Microsoft OneCare Last in Antivirus Tests 144
Juha-Matti Laurio writes "PC World has a story reporting that Microsoft's Windows Live OneCare came in dead last out of a group of 17 antivirus programs tested against hundreds of thousands of pieces of malware. The report of an Austrian antivirus researcher was released at the AV Comparatives Web site this week. Several free AV products were included in the test as well." While the top dog was able to find 99.5% of the malicious code, OneCare clocked in at 82.4%. Of course, there's no metric for the severity of the malware in the 17% gap.
It'll get better over time (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It'll get better over time (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It'll get better over time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As OS tasks shift to the Web (and I think that will happen), we'll see a shift to the more stable Linux OS because the casual user won't have to figure out
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It'll get better over time (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Linux has come a long ways, but it is still foriegn to a lot of people. When people use Windows at work, it is easier to use it at home.
Re:It'll get better over time (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, but certain keys work with certain CDs. They unfortunately arent interchangeable. One PC I have wouldnt reboot after using the auto-upgrade feature to download SP2. So I got a SP2 CD, but it didnt like my old (legal) CD key. So I found a working key on the web, now I got that damn Windows Genuine Advantage thing popping up.
What are you supposed to do?
Re: (Score:1)
That's a fair observation. But the real chin scratcher is why they continue purchasing AV software. I've been running butt naked wild on the net since at least win95 - never installing an AV rubber. Never got a trojan or virus either. Why? I don't open email attachments. I don't install software from untrusted sources. Etc. But those last two statements are common sense, right? People know that. And I
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are going to "upgrade" to latest MS products, why do you think they won't be able to handle upgrade to modern Linux distribution? There is NOTHING too different in Gnome/KDE UI (apart from the fact that they'd get the additional benefit of customising desktop to their liking) that would take long adjustment period when switching from windowsXP.
Re: (Score:2)
Next time they buy a new computer and are faced with Vista with the bells and whistles enabled, and have to use Office 2007, and Internet Explorer 7, they'll prove that they can
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't give me this BS that Dell offers Linux because if it isn't here [dell.com], it doesn't exist.
I'm about as anti-MS as one can get but I also reailze their importance in the marketplace.
MS is obviously crippling 3rd party malware protection yet their own package fails to make the mark even though they have the advantage.
I've consistently said that MS has crappy program
Re: (Score:2)
Fry's usually has one or two of its house-brand machines with Linux preloaded (typically with Linspire). These are out on display next to all of the Winboxen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if it were true that they had access to windows source, how would this help them? Everyone has claimed that it does, but noone has explained how.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Of course, the assumption here is that Microsoft's virus will be able to block the viruses they write. Sorta basic for a Virus Company, but we all know how good MS is at closing the loop..
Re: (Score:1)
With every new WinOS release, Norton and company h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"We are looking closely at the methodology and results of the test to ensure that Windows Live OneCare performs better in future tests," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
They're going to tweak the tool to do better in the test, maybe that means it will actually work better, maybe not, but you can bet it will do better in future tests.
Re: (Score:2)
15. WE MAKE NO WARRANTY.
We provide the service "as-is," "with all faults" and "as available." We do not guarantee the accuracy or timeliness of information available from the service. The Microsoft parties give no express warranties, guarantees or con
Re: (Score:1)
Who's there?
Ballmer.
Ballmer who?
Ball more over giving me 200 for Vista and I'll chair your head.
Old Viruses (Score:4, Interesting)
If Microsoft know 50% (for example) of viruses are so old and won't run on 2000/XP, and they then decide not to search for them during AV tests... Does that mean the AV missed it - or quite rightly the code is so old that MS no longer considered a threat?
Re:Old Viruses (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
But this is Microsoft, with a product made for Windows XP / Vista. Tell me why they should care about Macs and Linux?
There is that old saying - always look after yourself, and its one I adhere to with regards to Anti-Virus... Just because it was checked at the mail server does not mean I won't check it again.
So using that premise, why should OneCare look or care about Viruses which won't run on the platform?
Re:Old Viruses (Score:5, Insightful)
The reasons are the same that Mac antivirus programs strip out windows viruses, and viruses from as far back as OS 6. Just because it cannot infect this system, does not mean it is not a threat in general.
Besides, what evidence do you have that what they missed were older viruses? While I admit this is a valid hypothesis, I see no evidence for it one way or another.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
We hear every day about MS dropping support from old OS's (something I would stand for, as long as those systems weren't as fucking widely used as W2K is); infecting them and not Vista/XP/Whatever makes the latter look more secure (and as Windows users go, they only way to move).
Feel free to
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Linux : Speaking of which... (Score:2)
Speaking of which, it is a pity that the opensource world wasn't represented :
ClamAV [clamav.net] is a very good solution, it also has a Windows client [clamwin.com] which may lack real-time on-access scan, but has numerous plugins (like, for example, built-in for Outlook, or downloadable for FireFox [mozilla.org]) and few hacks for on-access scanning [winpooch.free.fr].
