Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Microsoft Security Essentials Loses AV-Test Certificate

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the is-there-extra-credit? dept.

Microsoft 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."

cancel ×

185 comments

yellow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42136957)

"Although that may not sound that impressive"

Yellow yellow

No wonder it's so fast! (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42136973)

NOP

Defective product. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137373)

It regularly detects my mouse driver as malware and disables it. I have to unplug the mouse and move USB ports before I can use the mouse again.

Which part of "Microsoft Product" did I not understand?

Sigh...

Re:Defective product. (4, Informative)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137737)

This is not surprising to me, and why I've always said the MSE is only for geeks that aren't going anywhere dodgy and thus at little risk to start with. For normal folks there is Avast Free and Comodo Internet Security. Avast is good, but a little chatty but some people like chatty, and Comodo is good and pretty customizable but has a bit of a learning curve since it has sandboxing but if you stick with the defaults other than the occasional sanbox question it works good without getting in your way.

But I have taken machines I've got to wipe and refurb anyway at the shop and thrown different AVs on them and went to the kinds of sites I've seen the most bugs from, usually the "look at teh tittez" dodgy clip porn sites like redtube and the usual toplists and MSE was the ONLY one that never stopped a page loading, even ones that were obviously filled with malware, the rest would at least block most and keep the embedded malware scripts from running but not MSE, MSE seems to be more of a "scan a downloaded file" kind of protection rather than any good for dealing with modern nasties.

Oh and for those that need to clean up an infected box? May I suggest Comodo Cleaning Essentials [pcmag.com] as its a great tool to have to clean up an already nasty PC. You can run it from a flash or CD, no need to install, and its damned good at getting the nasties out. as you can see it got 4 and a half stars and is free, so if you have to clean up any infected machines its best to have both the 32bit and 64bit on a keyring ready to go.

Re:Defective product. (4, Informative)

InfoJunkie777 (1435969) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137855)

I would agree that 3/4 of AV success is avoiding "dodgy" sites. However, I have never had any problems with malware on any porn site. The sites I have had problems with malware on were like pics of celebrities on Google Images, and you get a redirect to a malware driveby site, or, you lick on an ad that promises things free that should not be ... that kind of thing. I Used to AVG 2012, but when it went to 2013 it refused to activate, so I switched to Avast, and have not looked back. Higher rated and better protection.

Re:Defective product. (3, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137943)

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:Defective product. (3, Insightful)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year and a half ago | (#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...?

Re:Defective product. (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137911)

I read an older post of yours last year and switched to AVAST as a result of frustrations with MSE. I never went back. I never tried Comodo though as I am more familiar with AVAST at this point and I love the gaming mode. I highly recommend AVAST.

Also did you know Comodo secure DNS service is free and you can google it to get the DNS IP addresses? That blocks malware right there even if you use another AV product. I still use www.livejournal.com which is owned by a shadowy marketing company that occasionally places malware ladden ads through its afliates. (Not often as I would not keep using it). After switching to Comodo DNS I notice the 404 error messages every blue moon and smirk in the ads. I did use Norton DNS which also blocks malware but it is slugish like their AV product. OpenDNS is good too if you pay for it as only subscribers get malware protection.

I would advise to do a fresh wipe on any infected box. I know it is cheaper at your shop probably becuase they can take awhile to backup the my documents and reinstall everything (the non free ninite MS office, autocad, etc), but for personal use you never know if another hole is there or if it didn't hide in a restore point? Damaged Windows systems are slow too and you simply can not trust your computer anymore without it.

Re:Defective product. (1)

graphius (907855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137939)

FYI be careful with Avast free as an update blue-screened a Win8 laptop I was working on a while ago. It is a known problem now, but I would assume that MSE would be a bit more stable, if only because they *should* know the OS better.
However, if an AV can bring the OS to its knees something is wrong.

Re:Defective product. (3, Funny)

norpy (1277318) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138821)

However, if an AV can bring the OS to its knees something is wrong.

You have obviously never installed mcaffee before

Re:Defective product. (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138001)

It regularly detects my mouse driver as malware and disables it. I have to unplug the mouse and move USB ports before I can use the mouse again.

