MS Security Essentials fails recent AV Certification tests...

[Deleted]

Microsoft's popular Security Essentials anti-virus software has failed to gain the latest certificate from the AV-TEST institute. In antimalware testing against a range of products, AV-TEST failed to certify AhnLab V3 Internet Security 8.0, Microsoft Security Essentials 4.1, and PC Tools Internet Security 2012 out of a total of 25 different vendors. Microsoft's own anti-virus software failed to adequately protect against 0-day malware attacks, scoring an average of 71 percent vs. the industry average of 92 percent.


http://www.theverge.com/2013/1/17/38...28WinRumors%29

Such a huge difference in score makes me worry about people who still put their faith in MS Sec, so many better solutions out there for free as well as paid.

[Cyanotical]

old news, and not relevant, the failure is due to poor scores on zero day attacks

in fact if you read the report that failed MSE, MSE is as good or better than kaspersky or norton in all other areas

[Deleted]

old news, and not relevant, the failure is due to poor scores on zero day attacks

in fact if you read the report that failed MSE, MSE is as good or better than kaspersky or norton in all other areas

The fact the article was published today at 4am makes it old news? Also source on MSE being as good or better than kaspersky in all other areas? Everything I've read so far puts MSE far far down the list in every aspect.

[Deleted]

old news, and not relevant, the failure is due to poor scores on zero day attacks

in fact if you read the report that failed MSE, MSE is as good or better than kaspersky or norton in all other areas

Old news? maybe an over-exaggeration even if they did fail it once before.

And are you reading the same reports?

MS SE: http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/t...t_no%5D=124558
Kaspersky: http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/t...t_no%5D=124582
Norton: http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/t...t_no%5D=124552

While these are not definitive tests on how good a AV is, I'm curious as to where you got your remarks from. Those test show Kaspersky and Norton destroying MS SE, and since this thread is about reports done by AV-test, I don't see other tests been relevant. The fact that AV-test puts MS SE, almost the lowest, if not the lowest in terms of protection. Which lets face it, is the most important thing about anti-virus software.

Not only that but it wasn't just against 0 day attacks

lacked protection against 0-day malware attacks and detection of a representative set of malware discovered in the last 2-3 months

That said, I still use MSSE, I find it less troublesome then most AVs.

[Cyanotical]

Old news? maybe an over-exaggeration even if they did fail it once before.

And are you reading the same reports?

MS SE: http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/t...t_no%5D=124558
Kaspersky: http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/t...t_no%5D=124582
Norton: http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/t...t_no%5D=124552

While these are not definitive tests on how good a AV is, I'm curious as to where you got your remarks from. Those test show Kaspersky and Norton destroying MS SE, and since this thread is about reports done by AV-test, I don't see other tests been relevant. The fact that AV-test puts MS SE, almost the lowest, if not the lowest in terms of protection. Which lets face it, is the most important thing about anti-virus software.

That said, I still use MSSE, I find it less troublesome then most AVs.

here's the thing, zero day attacks are what MSE is behind on, and since most kaspersky and norton users don't download the latest definitions the second they are released, they're just as vulnerable

also, a bit of nitpicking, but a 100% rating of recent malware detection is flat out wrong, deceptive and borderline intentionally lying, so looking at that, im not really willing to accept anything from av-test.org as valid,

anyone in security will tell you that nothing detects specialized root kits, and nobody has the capability of stopping government sponsored malware quickly

[Deleted]

omw to order nod32 for my notebook aswell ^^
joking aside for a free option MSE is still more then fine.
also cyanotical why the hell would anyone with specialized root kits go after a general pc user? (same applies to gov malware)
or are we looking at airforce like firewalls in order to keep such kits out of our pc so to speak?

[Deleted]

also, a bit of nitpicking, but a 100% rating of recent malware detection is flat out wrong, deceptive and borderline intentionally lying, so looking at that, im not really willing to accept anything from av-test.org as valid

in fact if you read the report that failed MSE, MSE is as good or better than kaspersky or norton in all other areas

But was straight up to throw wrong statements out based on AV-tests results?

here's the thing, zero day attacks are what MSE is behind on, and since most kaspersky and norton users don't download the latest definitions the second they are released, they're just as vulnerable

This could apply to any AV, good job most have a system that will auto update them. I mostly get MS SE software updates from windows update, which imo makes it quiet insecure. Since you can't get MS SE without a genuine copy of windows (or are not suppose to be able too) I see a large portion of the windows user base (talking about pirated Windows here) using something different, which has it's own update schedule, instead of waiting for windows updater to go off.