It has been regularly touted for its fast response time [heise-security.co.uk] a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In other news... Large SUV's scored highest in best car. Lamborghini scored lowest. See details below:
Horse Power / Number of Seats / Game Console in back seat / Over all Score
SUV 95 (25%) / 8 (100%) / 1 (100%)
Re: (Score:1)
Encouraging companies to overemphasize tests (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats the danger with tests like this. Companies like MS see them and instead of thinking "how can we use this data to make our product better?" they are focused on just making it look better for the test. I'm not trying to single MS out here, video card manufacturers do this sort of thing all the time, hell it may be that the top performers on this test did it too.
Incidentally, why all the MS hate? Why focus on the company on the bottom, if it was any other company the headline would have been "Norton at top of antivirus heap in tests". The companies at the top are much bigger in this area and their software more widely deployed so I would think their performance would be more relevent regardless of who scored where.
Re:Encouraging companies to overemphasize tests (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Pretty much all these viruses/malware target Microsoft's own software
2) Microsoft has more resources than all the other companies combined.
3) People are going with Microsoft's solution assuming that it is the best one
So basically, Microsoft's half-assed software made antivirus software a requirement in the first place. Instead of using their vast resources to fix the underlying problems, they build more half-assed software as part of their big money grab.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, because it's cheapest. $40 retail for av and firewall for 3 PCs for one year.
Re: (Score:2)
Umm... Because Microsoft makes the operating system which allows the virus problems in the first place. Just because they make a different product doesn't mean that that particular software team is completely isolated from the rest of Microsoft (well to be fair the MS Entourage team was apparently banned from looking at the code that Outlook uses to
Re: (Score:2)
Several other people have responded to me that they think the team working on OneCare has an advantage because the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For now.
Re: (Score:1)
Incidentally, why all the MS hate? Why focus on the company on the bottom, if it was any other company the headline would have been "Norton at top of antivirus heap in tests". The companies at the top are much bigger in this area and their software more widely deployed so I would think their performance would be more relevent regardless of who scored where.
That's not true though. If it was one of the free antivirus programs no one would have batted an eye. The problem here is that it is an antivirus software that millions of people will end up buying. 17 Percent of a million is a lot of lost revenue and time spent repairing computers that would not have been infected had MS not been slack.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
People keep making these two arguments and I just dont thiknk they make sense.
1)"Microsoft is easily 10x bigger than all the other companies combined"
MS may be bigger than all they other companies across all their business groups but it isnt like all that money goes into one product. Do you really believe that they are funding OneCare with
Re: (Score:1)
And this is precisely why every Microsoft product is so damned mediocre. They do a lot of things, but they don't do any one thing well (other than make money).
You don't agree that be
Re: (Score:2)
No, I dont. Say for the sake of argument that your claim that OneCare developers have windows source in front of them is true. Explain to me how it would help.
Re: (Score:2)
"We are looking closely at the methodology and results of the test to ensure that Windows Live OneCare performs better in future tests," a Microsoft spokesperson said.
Thats the danger with tests like this. Companies like MS see them and instead of thinking "how can we use this data to make our product better?" they are focused on just making it look better for the test.
That's a problem with an aspect of the Microsoft corporate culture, not with the test.
The problem is a vicious meme that destroys the ability to properly think through engineering problems by replacing one of the solid postulates of design theory with a faulty postulate. It can be summarized as "Design For The Showroom (Not For The Work)". Unfortunately, this is an infectious and virulent meme; it is absorbed through the eyes of susceptible readers and passed on through their keyboard fingerings.
Many
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. The no virus-killer left behind act. *Nod, nod*.
Regards,
--
*Art
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure you're right - for example look at Symantec's score on those tests compared to how it does in the real world, (abysmally).
How about some constructive news? (Score:5, Insightful)
A good news story would be about who came in *first* in these tests. You know, information that actually might be useful to people. But that wouldnt get nearly as many page hits, I suspect.
Re: (Score:3)
I guess it's easier for people to take a cheap shot than actually help them improve their systems. Slashdot is so sadly predictable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just another indictment of the corporate culture of Microsoft...money first, customers somewhere near the bottom. Microsoft includes a bunch of half-asse
Re: (Score:2)
I responded to one of your posts above. Maybe the problem you are having is just that you dont understand the situation. OneCare is not bundled with windows as you are claiming in this post.
Frankly, based on your comments I would think that the average Joe's judgement of how "awful" a product is would b
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm disappointed that it performed so poorly. However, I'm not running it anymore anyhow, since I switched to Vista 64-bit and OneCare doesn't work on 64-bit platforms
Re: (Score:1)
Interestingly enough, you don't se
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
If my argument is flawed, then feel free to provide examples to the contrary.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
This product will sell, nonetheless. I no longer use Windows, but my parents have used both McAfee and Norton. Both had their issues and problems and caused w
Re:How about some constructive news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. Certainly, it is important to note which package came in at the top, as advice on what users should use. However, since OneCare is Microsoft's own service, and may be more accessible and better marketed to PC users, I would argue that it is in fact more important to note how badly it scored so that users know what not to use.
