Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

AV-Test Deems Windows Security Essentials "Very Good"

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the if-you're-in-the-right-demographic dept.

Security 318

CWmike writes "Microsoft's new free security software, Windows Security Essentials, passed a preliminary antivirus exam with flying colors, said independent and trusted firm AV-Test, which tested Essentials, launched yesterday in beta, on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7. It put it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses, bot Trojans and worms, said Andreas Marx, one of the firm's managers. The malware was culled from the most recent WildList, a list of threats actually actively attacking computers. 'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,' Marx said in an e-mail. 'That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet.' It also tested well on false positives."

cancel ×

318 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Malware? (5, Insightful)

homes32 (1265404) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459541)

viruses, trojans, and worms, are all nice and dandy but what about malware? That is what most people have to worry about these days.

Re:Malware? (5, Informative)

molafson (716807) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459605)

"AV-Test also examined the program's anti-rootkit skills and its ability to scrub a system of malware it finds with a limited number of samples and "found no reasons to complain," Marx said. "[Security Essentials] is able to remove found malware very well, but further tests against larger sets of samples are required before we can come to a final conclusion."

Re:Malware? (-1, Flamebait)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459653)

but what about malware? That is what most people have to worry about these days.

      If you're running a Microsoft OS, you've already installed the mother-of-all-malware anyway, so why worry? Trust Microsoft. No seriously, you don't have a choice. TRUST MICROSOFT.

Re:Malware? (0, Troll)

fodi (452415) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459723)

what a stupid, cheap troll. Why is this crap modded up these days?
Did you land here by accident? Go back to cracked.com.

Re:Malware? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459911)

I don't see how hat was a troll. Really, the main threat if you keep up with security patches is simply malware, and malware that has a legitimate use but comes bundled with all sorts of crap like adware and spyware (think of Kazaa).

Re:Malware? (5, Insightful)

Talchas (954795) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460399)

Even against viruses, trojans and worms, it really won't stop them from getting owned. It may help against old viruses spreading, but it is unlikely to help much against new ones. And new ones often will take out the antivirus, leaving you with an even falser sense of security.

Sounds positive (4, Funny)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459553)

MS is lifting their game.exe

Re:Sounds positive (1)

shermo (1284310) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460347)

I tried to open that file but it didn't work. My norton is working to protect me from malicious files very well thankyou.

Scan your willy for viruses (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459555)

Imagine your willy being smacked until it bleeds.

Willy on Wheels (J.delanoy)!

I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (5, Interesting)

supercell (1148577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459589)

Norton, Symantec and others have created an entire multi-billion dollar subscription based industry around virus protection for Windows. I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (5, Funny)

gewalker (57809) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459625)

Well, we know one thing for certain: "Resistance is futile"

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459943)

"Resistance is futile"

Yes but only if much less than 1 Ohm

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459665)

claim anti-trust and attempt to sue.

How dare microsoft plug security holes themselves.

Come on EU, save us from a secure windows platform.

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (0, Troll)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460061)

Again, parent really shouldn't be modded troll. The EU seems to like picking on Microsoft for the most insane of reasons. I'm no Microsoft fan, but half the shit that the EU charges them with is ridiculous and hypocritical.

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (2, Informative)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460107)

There would only be grounds for such a claim if they bundled it with windows.

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460511)

By "bundled" with Windows, do you mean making the OS secure in the first place?

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459713)

People attempting to buy Norton AV should be arrested; then given a choice between installing a completely locked down Linux kiosk, or have their hands and balls chopped off.

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (0, Redundant)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459805)

Exactly.

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459917)

Don't worry, you can still Punch the Monkey and Win a Free Nintendo Wii!!! with just your nose.

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (0)

Lucky75 (1265142) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460041)

Sorry, why is parent modded Troll? It was a perfectly valid argument. Seriously...I wouldn't install Norton if it was given to me for free, which it usually is now, because no one (smart) wants to pay for bloated malware.

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (1, Funny)

Skylinux (942824) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460099)

I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?

I don't know how BUT I do know that it will take a while considering the speed of Norton AV (consumer edition)....

ohh and anti competitive law suit in the EU in 3,2,1

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460143)

No, unless they bundle it with Windows 7.