Which part of "Microsoft Product" did I not understand?

Sigh...

Regularly? Definition of a slow learner.

This is a surprise? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42136981)

Seriously, does anyone actually trust Security Essentials? I'd rather have any of those other free AV products mentioned.

(shades of MSAV here)

Re:This is a surprise? (3, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137045)

"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:This is a surprise? (3, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137269)

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? (1)

MightyYar (622222) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137435)

The only problem with Avast is that you have to re-register every year. Minor, I know, but a pain nonetheless.

Re:This is a surprise? (1)

galaad2 (847861) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137947)

The only problem with Avast is that you have to re-register every year. Minor, I know, but a pain nonetheless.

the bonus with avast's system is that it doesn't actually make you PROVE that the email address is YOURS (code/link sent via email), it only asks for an email address and that's where it stops, so i've taken the habit of using @avast.com email addresses.

The first thing i used was postmaster@avast ( :D ) but when it started to complain that it's already used i switched to _current timestamp-YYYYMMDDHHMM_@avast, works like a charm

Re:This is a surprise? (5, Interesting)

phrackthat (2602661) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137863)

I stopped using AVG when they changed their license terms to unilaterally audit the location where the software is being used and gave themselves the right to unilaterally share my information with whomever they choose. - no thanks. See sections 9b and 12 of their license: - http://www.avg.com/us-en/eula-avg-2013-all-1-0 [avg.com]

Re:This is a surprise? (4, Insightful)

stewartjm (608296) | about a year and a half ago | (#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:This is a surprise? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137309)

Even the best vaccination is barely more than snake oil. The primary purpose of vaccination, at least in a societal setting, is to have a ready made scapegoat for when a virulent variant appears in the population.

See, I can specious too.

Re:This is a surprise? (5, Insightful)

stewartjm (608296) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:This is a surprise? (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137311)

AVAST has blocked 2 pieces of malware for me over the years. It stopped it cold before it could be installed or ran. Good ones that are modern do a great job with high success rates.

Re:This is a surprise? (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137421)

Yup, I installed Avast when it was able to remove some malware that Norton did not even detect even after being updated.

Re:This is a surprise? (2)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137559)

how certain are you that it wasn't a false positive?

Re:This is a surprise? (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137669)

Considering one was trying to run java from an ad on slashdot ... very unusual I say that one was malware. The other one was blocked but a UAC did prompt asking for permission to run to part of the hard drive that was a no no. So I say they were both trojans. It could be possible the other one could have got through and installed if I were stupid enough to not run as standard user and not administrator :-)

I keep preaching this to Windows Users to add passwords but the default user is always admin which is frustrating.

Re:This is a surprise? (2, Interesting)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137255)

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? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138427)

> It is one one of the lighter ones though compared to older versions of Norton and McCrappy.

Exactly. For gamers it is "good enough" -- meaning it does the basics without doesn't grind your system to a halt like that crap Norton and McAfee used to do.

Re:This is a surprise? (1)

Squiddie (1942230) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137455)

I did until I read this.

Re:This is a surprise? (5, Insightful)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a year and a half ago | (#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?

Re:This is a surprise? (1)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137705)

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?

So you are saying since the OS is crappy, it's no surprise that their other programs are crappy?

Re:This is a surprise? (0)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138573)

No, he's saying that there's not point in sticking a condom on your cock while MS is giving it to you up the arse from behind!

Re:This is a surprise? (1)

CodeBuster (516420) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138871)

No, he's saying that there's not point in sticking a condom on your cock while MS is giving it to you up the arse from behind!

Perhaps not, but the condom may still protect you when they go for the reach-around.

Re:This is a surprise? (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137903)

Because like their defragger while they can make a good OS they don't do the tools nearly as good? Like many products this is one MSFT bought from somebody else, specifically Giant AntiSpy...that's right, it wasn't a full fledged AV it was a lightweight spyware remover. Its good for geeks that aren't really going anywhere dodgy to start with, but its just not good at blocking drive bys or cleaning up after the fact.

one big virus got through (0)

swschrad (312009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137021)

the Gates/Ballmer virus consistently infects Windows machines. and it's persistent.