If all of the products being evaluated were equally marketed and accessible, then I would back your argument. However, because I don't believe that to be the situation, I disagree.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, MS Onecare detector was effective on me... (Score:1, Funny)
It may be 17% behind the leader, but it is damned effective.
No love for open source, ClamAV (Score:5, Interesting)
Besides, it'd have to be better than Microsoft's OneCare!
It actually wasn't "good enough" (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:No love for open source, ClamAV (Score:5, Interesting)
ClamWin better than Norton? No, you can not look at number of signatures to know who detects more. If you look on how ClamAV performs in independent tests (e.g. AV-Test.de) you see that it score around 49%, while Norton 99% (I would get very similar results). ClamAV is good to use e.g. at mail servers, but I would not suggets to use for other places, as there are better options available.
link [av-comparatives.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Coherence (Score:1)
Could you hear the whining from AV companies? "It's unfair! They have access to the OS, so they will put us out of business".
Which they will do, obviously: it's just matter of time. But in the meanwhile, the AV corps could still sell some copy of their rig crippling tools^W^W^Wsecurity enhancement programs.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This can only be bad for the consumer... MS now have a conflict of interest between improving the security of windows, or leaving it poor to encourage sales of onecare... Their product will also end up widely used despite the lack of quality, it will sell just like every other MS product simply because it gets pushed alo
Re: (Score:1)
Many users don't know how to determine if an application they are going to install is safe. There are ways to do this, and so most knowledgeable users can avoid this.
The best solution to the antivirus problem is to:
a. fix exploits in the Windows co
How about tests on older versions? (Score:4, Interesting)
I use McAfee v7.1 because the overhead compared to the newer versions is much lower.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you just use them to scan executables/emails before opening anything, for that an older one with up to date signatures should do fine.
But the old engines tend to lack defenses against 0wnage of the system via different holes. Major reason why new AV clients are so heavy on the system is because they actively try to stop any 'nasty' stuff from happening to the system - even against unknown threats using heuristics.
Older AV software also does not usually do anything against spyware and other cra
OneCares Results (Score:2, Informative)
Windows viruses 95,02%
Macro viruses 99,30%
Script viruses/malware 67,55%
Worms 89,21%
Backdoors 82,18%
Trojans 78,71%
other malware 58,38%
OtherOS viruses/malware 55,02%
And a bit more
Detection of over 222000 dialers excellent
Detection of over 130000 PUP's mediocre
Detection of over 230000 DOS viruses very high
Detection of polymorphic viruses 4 of 12
High scores for Norton (Score:2)
The highly consistent feedback from people in the trenches has been along the lines of "I removed the viruses, then to make sure the machine ran OK I removed Norton Antivirus, then I installed Kaspersky and all has been well".
Anyone got a hypothesis to account for the difference?
Re:High scores for Norton (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean something like: "Kaspersky has a higher % on that chart, AND it doesn't screw up the system?"
Norton, when it goes bad, is a nightmare to remove. And that's your only option, as you can't just fix the installation once it gets that bad. If you've already gone through the pain to remove it, why not just recommend the better solution and be done with it?
Personally, I like AVG, but that chart doesn't say great things about it. I'm disappointed in its performance. I'm seriously considering seeking a better solution.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with AVG? (Score:2)
At 96.37%, IMO they did very well. Especially when you consider the cost ($0).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
norton doesn't find any viruses unless you actively scan.
what I've discovered in every situation is, the admin sets norton with the default settings, doesn't bother to schedule a scan or an update.
everytime I've seen it, there's an expired license for norton. This completely disables updates.
I install kaspersky and never have any more problems, except with the user.
Re: (Score:2)
An outdated, fscked up Norton doesn't provide any protection...
Kaspersky for Free (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.activevirusshield.com/antivirus/freeav
Not suprising (Score:2)
Companies like MS, Cisco, IBM, et. al. typically don't want to coexist with complementary companies. It just goes against their greedy nature. They usually try to buy them or drive them out of business through competition.
There must be a theory that states this is good for consumers but we
Does not matter if it is not the best! (Score:2)
ermmmm... (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
That's how my dad's system was owned, and he wasn't even using Internet Explorer. A good AV would've stopped the infection cold. A firewall (outbound control) would've prevented it getting any worse, but wouldn't have stopped it completely.
Poor wine guys (Score:1)
At what cost performance? (Score:2, Insightful)
Kaspersky and Etrust (Score:2)
-Dan
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
No, they get slammed for making everyone need it in the first place by making their OS's so insecure.
MS puts one in and gets slammed for trying to 'squeeze' out the big AV players.
No, they get slammed for trying to lock out competitors (again)
If MS makes their AV great than they get sued by Norton and McAfee.
If it ever happens that they make something "great", we'll see what happens. We haven't had enough experience of that happening yet to say.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)