Re:I wonder how Symantec, Norton, et will react (1)

edivad (1186799) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460173)

Norton, Symantec and others have created an entire multi-billion dollar subscription based industry around virus protection for Windows. I wonder how they are going to react to this potential bomb for there business model?

React? You mean, they should feel threatened by the same noOneCare technology that so miserably failed to make any business because of its design flaws?
I can already see everyone in the business running scared about this new thing.

Anti-trust? (3, Interesting)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459603)

Should be interesting to see if the current AV vendors try the anti-trust card with MS for this. I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.

Re:Anti-trust? (5, Interesting)

bill_kress (99356) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459639)

There was talk about antitrust suits when Microsoft first included the TCP/IP stack in windows. Before that you had to go to another vendor.

It made life a LOT more easy once it was built into the OS.

I'm pretty sure the same thing will be true of AV software.

Re:Anti-trust? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459699)

It should be noted that Bill Kress is a Public Relations "professional" who works under contract for Microsoft.

Re:Anti-trust? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459945)

It should be noted that you are a douchebag.

Re:Anti-trust? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460007)

Be that as it may, his statement of comparing the relative usability of windows during time periods before and after MS made a windows component change is no less valid. Additionally, his statement supposes that similar integration (assuming it is done properly) will likewise make windows usability improve.

So, AC, your very obvious implication that he is astroturfing despite relating nothing but easily confirmed facts is a waste of everyone's time involved. If you want to take a swing at MS' credibility, by all means do so. There are plenty of avenues you could approach and would get no argument from me. GP's simple comment, however, is not one of them.

Incidentally, did you ever [i]try[/i] dealing with windows during the era of 3rd party tcp/ip stacks? It was unpleasant, to say the least.

I would add another example of integration that I think has improved the windows experience: the Vista (and Win7) search tool compared to XP's and earlier. Not as drastic as the implementation of the tcp/ip stack, I'll admit, but nonetheless quite the improvement. An indexing service that works and does so without a fuss and a simple WinKey followed by typing what I want has dramatically increased the speed with which I access what I want in many cases.

Integration is not all bad, you see. Provided it's done right. I expect the AV vendors who have built their subscription model on equally useless bloatware will not be happy about this. Good riddance, I say. As to you, MS, please don't screw this up.

Re:Anti-trust? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460375)

Mr. Kress, you forgot to log in before posting.

Re:Anti-trust? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460915)

The av vendors saw this coming though. Why do you think the default installs of macfee and norton come with so much extra useless bloated extra junk like back-up software or their own "logging system" that can tell you 50,000 times that they allowed a 1 time change to the system. Its because as microsoft becomes less of a leaky tub when it comes to security they are forced to try and stay relevant with smoke and mirrors.

Re:Anti-trust? (4, Insightful)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460127)

TCP/IP should be in the OS - it is a resource management issue and is a hardware issue. If only a handful of apps used it, maybe third-party would be acceptable. But you don't want a third-party stack crashing the OS, so write it yourself and include it.

On the other hand, Anti-virus products shouldn't even be needed. MS should be able to write software with fewer holes in it. They have piles of static analysis tools, piles of research, and piles of other stuff. They just don't want to take the time and fix things (including testing), so they put wrappers like UAC around things instead of fixing it.

I've seen lots of bug reports ignored by MS just because it doesn't look like it's exploitable, only to have some crafty fool figure out how to exploit it. I can cause a stack overflow in Oracle 10.x drivers by sending a VALID openquery through a linked server. Runtime catches the error, but then it causes a crash in the error reporting because the stack is trashed. Currently it's a null refrence, but how hard would it be to turn a stack overflow into a server root hack? Not all that hard. But they won't fix it because the problem is in a third party module, and if that one is fixed the MS error disappears. I'm just saying these vulnerabilities are all over the place, especially since they have so much third-party code.

One person or company making the problem, and the solution to the problem, does not look good. Especially since MS only publically fixes holes they publically admit to. There might be piles of security problems no one else knows about, but MS AV might know to watch for suspicious behaviour that only MS knows about.

Giant virus outbreak because it's too expensive to patch a particular problem, or can't get it out fast enough, and only Windows SE customers are protected so everyone ditches Symantec and other AV and goes to Windows. It's not that far-fetched, and they might even do it that way by accident. When it's possible to have that kind of advantage and wipe out your competition in a single event like that, especially if it's unintentional, that's a problem.