[The Cat]

So because you run a pirated Windows and didn't take the time to crack it properly to be able to get updates, it is less secure for MS SE?

Pirating Windows is hardly a reason to bash MS SE. What if you pirated Norton and can't update it...?

Pirating something and contributing it's lack of a function that works with a Genuine copy to poor security is just plain silly.

[Deleted]

So because you run a pirated Windows and didn't take the time to crack it properly to be able to get updates, it is less secure for MS SE?

Pirating Windows is hardly a reason to bash MS SE. What if you pirated Norton and can't update it...?

Pirating something and contributing it's lack of a function that works with a Genuine copy to poor security is just plain silly.

We are talking about people who don't know how to manually update their AV daily. If it doesn't do it already. Definitions from MSSE are done daily but major software updates are done via windows update. Where other AV's normally do both at the same time, or automatically push notifications if an update is available. Believe this can be changed to provide both either way though, can even opt to only get definitions from windows update, which is a strange way to go...

Even small things such as scanning removable drives is not set as default in MSSE, you need to go into settings and enable it, you would expect something like that to be default, at least.

[Cyanotical]

the biggest thing here is that the user is the weakest link, you can put all the AV you want on a system, and it will still get a virus because the user runs it anyway, while comedic, this does prove a very good point:



as for pirated versions, if you pirate you are on your own

[Deleted]

it feels like i lost faith in humanity again after watching that vid.........

[chazus]

Old news? maybe an over-exaggeration even if they did fail it once before.

Yes, it's old news. It's in regard to 0-day exploits, and the test was back in late november of last year. That's nearly two months, which is a lifetime in terms of virus detection. Considering MSE scores highly (just like almost every other AV), it's really a matter of how intrusive the program itself is.

[fatalwario]

MSE is not good, i now people that got infections using it. Pick any free one & u will be better off, try avast

[DeltrusDisc]

MSE is not good, i now people that got infections using it. Pick any free one & u will be better off, try avast

Um... MSE IS free, for one. Two, I've been using MSE for the past 3 or more years without issue. O_o

[chazus]

MSE is not good, i now people that got infections using it. Pick any free one & u will be better off, try avast

Based off that, ALL AV is not good. I know people who have gotten infections using every single one. Nothing is perfect.

[Cyanotical]

Based off that, ALL AV is not good. I know people who have gotten infections using every single one. Nothing is perfect.

hence why i linked the video, the best AV still can't help a bad user

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Since you can't get MS SE without a genuine copy of windows (or are not suppose to be able too) I see a large portion of the windows user base (talking about pirated Windows here) using something different, which has it's own update schedule, instead of waiting for windows updater to go off

I don't see why anybody should care about the criminals that pirate software. They can have their computers and bank accounts compromised for all I care.

[Deleted]

I don't see why anybody should care about the criminals that pirate software. They can have their computers and bank accounts compromised for all I care.

You see it that way, other companies still see a market in people using pirated software, companies like Norton and Kaspersky don't care if you are using a pirated Windows version, only you try, like and hopefully use their software. Although I do see a huge portion of those with pirated version of Windows, using free ones like AVG/Avast.

I mean by your logic, the 25 million (probably much more) steam accounts that are active, you think every single one of them has a genuine version of Windows? And if not, would valve ban them all (if they could). No of course they wouldn't.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

The point is not that they do or do not use a legal version of their Operating System, rather that they should be using one. I do not think that Microsoft should give any help to people that steal their software, be it support through OS patches, allowing them to use MSE or other Microsoft products or any support.

Valve, on the other hand, should (and probably does) only care if users are breaking their system and gaining access to games that they didn't have the right to, be that through payment or through possession of an authorization key (and yes, I do believe that Valve should and would ban users for such breaches of their ToS).

Just like Kaspersky, McAfee and Symantec only care that you pay your annual subscription fee (and annoy the hell out of you until you pony up or uninstall the software). They don't let you use or update their software until the licence is (re)activated.

[vesseblah]

You see it that way, other companies still see a market in people using pirated software, companies like Norton and Kaspersky don't care if you are using a pirated Windows version, only you try, like and hopefully use their software.

Norton used to clear out certain activation cracks for Windows XP.

And yes, they do care. Having pirated OS makes lifes harder for AV product vendors when they're stuck in support hell trying to figure out why things dont work as they should. For all software vendors really when they can't know for sure if the problem is Microsoft, them or the pirates.