Sadly AVG is shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137035)

So is Avast! any better than the shit pile that is AVG these days?

Re:Sadly AVG is shit (3, Interesting)

crafty.munchkin (1220528) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137059)

Seems pretty good to me, and doesn't bug you to buy the full version like AVG does.

Re:Sadly AVG is shit (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137239)

We bought the full corprate version of AVG with all the wells and bristles. It decided unilaterally to push this to every PC company wide. It ground my computer to a stuttering grinding halt several times. It shut off the serial ports until they were called "Oh sorry we close those by default." Then those would break again and we'd have to call again. Then it started interfering with some kinds of IP traffic, "Oh we started closing those by default." with the same crap. Then it did something to the printers company wide, network printers. I was done with that and told my boss that I could not work with that crap on my PC. Calls were made and it was removed. I now run MSE and also a junk PC that strips off email attachment spew and web junk from anyone. If they can't send text screw them. I put up an autoresponse on the proxy to send an "Don't send attachments of pictures to this address, text only". So far it's worked. If they need to send something that's what the company secure FTP server is for and what we're paying good money for Barracuda to protect since they're incompetent at filtering crap from email.

Re:Sadly AVG is shit (1)

adolf (21054) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137461)

Why, in 2012, are you afraid of attachments?

Re:Sadly AVG is shit (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137663)

They're sent by ignorant people, they like to send large ones, they like to send highly offensive crap that isn't related to work. I got better things to do like take a nap.

Only the technically literate can operate the software needed to access the FTP site. We only give that client software to people who do not drool and pay us in cold hard cash (no really I got a $5 in a block of dry ice).

It gives me a chance to offend the stupid without having to actually do anything. My boss thinks I'm a technogod so I'm safe. I don't dance techno so the world is safe.

Re:Sadly AVG is shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137629)

Damn, it sounds like you've had some really weird issues with AVG. Has it infected your monitors or power strips yet?

Re:Sadly AVG is shit (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137083)

i had a portable avast install on a usb drive that worked great back b4 i switched over to ubuntu several years ago

Re:Sadly AVG is shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137131)

Cool story, bro.

Now for the rest of them... (5, Interesting)

multiben (1916126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137039)

Seriously. Most anti-virus software is worse than getting a virus.

Re:Now for the rest of them... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137085)

What is strange is MSE is the only one of those products listed I have ever seen effectively block any malware.

Re:Now for the rest of them... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#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

Re:Now for the rest of them... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42138157)

Exactly. This story is an advertisement for antivirus companies. MSE is fine, and if you look through the comments you will find that the only comments saying that MSE is junk are coming from guys who make their living installing Symantec and macfee on your grandma's computer for 50 to 100 bucks. I'm not knocking them, it's a living... but try to be objective here.

Re:Now for the rest of them... (5, Interesting)

Voyager529 (1363959) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138435)

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.

Re:Now for the rest of them... (2)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138571)

And MSE doesnt bog down your system. MSE is a fine program.

Re:Now for the rest of them... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137351)

The new ones do not ruin performance that much at all. Even Norton which is 3rd or 4th place on that site was re-engineered.

The older ones would blow through 6 to 12 gigs a day scanning and encapsulating the Windows i/O subsystems. The newer ones just do a simple crc check from the last time a scan was done and if the file has not changed it proceeds to the next without scanning or looking for behaviors. I even ran HD TUNE on my PC and saw less than a 5% drop in performance. In 2012 there is no reason not to use it unless you run a Linux box.

Re:Now for the rest of them... (1)

engun (1234934) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138271)

Spot on. It's better to be occasionally infected by a virus, and to format and reinstall your system, than to suffer daily slowdowns and annoyances with a real-time anti-virus program. I've long since decided to make this trade off to maintain my sanity, and I haven't regretted that decision at all.

I've not been infected in years, with no realtime anti-virus, and that's by following a few simple ground rules.