Just saying, the mafia used to take protection money, but you were being protected from the mafia. Problem and solution should be from different sources. Therefore your analogy is invalid, same as if my hair were a bird.

Re:Anti-trust? (3, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460617)

On the other hand, Anti-virus products shouldn't even be needed. MS should be able to write software with fewer holes in it. They have piles of static analysis tools, piles of research, and piles of other stuff. They just don't want to take the time and fix things (including testing), so they put wrappers like UAC around things instead of fixing it.

Microsoft software is already more secure than most vendors. Recent major viruses have either:

1) Spread via social engineering. (The kind of thing UAC is supposed to help with, contrary to what you seem to think it's for.)

2) Spread via non-Microsoft software. For example, I got a lovely copy of the Vundo virus courtesy of Sun's Java VM. Sun and Adobe software have been major spreaders recently.

What would you suggest Microsoft do about either of those issues that they aren't already doing? Make it impossible to run Sun or Adobe software? Yeah, right.

Re:Anti-trust? (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460181)

That was a stack? I thought that was swiss cheese. I do remember that they replaced parts of the cheese with a stable stack but they didn't write that stack. They borrowed it from an already well established system that was designed around the network years prior.

Re:Anti-trust? (5, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460135)

I imagine it will be a vary hard case to make since really all they are trying to do is fix their broken OS.

How is releasing anti-virus software fixing their "broken OS?" Are you implying that a non-broken OS is completely immune to viruses and malware or are you just spewing typical anti-Microsoft vitriol?

Oh ok... Thought so.

Re:Anti-trust? (0, Troll)

zonky (1153039) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460703)

What is broken is the Microsoft mindset where they have encouraged the end user that it is normal to run any program you find anywhere, with admin privileges and let it install.

Regardless of UAC or not, that model of software distribution is totally unworkable.

Any signature based anti-malware system will fail to cope with that- it will time lag as new threats emerge.

That is just crazy way of doing things. Windows Security Essentials is a band aid, and doesn't address at all what windows needs: Proper, trusted package management, with safe repositories.

Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (5, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459611)

It's interesting, but at this point can Microsoft really convince anyone that they are serious about putting out a quality product? I think that is there biggest problem here... PR.j I will admit I laughed when I saw the article, and it is Microsoft's reputation that made me laugh. Maybe it is good, but I am I really willing to give them the chance with something that important?

I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.

Let's face it. If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these "core" activities, would the 3rd party market be as big as it is?

In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed. Then maybe the manufacturers won't be so quick to bundle Norton/McAffee with their products, and THAT will be fun to watch.

Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (0)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459955)

In any case it will be interesting if they start shipping Windows with this pre-installed. Then maybe the manufacturers won't be so quick to bundle Norton/McAffee with their products, and THAT will be fun to watch.

Hopefully OEMs will eventually not bundle any (pre-installed) AV with their systems, with any new system bought from any OEM you spend hours either wiping off Vista and replacing it with Linux/OS X/XP/7 or spend even more hours, countless UAC prompts, and many reboots just to get the system to run decently.

Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460075)

Spend hours wiping off Vista? You're doing something wrong. How hard is it get a linux cd and install it? The cd does the work for you!

Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460157)

Well, it depends but after installing Linux there are a few things you need to do to make it usable, even with Ubuntu I usually have to install codecs, DVD support, Flash, etc. Those are determined by your network connection so on a DSL connection it could take an hour or two of installation + configuration.

Mint Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460823)

Mint Linux http://www.linuxmint.com/ [linuxmint.com]

Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460043)

If Microsoft was so invested in security then the company wouldn't had invested in band-aid solutions like anti-viruses but instead would work actively to fix the holes in their software and architecture problems.

Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460159)

Defense in depth is always a bad thing!

Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (1)

Anarchduke (1551707) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460403)

I am sure the builders of the Maginot Line would probably disagree with you.

Re:Hitler's Kosher Hotdogs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460525)

I can remember articles talking about Windows Firewall in the past as being pretty darn good too, yet it seems the first thing a tech person does is to deactivate these days.

I never disable the Windows Firewall on any computers I use or fix. 99% of the time a computer is messed up not because of a firewall issue, but because their antivirus software is out of date, they open all e-mail attachments, or do stupid things on MySpace.

Let's face it. If Microsoft was seriously competent about doing these "core" activities, would the 3rd party market be as big as it is?

