Microsoft Security Essentials Loses AV-Test Certificate 185
helix2301 writes "Every two months, AV-Test takes a look at popular antivirus software and security suites and tests them in several ways. In their latest test which was performed on Windows 7 during September and October, Microsoft Security Essentials didn't pass the test to achieve certification. Although that may not sound that impressive, Microsoft's program was the only one which didn't receive AV-Test's certificate. For comparison, the other free antivirus software, including Avast, AVG and Panda Cloud did."
Now for the rest of them... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Trust"? I don't know about that. But I at least thought it would satisfy the minimal needs I have for such a product. I'd been using AVG for years under XP - maybe I'll install that again.
Re:Sadly AVG is shit (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously, does anyone actually trust Security Essentials? I'd rather have any of those other free AV products mentioned.
(shades of MSAV here)
Haven't you seen the comments here on slashdot? MSE IS THE BEST?! Only MSE works ... I have been using Windows for 5 years and with MSE I am AV free etc.
I have never seen it promoted as much all over the web as the best more secure AV product. Clearly it is not. It is one one of the lighter ones though compared to older versions of Norton and McCrappy.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)
Try Avast? It is much lighter and is free with registration. I like the gaming mode where it shuts up and doesn't bug and that is a plus. I quit using MSe over a year ago after it showed dissapointing results.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Defective product. (Score:3, Interesting)
There was a scandal last year when OBL was killed and hackers found a way to infect your system just by doing a search OBL dead pics. You did not even have to click on anything. THe code ran through Google redirected through clever javascript hacks. So if your daughter does a search for puppy pictures she is instantly infected!
I am surprised it was mentioned only midly on slashdot as it took a few weeks to fix this and infected tens to hundreds of millions of pcs.
Re:Now for the rest of them... (Score:5, Interesting)
I know, it's anonymous coward and all...but I had an interesting issue along this vein...
Two weeks ago, a client called us saying she got some FBI scareware that also tapped into her webcam. I went to investigate. No FBI scareware when I tried it, but I did see security essentials find stuff, and take some time to remove each item...during which it invariably found more.
So, I tried the usual tools - Fixboot/Fixmbr, Combofix, TDSSKiller, ADWMBR, Malwarebytes, and my trusty ESET NOD32 recovery disc. None of that seemed to stop it. So I tried a repair XP install. I learned that the 'repair' install doesn't do nearly as much as I'd like it to, but whatevs, it was gone. ESET said it was clean, TDSSKiller said it was clean, Combofix said it was clean, and MBAM said it was clean. Security Essentials wouldn't shut up.
I googled a bit and found out that this client had caught one of the strains from the xpaj family. It does EVERYTHING - MBR rewrite, device driver, etc. Seriously among the nastiest virus infections I've ever come across. Further googling revealed that Kaspersky had an explicitly dedicated removal tool just for xpaj. it took about half an hour to run, and found literally thousands of files infected with it. It must have been file headers or something because they were all ultimately cleaned...but this thing fooled EVERYONE but Security Essentials.
Now granted MSE didn't completely take care of the issue, and clearly it also didn't stop it from running amuck...but it did find something nothing else I tried did...so I'm not thoroughly convinced that writing it off wholesale isn't entirely warranted either.
It also depends on how you want to do things (Score:5, Interesting)
One problem with AV is that as detection rate rises, so does false positive rate. So far, nobody has found a way around this. So some products go for heavy detection, Bitdefender being a good example. Fair enough, but it comes at the cost of more false positives (and it still isn't a 100% detection rate).
MS goes the other way. They go for low false positives, and in the last AV Comapritives test they had 0, but at a lower detection rate.
Why? Well because they are going for the mass market, the people who didn't want virus scanners. If the thing bothers them all the time with false positives, they'll turn it off, and then they have 0% detection. So instead they go for a lower detection rate, but with low false positives so people get some protection.
I'm not calling it the right answer, but you can see the logic.
And for that matter, I've found that in the real world, MSE seems to do better than Sophos, which is decidedly not free and very popular in enterprise.