Microsoft's Vista AV Fails Certification 161
An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's much-hyped anti-virus solution, Live OneCare and three other Vista AV products failed to achieve the Virus Bulletin's VB100 certification. The other products are McAfee's VirusScan Enterprise, G DATA's AntiVirusKit 2007, and Norman's VirusControl. All failed to pass a series of tests that are required to display the VB100 badge. 'With the number of delays that we've seen in Vista's release, there's no excuse for security vendors not to have got their products right by now,' said John Hawes, technical consultant at Virus Bulletin."
Re:excuses... (Score:5, Informative)
That's how companies like Kaspersky and AVG came out with fully Vista compliant versions of their software months ago. Software which works extremely well, by the way. (Kaspersky passed this test. It says so right in the article.)
Great Sales Pitch (Score:3, Informative)
For obvious reasons I will leave it to the reader to decide if they want to go and have a look, no links will be provided.
Re:Hate to say it (Score:3, Informative)
Locking down along with no source code is simply security by obscurity. There WILL be bugs found, and those bugs will have kernel rights. Do you think that is good? Guess what, I dont.
Vista will only reassure that bug releasers should not publish bugs, but rather sit on them. BTW, how do you clean out a kernel-infected Windows machine?
---It's that feature in XP that allows malware to flourish.
Is there an executable preventer on Linux? Nosiree, there's nothing preventing a user from affecting his own dataspace. What do you think is bad: Trashing the whole system, or trashing your ~ ? A system can be reinstalled, but most people dont back up their data.
Now, why dont Linux malwares work? They do, if the user lets them. It's just that much harder to make a program run from a browser window or from bad servers on various ports. Linux machines are usually more locked down to prevent evil stuff on the outside.
Re:Nothing to do with Vista (Score:5, Informative)
Better Solution (Score:2, Informative)
This website has a great video I think all noobs should be required to watch BEFORE owning a computer.
http://www.my-pc-help.com/video/v10017.htm [my-pc-help.com]
An ounce of prevention is always better than the cure.
This is just one review... (Score:5, Informative)
I shared my thoughts on this over here [neowin.net] on Neowin.Net's forums, so I really don't just want to do a cut-and-paste job and post what I wrote in verbatim here.
This is one of the first of a series of comparisons to include Microsoft Windows Live OneCare that Virus Bulletin [virusbtn.com] Magazine has been doing for many years. While I suspect it is more frustrating than embarrassing at this point for the team responsible for Microsoft's Windows Live OneCare, this is really Microsoft's first attempt at providing their own comprehensive anti-malware solution—MSAV [wikipedia.org], the product which shipped with DOS does not count, it was licensed from Central Point Software (who was later acquired by Symantec) who, in turn, had licensed the software from Carmel Software—and it is going to take some time and lots of signature release cycles in order to get their detection rate fine-tuned.
I don't expect this first Virus Bulletin product comparison to be the last, and the question really isn't how Microsoft did this time: It is how their product does over the next year or two that matters. If it gets worse or stays the same, they are just another competitor in the space (albeit the one with the deepest products). If, however, their detection rate improves, it is going to make it just that much more difficult for their competitors to compete against them.
As a disclaimer of sorts, I should mention that happen I work for one of the computer security companies that Microsoft competes against with this products, so this dicussion is far from academic for me. Frankly, though, I'm not expecting Microsoft's entry into this space to have any effect on my employer—we are good at what we do and have a very loyal customer base. Also, we tend to compete against other, similarly-sized companies in the field. What I do worry about, though, is how some of my friends and colleagues at the largest companies are going to handle Microsoft's entrance as they are going to be competing head-to-head against Microsoft for marketshare.
Regards,
Aryeh Goretsky
Strange... (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft's offering was one of four suites which failed to detect all malware. The others were G-Data AntiVirusKit 2007 v.17.0.6353, McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.1i and Norman Virus Control 5.90.
See, I run McAfee VirusScan Enterprise on Desktops and Servers here without problems. The latest version in the 8.0 line is 8.0i patch 15 [mcafeehelp.com]. The Vista-compatible version is 8.5i [mcafeehelp.com] which also works on Windows XP. There is no version 8.1i that I know of. Obviously this doesn't change the message that McAfee didn't earn the seal but I've never had problems with the VirusScan Enterprise line. To be frank, I've never encountered a single infection or uncontrolled virus problem on our network.
Plus, who honestly uses just *one* virus scanner on the perimeter of their Microsoft Server-system based network? I certainly don't. For example, Exchange 2003 server on the perimeter runs software from GFI which has three separate virus scanning engines. This coupled with application executable hash-based protection offered in BlackICE takes care of the rest of the problems at the desktop/server level. It's the price we pay for using MS software.
Re:*What* VirusControl? (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks for playing, though!
Re:Umm.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:A very good excuse... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:A very good excuse... (Score:2, Informative)
What is important about this particular round of VB100 tests is that this was the first round of tests after they changed the way the test was done (to make it more representative of what AV protection needs to actually be out in the wild, and hence more difficult to just coast through). This new testing methodology came unannounced, and caught everyone by surprise... which is why other major vendors missed it, including McAfee.
Re:microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
Huh?
For starters, lots of people. [clamav.net]
How else to protect Windows systems?
Re:I wonder how a Free anti-virus program would do (Score:4, Informative)
...and here's the rest of the story! (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Best AntiVirus Still.... (Score:3, Informative)
F-Secure - highest detection rate, 4x the resources of nod32
Kaspersky - highest detection rate bar F-Secure, less chance of false positives but, 2x resources of nod32
nod32 - Pretty damn good and fast
Most vendors seem to sit somewhere between Kaspersky and F-Secure for resources from many reviews I spent time reading about 12 months ago, and below nod32 for scanning ability from what I have read. Haven't seen any Vista based reviews but I am sure it hasn't changed too much.
And of the three only F-Secure supports NAC. I have used the F-Secure demo and I wouldn't buy it myself. If I needed enterprise with NAC support I'd look at either Panda, Trend or Sophos (McAfee if the others weren't decent for enterprise solutions) (sorry shameless Cisco plug
For home I would use nod32 if I had a Windows box of my own
Mum uses AVG cause ITS FREE
Re:I wonder how a Free anti-virus program would do (Score:2, Informative)