Take any operating system with the amount of marketshare Windows has, and you will find a 3rd party market for security products. It doesn't matter how secure an operating system is, as long as the typical user has access to run processes as an administrator (implicitly or explicitly), the computer will eventually get fucked up.

Probably Pretty Good (5, Insightful)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459623)

With all that talent, resources, and internal knowledge they should have a slam dunk. Unfortunately I have a lot of distrust built up from over the years about what MS sticks under the hood. It will take many years of good reviews and endorsements before I feed comfortable that the MS AV does not give any special passes to iffy software from a MS partner, or that the MS firewall will correctly block things from going out when configured to if the originator is an MS component.

Iffy software (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459751)

Unfortunately I have a lot of distrust built up from over the years about what MS sticks under the hood. It will take many years of good reviews and endorsements before I feed comfortable that the MS AV does not give any special passes to iffy software from a MS partner, or that the MS firewall will correctly block things from going out when configured to if the originator is an MS component.

...or give free passes to "iffy" USA government-sponsored spyware.

Re:Probably Pretty Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460035)

By all means, enjoy your Macbook. Feel free to twitter about your seething discomfort with the fact that MS may have done something quite well for once.

It makes sense (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459631)

The Microsoft style is to solve problems by throwing a lot of people at it, and they use that strategy fairly well. Instead of simplifying the structure to where it can be reasonably dealt with by a small group of people, they are happy to make it big. For example, compare the number of system calls in the windows kernel with the number in the Linux kernel. Having so many more system calls means each internal refactor will have to take more into consideration, as well as requiring more testing, but it's ok, Microsoft is happy to throw lots of testers at it. The ASP.net model, which basically wraps a whole system around html/javascript to encapsulate it and make it easier for the average programmer was an amazingly man-hour intensive job, once again requiring lots of testing and many special cases, and yet Microsoft did it.

That operating style is especially well suited to AV software, because it is a job that can be easily broken up and handed out to different programmers, and catching all the viruses is a job that can be easily helped if you have a lot of programmers and testers. It makes sense that Microsoft would write good AV software.

Re:It makes sense (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460109)

Ok, I have to quibble with the ASP.NET comment. Bash Microsoft all you want but get your facts straight.

ASP.NET is not primarily an HTML/Javascript wrapper. Its purpose is much more ambitious than that. I would argue that the greatest strength of ASP.NET is providing an easy method for a web developer to utilize the .NET framework. Yes, its complex but so are the enterprise-class applications I build with it. Some of us build things more complicated than a blog publishing platform. And thus we need more robust tools.

As to your argument that it was a man-hour intensive project: so what? Microsoft, for all of their chair-throwing, Internet Explorer-inflicting ways, does know how to create top-tier dev tools. And that does tend to take time and a lot of qualified people.

Re:It makes sense (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460355)

ASP.NET is not primarily an HTML/Javascript wrapper. Its purpose is much more ambitious than that. I would argue that the greatest strength of ASP.NET is providing an easy method for a web developer to utilize the .NET framework. Yes, its complex but so are the enterprise-class applications I build with it. Some of us build things more complicated than a blog publishing platform. And thus we need more robust tools.

This is an interesting comment. I am interested in knowing what sorts of things the integration with the .NET framework is helping you to do. For the most part I have found I only need an extremely small subset of the .NET framework for working with ASP. It is also hard for me to think of a case where I would need MORE than a small subset of the .NET framework. So if you read this, Mr. AC, please let me know.

Also, my experience with ASP has been the opposite: as I've made more complex web applications, I've needed to branch out beyond Microsoft's ASP, and use third party controls, and more and more I've needed to write my own javascript and html (which is annoying because now instead of the ASP wrapper making my life easier by eliminating the need to learn javascript and html, it's made my life harder by forcing me to learn ASP on top of it. It's not a huge burden, though). ASP.NET from my perspective seems to be aimed more at people who are doing simple things like blogs, not at people who make web applications. Microsoft CRM seems to do a good job with that, but licensing costs are expensive.

Re:It makes sense (5, Interesting)

Dutchboy2000 (1584481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460637)

In my view, using a "small subset of the .NET framework" is not an argument against using ASP.NET. .NET is a huge and extremely varied framework (as you evidently know well). It would be a very odd case where any particular application - whether it be web or Win32 - would require the majority of the functionality provided through .NET.

