.

 

[internetlad]

[citation][nom]popatim[/nom]The only people I know of in the past 3 years that have gotten a virus have all used MS SE. Its garbage.[/citation]

Let's consider what kind of people would save money by using a free antivirus vs. paid. If you pay for antivirus you are most likely more wealthy and either care more about your computer, or are too busy making and/or spending said money to spend time on the computer.

If you're using free antivirus, then you're either hard up, which means most likely you will be spending more time at home due to lack of job or do not want to go out because that usually means spending money. more time on the computer means more chance of an infection.

I'm not saying that paid antiviruses are not more effective than free antiviruses. I'm simply pointing out you're making a very narrow statement on a very expansive subject.

 

[ddpruitt]

The only people I know of who get malware would get it (have gotten it) even with AV software installed.

The people who always have problems never update, download torrentz, go on questionable websites, etc. AV software is like a seatbelt, it makes the crash less severe it doesn't prevent it.

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]sinfulpotato[/nom]Microsoft Security Essentials is getting poor ratings because it doesn't waste computer resources by using aggressive heuristics and machine learning techniques to identify viruses. Microsoft Security Essentials instead relies primarily on definitions. This means that anything Microsoft hasn't provided a definition for will not be caught by Microsoft Security Essentials, but it also means that Microsoft Security Essentials is a lot faster than most other anti-virus programs, and that Microsoft Security Essentials almost never gives false positives.With that said, I use Avast!.[/citation]

Yet Windows Defender sucks up my laptop's hard drive's read performance. As soon as I run it, playing TF2 or watching a movie turns into a MACRO-stuttering fest.

 

[A Bad Day]

EDIT: And it also takes hours for it to finish.

AVG Free on the otherhand does the scanning job within 30 minutes, and only causes a slight FPS drop in TF2.

 

[A Bad Day]

[citation][nom]ddpruitt[/nom]The only people I know of who get malware would get it (have gotten it) even with AV software installed. The people who always have problems never update, download torrentz, go on questionable websites, etc. AV software is like a seatbelt, it makes the crash less severe it doesn't prevent it.[/citation]

And sometimes, even the AV isn't updated...

My dad still uses Windows xp SP2, Macromedia Flash 7 (I think), Java 6, and McAfee OAS 2007.

He refuses to update to SP3 because he thinks it's a virus. How funny and sad at the same time...

 

[warmon6]

[citation][nom]popatim[/nom]The only people I know of in the past 3 years that have gotten a virus have all used MS SE. Its garbage.[/citation]

That's funny, In the same time frame, most of the people i know that get virus didn't even have AV to begin with or have an expired Norton/Mcafee. (which both is crap even when working IMO).

After i've installed MS SE on their computer, I haven't seen those computers come back to me to be cleaned.

Of course I also try to educate people on how to reduce the chances of getting another virus because No Matter What AV you chose, you always have a chance to get a virus that will wreck your computer.

I like ddpruitt response on comparing AV to a seatbelt.

 

[boulbox]

i wonder when was the last time i actually had an infection

Using no security since 2000.

 

[merikafyeah]

Microsoft can't improve MSE too much because then the other security firms will scream "anti-competition" since MS purportedly has access to information about its own OS that other security firms do not. But that's fine since in the hands of an expert, MSE does quite well in conjunction with other tools:

Malware Hunting with the Sysinternals Tools: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wuy_Pm3KaV8

 

[Abion47]

Had my rig for over two years now, and the only antivirus I have used over that time was MS SE because it was free and lightweight, and because it integrates into Windows instead of running on top of it like third-party AV suites used. Haven't had a single issue with viruses or security in that time.

If these guys really cared about keeping people's computers safe, then instead of making increasingly bloated AV software to confuse people more, they would spend all those resources making the public informed and teaching then not to click on random ads and stupid links sent to them via email or IM by "friends". Teach them to treat a random link with a grain of salt and look at the URL of the link before they click on it. Common sense saved more computers from infections than AV ever has.

But no, they don't care about security. They care about money. Malicious links and AV companies use the same tactic. They prey on the ignorance of the public to make a quick buck. AV suite makers are just as low and dirty as virus makers, in my opinion. The only difference between them is the same difference between a car thief and a towing company - one of them uses business as a barrier from the law.

 

[pjmelect]

I like MSE because it does not give false positives and is hassle free. The anti-virus programs that score high in the detection tests tend to give many false detections. This can be worse than the virus you are trying to protect yourself against. I also use along side with MSE the Malwarebytes anti virus free version which compliments MSE as being the best anti-virus program at actually removing a virus if infected and being non resident doesn't slow down the computer.

 

[06yfz450ridr]

And this is why I will stick to my old trusty avg.

 

[sna]

[citation][nom]sinfulpotato[/nom]Microsoft Security Essentials is getting poor ratings because it doesn't waste computer resources by using aggressive heuristics and machine learning techniques to identify viruses. Microsoft Security Essentials instead relies primarily on definitions. This means that anything Microsoft hasn't provided a definition for will not be caught by Microsoft Security Essentials, but it also means that Microsoft Security Essentials is a lot faster than most other anti-virus programs, and that Microsoft Security Essentials almost never gives false positives.With that said, I use Avast!.[/citation]

sorry this is not an excuse ... this mean MS are horrible and SLOW on providing definitions updates .. the testing is made using latest updates at fixed date , and they failed discovering KNOWN viruses , viruses that the testers USE to check . this means it is a KNOWN VIRUS .. other wise the tester would never test it.

sorry .. your Logic fail here.