Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Microsoft Security IT

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Security Essentials Loses AV-Test Certificate

Comments Filter:
  • by stewartjm ( 608296 ) on Thursday November 29, 2012 @08:55PM (#42137087)
    Even the best AV is barely more than snake oil. The primary purpose of running AV software, at least in a business setting, is to have a ready made scapegoat for when security is breached.
  • Re:Shocking (Score:4, Insightful)

    by war4peace ( 1628283 ) on Thursday November 29, 2012 @09:00PM (#42137123)

    I have Avast, which scored way better and guess what... It's free as well. Go figure...
    Oh and to your analogy, it's like comparing Paint with Gimp.

  • Re:Shocking (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ilguido ( 1704434 ) on Thursday November 29, 2012 @09:13PM (#42137229)
    Ahem: "For comparison, the other free antivirus software, including Avast, AVG and Panda Cloud did". You know, there is not just the title.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29, 2012 @09:13PM (#42137231)

    Last time I saw a test like this it was from a Symantec paid shill. Don't expect this to be any different.

    Probably Microsoft doesn't pay AV-Test

  • by olsonish ( 2526782 ) <olsonish@gGIRAFF ... minus herbivore> on Thursday November 29, 2012 @09:14PM (#42137251) Homepage
    I can't even remember the last time I got a virus within 24 hours of it being revealed as existing. Once upon a time I recall seeing a Monkey A virus back in the 90's. If I recall, AV software wasn't even what revealed it, it was something I found on my own trying to fix someone else's busted box. I'll be keeping MSE installed. I've found many of the free AV programs to be cumbersome and slow, and quite frankly annoying about 'protecting my system' and 'staying updated'. Stay out of shady places and avoid file sharing except when necessary and it won't be a problem. Kind of like not raw dogging dirty hookers freely, common sense behavior if you don't want to catch the Cannasyphiliaids virus.
  • by Eskarel ( 565631 ) on Thursday November 29, 2012 @09:29PM (#42137363)

    The main reason I use MSE is that it does an adequate job and unlike every one of the competitors free or otherwise, installing it isn't worse than getting infected with Malware. Last time I used either AVG or Avast it was like infecting my PC on purpose. I'll pass up some protection against zero days(which is spotty at best anyway) in exchange for not installing crap.

  • Usability: Vipre? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by whoever57 ( 658626 ) on Thursday November 29, 2012 @09:30PM (#42137377) Journal

    We have a number of PCs from a one manufacturer on which Vipre cannot update itself. This has happened with more than one release. It is necessary to not only uninstall, but do a clean-up after uninstalling and then re-install the new version. After doing this on one machine, and then having a later release also fail to install, I won't bother with Vipre again.

    On that basis, Vipre should lose points for usability.

    Oh, and it also asks unprivileged (non-administrator) users to run the update. What's the point in that?

  • by mister_playboy ( 1474163 ) on Thursday November 29, 2012 @09:47PM (#42137537)

    By running Windows, you are already placing trust in Microsoft. Using MSE seems like a entirely logical extension of that.

    That is to say, why bother yourself about one program from MS when you are using an entire OS made by them?

  • by stewartjm ( 608296 ) on Thursday November 29, 2012 @09:47PM (#42137549)
    RL Vaccinations are an example of human intelligence triumphing over at least semi-stupid self replicating DNA chunks.

    AV software is developed by humans trying to stop other humans, a much much more intractable problem, especially when the Virus developers always have the first move. The Virus developers can trivially test their software against the AV, with almost no effort. The AV developers have to expend tremendous effort to even try to catalog the threats, let alone combat them.

    Most likely the very fact that Security Essentials is faring so badly, is due to the fact that the Virus writers are being especially sure to find ways around it before launching new malware.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29, 2012 @09:52PM (#42137577)

    Anyone who knows anything about the internals of an antivirus research team know what a Joke AV-Test is.

    the tests for years have been based on static collections of huge buckets of gathered samples.

    The guys running the test have no actual malware analysis experience themselves .. its just a game all the big vendors are playing .. and really some of the the ones that seem to squeeze into top spot among the bigger players are small / tiny products that have no where near the same capabilities as the more mature ones.

    Microsofts AV product is EASILY one of the top 3, or even top 2 in some of its features. Kaspersky clearly is the best if you're paranoid about detections.

  • Re:Shocking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by girlintraining ( 1395911 ) on Thursday November 29, 2012 @11:11PM (#42138195)

    Free AV software included with operating system scores significantly lower than competitor products that cost money. Shocking!

    I remember back in the day, Netscape ruled the web, and internet explorer was a piece of crap that, while bundled with the operating system, nobody ever used. I remember when Microsoft first released mplayer, its first video player; Which looked sad and pathetic next to QuickTime. I remember how under Windows NT, the only method of defragmenting the filesystem was to reformat and start over, unless you bought Norton. I remember when Word Perfect was the only word processor anyone in the industry would recommend for professionals, and Microsoft Office was little more than notepad with a bag on the side. And I remember the first software firewalls by ZoneAlarm and others, compared to the pathetic XP firewall.

    Yes, I'm probably older than you. Yes, you can laugh: But I have a lot of memory to draw on, and all you have is sarcasm. In every case, Microsoft steadily improved their own offerings, and the market for those products imploded. Today, anti-virus built-in to windows sucks but if history is anything to judge by, it won't stay that way for long. Now get the f*ck off my lawn, and take your iPhones with you. Some of us work for a living.

  • by Nostromo21 ( 1947840 ) on Thursday November 29, 2012 @11:42PM (#42138421)

    It is refreshing to have a mature comment/conversation about surfing internet porn. Shame I have no mod points right now ;).

    P2P torrent/ed2k porn is pretty safe to if you stick to avis/mpegs or other non-code-executable video files.

    I used AVG2012 as well until the license died, then switched to Avast on my XP box, but left the Win7 box & laptops on MSE/Win7 F/W *shudder*.
    Ok, it's not that bad, but I would really like a decent FREE AV/FW product that doesn't require a whole lotta attention, IYKWIM. AVG was ok until about 2 versions ago when they turned it into corpobloat & I left my old company that I got the licenses from in any case. We use F-Secure here, which I have no idea if it's good, bad or indifferent.

    Is this MSE story just FUD, or is there really a compelling reason to abandon it on inet/download heavy Win PCs...?

  • Not really (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 ) on Friday November 30, 2012 @03:17AM (#42139221)

    This isn't a very worthwhile mass market test. 0-day detection is an interesting stat, and not worthless, as is proactive testing (AV Comparitives does that, takes a 6 month old AV scanner and sees how it does against current threats) but it isn't really a concern for most people. Computer viruses spread, well, like viruses. Not a lot of people get exposed on day 0. So as long as your virus scanner is updated reasonably frequently, it does a reasonably good job with threats you are actually likely to face.

  • by tbannist ( 230135 ) on Friday November 30, 2012 @09:26AM (#42140661)

    I hadn't heard of that, and when I looked into it, the truth appeared to be different from what you claimed. It looks like you had to click on the picture, and then click to download and then install the malware. One of the sites had malware pretending to be a VLC update, the others were peddling fake anti-virus software.

    Then again considering the source... Bill Gates lying about Google? Why am I not surprised?

Man is an animal that makes bargains: no other animal does this-- no dog exchanges bones with another. -- Adam Smith