But the fact that all I need is a screwdriver does not lessen the value of having a well-stocked toolbox. The first time I had to create a web application that could consume and perform complex recursive logic on XML files created by a mobile application framework, I didn't have to wonder whether .NET provided the necessary functionality. I knew it did even though I'd never used it before.

I'm not going to sit here and tell you there aren't things about .NET that drive me nuts. And, in fairness, I don't have a lot of experience with other web application frameworks. Still, .NET gives me what I need when I need it and without a lot of fuss. The biggest problems I deal with each day have very little to do with my framework of choice and much more to do with things outside of my control. C'est la vie, eh?

By the way, I'm the Anonymous Coward that posted above. I just created a new Slashdot account so now I can be a Well-Known Coward.

Re:It makes sense (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460547)

For example, compare the number of system calls in the windows kernel with the number in the Linux kernel.

Where would I get data to compare these two items? I see from Wikipedia that Linux has around 320.

Re:It makes sense (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460773)

You're right, it is hard to find that information on Windows. http://www.metasploit.com/users/opcode/syscalls.html [metasploit.com] is one resource, looks like 424 according to them. Admittedly not a whole lot more.

I believe this is the http://www.visualcomplexity.com/vc/project.cfm?id=392 [visualcomplexity.com] link I was thinking of when I made my original statement.

Microsoft has got it ass backwards... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459687)

...create a secure operating system and one doesn't need anti-malware in the first place!

Apple learned this lesson years ago and a good reason for Linux.

20 years, only one virus 16 years ago. WDEF.

(note: self installed trojans are not viruses)

That's all, so why hasn't M$ got it yet?

The question is (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459695)

Why do we need MS antivirus software in the first place?

Re:The question is (2, Insightful)

Nightspirit (846159) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459925)

Because people will download and install anything? Even OSX was hit recently with people pirating the iwork suite.

Re:The question is (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460495)

In other words, MS is protecting users from their own ignorance and/or stupidity.

I would hope... (2, Funny)

Jesterace (914041) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459697)

So far it's been running very well. I would presume that they should be able to make something that will protect their own operating system after all they did code it.

Re:I would hope... (2, Informative)

ichthus (72442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459975)

Yeah, but this is a bit like a car manufacturer providing locks for their doors after the fact.

Re:I would hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460199)

It's more like a car manufacturer providing a security guard to watch your call while you're away because the doors were never designed to accommodate locks.

MS still has superb programmers (5, Insightful)

geekboy642 (799087) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459711)

It's always been this way. Microsoft rests on their laurels until an upstart company starts making money at their expense. Between Mac, Linux, and the insane proliferation of general crapware, MS has a real image problem on their hands. Luckily for Microsoft, the best and the brightest can be wooed by the kind of money they're able to throw around. When they throw their top programmers at a job, the results are stunning, just witness the turnaround from early Vista to the current beta of Windows 7.
Sadly, the end result will be bad for consumers. Other security companies will be badly hurt by the release of this freebie, and MS will go back to sleep, leaving the security marketplace to stagnate like the pre-Firefox browser market stagnated.

Re:MS still has superb programmers (4, Insightful)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460227)

There are many AV suites already released for free - Avira, AVG, Comodo, etc. Avira is much more popular than paid AV suites around here.

Re:MS still has superb programmers (1)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460965)

Does Avira require registration? I got pissed at other AV tools because they either require registration or magically ballooned into ridiculous clown-barf color schemes.

AVG Free was my favorite, but they discontinued the previous version (7.5?) and made 8.0 install only on XP SP2 or above. Or something like that. So I went with something else that required me to sign up. Sure they want to track users or somethinig, but I delete everything they e-mail me with so it's really me being up-front - I'm not going to upgrade nor pay you money, so you don't need my information to spam me with.

Then upgraded to SP3 because the free MS compilers require SP2... and tried AVG next version again. I right-click to scan, and there's a balloon tip type notice that I started a scan, a giant orange notice that I decided to ignore the fact that on-access scanning is off, a slide-down notice to upgrade, 60 second scan startup time, and when I close the window a balloon tip type thing to let me know if finished. Fuck all of that. I want a virus scanner, not a billboard.

So - you or someone else - what makes Avira good?

BFD: +1, Redundant (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28459759)

Who cares. It's MicroSLOP.

Hackingly Yours,
Kilgore Trout

Great if you're living in one of 5 countries... (3, Interesting)

jpedlow (1154099) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459781)

So I decided i'd check it out for my XP box.... "Not available in your country or region You appear to be in a country or region where the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta is unavailable. This beta is available only to customers in the United States, Israel (English only), People's Republic of China (Simplified Chinese only) and Brazil (Brazilian Portuguese only). " So...not Canada? *sigh* Well, time for Nod32 or kaspersky I guess...

Re:Great if you're living in one of 5 countries... (1)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460817)

Looks like you got modded "-1, Canadian." :P

Beta not available for download (0)

planckscale (579258) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459887)

I just tried to download from Microsoft here: http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials/ [microsoft.com]

But found the following message:

Alert!

Thank you for your interest in joining the Microsoft® Security Essentials Beta. We are not accepting additional participants at this time. Please check back at later a date for possible additional availability.

Anyone know where to get a copy of the beta? I'd like to put it on a machine I just built.

Re:Beta not available for download (2, Informative)

NervousNerd (1190935) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459993)

Right here. [jcxp.net]

directed self-interest (3, Insightful)

Horar (521864) | more than 5 years ago | (#28459889)

A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor prescribing cigarettes. It creates a lot of extra work.

Re:directed self-interest (3, Funny)

mozzis (231162) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460081)

A computer consultant advocating Windows is like a doctor advocating a healthy lifestyle. Stop twisting reality to fit your fundamentalist preconceptions.

Re:directed self-interest (5, Insightful)

dublin (31215) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460567)

Any computer consultant worth his salt won't get drawn into silly squabbles over OS/platform/software/language/etc., and will recommend the *best* solution for the client. Don't ever let bigotry blind you...

I describe myself as a dyed-in-the-wool Unix proponent (24 years now), but I run Windows on my desktop machines, and have recommended Windows on many occasions, including some large-scale Fortune 20 deployments, where it made more sense. (For servers, I avoid Windows unless the app environment really needs it or runs markedly better there, but there are still a good number of those situations. Given my druthers, I design new systems around open source technologies, mostly because of the lifecycle cost savings. Auditing all those licenses is a non-trivial cost and PITA, not to mention acquiring them in the first place - and avoiding licensed software makes leveraging cloud computing *much* easier...)

Windows certainly has its faults, and I'm a big critic, but it also has its place, and for a good number of things (even some server-based things), Windows is the best choice - sometimes by a good margin.

Microsoft Hate (0, Offtopic)

xxuserxx (1341131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460003)

So much hatred towards Microsoft here. My experiences with Server 2008 and Windows 7 have been nothing short of stellar. Terminal services are rediculously easy to setup through IIS (which happens to be more secure than Apache currently) and Windows7 benchmarks are better than XP. What else do you guys want from Microsoft?

Re:Microsoft Hate (-1, Flamebait)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460215)

A real shell?
Having to install cygwin is kinda a pain. No powershell does not count.

A real multiuser OS, this means remote shell access.

I could go on if you like.

Re:Microsoft Hate (1)

Curate (783077) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460385)

Yes, please go on.

Re:Microsoft Hate (1)

Slothrup (73029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460407)

A real shell? Having to install cygwin is kinda a pain. No powershell does not count.

Why doesn't PowerShell count?

Re:Microsoft Hate (4, Interesting)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460483)

Try using it.
1.
A shell that uses objects is asinine.
It looks like a bunch of java idiots tried to make a shell. If I wanted objects I would use a programming language, this is supposed to be scripting.

2. No ssh, lame.

3. does not support anything like authorized_keys.

Re:Microsoft Hate (3, Informative)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460747)

A real shell?
Having to install cygwin is kinda a pain. No powershell does not count.

Way to craft your requirements in such a way that they're impossible to meet. What is a "real" shell? And what features does your "real" shell require that PowerShell doesn't have?

Let me guess, a "real" shell is defined as "a shell that Microsoft is not currently shipping."

Re:Microsoft Hate (1)

TexNA55 (1338761) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460233)

So much hatred towards Microsoft here. My experiences with Server 2008 and Windows 7 have been nothing short of stellar. Terminal services are rediculously easy to setup through IIS (which happens to be more secure than Apache currently) and Windows7 benchmarks are better than XP. What else do you guys want from Microsoft?

Compatibility.

Re:Microsoft Hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460235)

Microsofts Server products works great until:

1. You want to do something with them that's slightly out of the mainstream.

2. You run into some kind of bug, and have to actually debug the product.

Look, I understand that for web developers hired for doing a small/medium sized web development project IIS/Windows Server is a quick setup. Hell, it'll even work and perform pretty well at a decent pricetag.

Ever tried maintaining multiple instances of those things, ever had to to kerberos crossrealm integration between a Microsoft Active Directory and a MIT/Heimdal kerberos setup or a Novell eDirectory/kerberos setup for that matter. It's a nightmare of weird Micorsoft tools you have to use, limited documentation (because who would EVER want to use anything but MS) and just plain frustration.

Look I understand that Microsofts user interfaces help a lot of people get jobs done in IT, but don't kid yourself, when you get beyond just managing small to medium setups all that nifty automation becomes a huge stick you have to work around to get the job done. I don't think there are many people who work with infrastructure and have worked with Microsoft and Unix platforms that don't know what I mean.

Non-Microsoft software platforms typically require more knowledge than the integrated solutions Microsoft deliver and they take more time to get running, but they're usually limited far more closely to what you can imagine them to do, instead of what Microsoft imagined them to do what they were released.

What do I want from Microsoft? Flexibility from their products, and a bit of good grace from them in the marketsplace, interoperability if you will...

Re:Microsoft Hate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460963)

Well, MS does have a consistent, long-running history. A serial killer who buys an ice cream for a little girl is still a serial killer. One good deed does not blank out a lifetime of ugliness.

Maybe, but... (1)

fenring (1582541) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460039)

Maybe Microsoft's antivirus is pretty good, I don't know. The problem remains that Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly. That's the problem.

Re:Maybe, but... (2, Insightful)

xxuserxx (1341131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460149)

If Mac's had 90% of the user base such as Microsoft does you would see the same problem with Macs or Linux even. It has nothing to do with system security it's simply that PC's are who virus programmers target.

Re:Maybe, but... (4, Insightful)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460249)

Too bad apache proves you wrong.

This is an old, tired and false argument. If any OS had the holes windows does it would get exploited like mad.

Re:Maybe, but... (2, Insightful)

xxuserxx (1341131) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460387)

Did you not read about the Apache security flaw that was posted on Slashdot just this week?

Re:Maybe, but... (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460537)

Oh wow 1 flaw, BFD.
The point is more IIS boxes get owned than Apache boxes. Yet there are far more Apache servers in the wilds.

Re:Maybe, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460243)

Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly because most malware targets the most popular OS among average computer users. If linux was half as popular as windows in your average household, it'd probably need some AV software running too.

Re:Maybe, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460349)

Maybe Microsoft's antivirus is pretty good, I don't know. The problem remains that Windows needs some sort of AV to function properly. That's the problem.

So what you mean to say is that you have no knowledge of the subject, and really have no clue what the fuck you're talking about, but since there's an opportunity to bitch about Microsoft, you just couldn't keep your stupid gob shut?

Such keen insight! I for one will eagerly await the next load of steaming horseshit to escape that bashed-in melon you call a head.

Re:Maybe, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460759)

Odd, I got along for years without using it.

It is simple:
1. Use Firefox (fewer 0-day exploits)
2. Don't browse porn/warez
3. Don't use P2P at all (no malware)
4. Run a web virus scan every couple of months just to be safe.

The users, and the insistence on admin privileges are the problem. At least MS is slowly working on the latter. The former is unfixable. OS X is NO better on many counts.

Wouldn't it be better to make the OS secure? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460145)

I mean, I may be all naive, but isn't this like selling puncture repair outfits for the condoms you sell with holes in?

It seems wrong for an OS vendor/maker to do this (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460187)

Microsoft should not be making antivirus software. It should be fixing its vulnerabilities.

The OS has many fundamental problems, some of which cannot be resolved without redesigning the core internals which would render all older software incompatible any newer version of the OS. This sort of problem was identified long ago, but it was decided that the cost of change would be too great, the burden on third party software vendors too heavy and ultimately, it would be too slow to adopt and migrate for all users. And the longer they wait for this eventuality, the more expensive and prohibitive it becomes to make such important changes.

If this sounds like the U.S. moving from Imperial measurements to the globally accepted Metric system, you wouldn't be alone in this observation.

Microsoft still cannot fix the "stupid user" problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it. And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything. But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system doesn't stop here. Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the "imperial" one behind... well I can dream can't I?

Re:It seems wrong for an OS vendor/maker to do thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460787)

Microsoft fixes its vulnerabilities, there is however the issue of the dumbass who downloads a program to "help" him view porn, there are many other attack vectors, but the basic idea is that the user can get tricked into installing a virus/trojan/whatever under the right circumstances. The virus then proceeds to make use of the standard Windows APIs. The virus is not using an exploits whatsoever, yet it still is a problem and it stills sends your personal information elsewhere. It needs to be removed. That's what anti-virus is for.

Re:It seems wrong for an OS vendor/maker to do thi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460945)

Microsoft still cannot fix the "stupid user" problem but there are many things they could fix if they had the balls to do it. And they could take a page out of Deep Freeze's playbook and create a system where the user must first unlock the system before they can install anything. But perhaps the similarity to the adoption of the metric system doesn't stop here. Perhaps there will come a point at which everyone will move on to another system leaving the "imperial" one behind... well I can dream can't I?

What do you think UAC is? Yes, that much maligned UAC that people turn off. It is a way to unlock the system to install software, or elevate priviledges from a standard user to an administrator. There are few differences between sudo and UAC, but everybody seems to hate the latter. The ONE revolutionary secure thing Microsoft has done in Windows, is one of the most hated. I am not surprised.

About time (2, Funny)

avandesande (143899) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460273)

When you consider all the extra crap they ship with their OS, including something that is actually useful like this should have been done 10 years ago.

Only protection against files? (2, Insightful)

sugarmotor (621907) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460305)

'All files were properly detected and treated by the product,'

Aren't there other attacks besides file-based ?? This sounds rather silly!

Stephan

Windows Defender? (1)

Degro (989442) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460427)

So what is the difference between this and the Windows Defender that comes with Vista? I don't trust any of these AV companies and haven't run their software in over a decade with no real problems. I do however let Windows Defender do whatever it does since upgrading to Vista. I never really looked into what that doing actually is though...

Re:Windows Defender? (2, Informative)

dave562 (969951) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460707)

If my memory serves correctly, Windows Defender is based around IE and protecting the computer from exploits that come in through the browser. Anti-virus software on the other hand scans the rest of the system. To come up with a theoretical example, if you are running Windows Defender and AV software, when you visit a website with malicious code on it, Windows Defender will recognize the code attempting to execute in the browser and block it. On the other hand, if you are only running AV by itself, the malicious code will execute in the browser, and MAYBE your anti-virus software will catch whatever trojans and other executables the website copies onto the local system (if you're lucky and have up to date definitions that can detect whatever they are trying to drop on the system).

The sad reality of the fact seems to be that in order to secure a typical Windows network in this day and age requires a multi-tiered approach. You need some sort of proxy/web filter software to block known malicious sites outright, and also to do some sort of packet inspection/exploit detection on the open connections. You then need some sort of software to protect the browser itself, like Windows Defender (if you are running IE). As a last line of defense, you need anti-virus software running on the local workstation. Also worth noting if you're hosting email in house and forwarding that email to Windows clients, you need AV on the email server, and some sort of anti-spam box in front of the email server.

Re:Windows Defender? (5, Informative)

ECCN (1137677) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460785)

Defender is Anti-Spyware only. Security Essentials is Anti-Virus & Anti-Spyware combined, so it effectively replaces Defender outright.

Re:Windows Defender? (1)

microbee (682094) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460913)

This is anti-virus as well as anti-malware. It supercedes windows defender.

In other news (2, Funny)

Ludedude (948645) | more than 5 years ago | (#28460489)

Redmond WA, June 24 2009. Microsoft is proud to announce today its acquisition of independent and trusted testing firm AV-Test. Details of the transaction are not immediately available but rumors involve a large cash payment and real estate on a remote Caribbean island.

Not surprised if it's good (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28460693)

Microsoft has had forever to make one, so I wouldn't be surprised if the release is decent.
Plus, they have a vested interest in removing crap from their OS for the sake of better public perception.
It only makes sense to do something which is in line with their crusade for improved security on Windows in recent years, which, judging from where they've come from, they've achieved alot.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?