1. Do not run junk software from unknown sources. If you must, then run an AV scan manually to double check. (or use a virtual machine)
2. Keep your browser up to date, use a browser secure by design (e.g. Chrome and of late IE - although IE is still more likely to be targeted by malware) and avoid installing crappy plug-ins.
3. Avoid visiting untrusted sites and executing untrusted crap off them (see 1)

That's it really.

If an occasional virus gets in, find the process, kill it, and delete the executable and startup hooks. Most are that dumb. For the rest, format and reinstall.

Shocking (0, Troll)

Beerdood (1451859) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137073)

Free AV software included with operating system scores significantly lower than competitor products that cost money. Shocking!
What's next, Ms paint found to be inferior to Photoshop in comprehensive image-editing software test?

Re:Shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137117)

Yeah - what about testing Forefront?

Re:Shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137181)

Or the current version (Windows Defender default settings Windows 8 - Using Metro IE10)

Re:Shocking (3, Insightful)

war4peace (1628283) | about a year and a half ago | (#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 (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137449)

It has a commercial version as well. The reason they state for having a free version, paraphrasing is that because more people running antivirus means fewer people overall getting viruses (especially paying customers). Same principle as vaccination.

Re:Shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137789)

Microsoft has a paid version as well (Forefront Client Security, IIRC).

Re:Shocking (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137143)

Except, if you actually read the whole summary let alone the article, this wasn't a free vs. costly comparison. Three free anti-virus programs performed better. So even free vs. free MS lost.

Re:Shocking (3, Insightful)

ilguido (1704434) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137229)

Ahem: "For comparison, the other free antivirus software, including Avast, AVG and Panda Cloud did". You know, there is not just the title.

Re:Shocking (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137277)

Umm... NO.

Avast, AVG, Avira, and others that are free for home personal usage does quite a bit better then MSE. MSE mainly specially fails at 0 day stuff which accounts for the majority of it's low score (a large 20% detection difference from the average). However, MSE is also the most light weight having about half the system slow downs as the average antivirus.

So, MSE is definitely the most lightweight but at the cost of detection compared to the others. For me, this is acceptable since otherwise, I wouldn't even bother with an antivirus program.

Re:Shocking (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Shocking (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138459)

> I remember how under Windows NT, the only method of defragmenting the filesystem was to reformat and start over, unless you bought Norton.

Did you miss Diskeeper? :-) (Because Windows NT 3.51 did't even have an API for moving data clusters.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disk_Defragmenter_(Windows) [wikipedia.org]

Thankfully, there is the open source jkdefrag now ...
http://www.kessels.com/jkdefrag/ [kessels.com] .. of course with SSDs defragging is slowlying becoming a moot point. ;-)

It also depends on how you want to do things (4, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138605)

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.

Re:Shocking (2)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138411)

> What's next, Ms paint found to be inferior to Photoshop in comprehensive image-editing software test?

You may jest but at least this guy would disagree ;-)

How to paint the MONA LISA with MS PAINT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk2sPl_Z7ZU [youtube.com]

Re:Shocking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42138625)

You should know better than to make that comment here. In the hardware and software world price does not equate to quality. A Linux server is better than a MS one. A Mac laptop and a windows laptop are made from nearly identical parts. A free antivirus from Microsoft is just as good as a paid product.

you fA1l it? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137119)

Wow (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137139)

People rely on AVs against 0-day threats?

Win8 (0, Troll)

sprior (249994) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137193)

Oh no! What will both (um, I mean all) of the Windows 8 users do?

Zero Day Whoop de Do (4, Insightful)

olsonish (2526782) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137251)

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.

Re:Zero Day Whoop de Do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42138017)

> Cannasyphiliaids virus

Is that like cat aids?

Re:Zero Day Whoop de Do (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138217)

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.

Kaspersky has saved me from three drive-by downloads, and two of them were from legitimate charity sites which didn't have decent security in place. So much for file sharing, dodgy places and dirty hookers.

Nowhere on the web can be considered completely safe

Bad for Windows 8 users (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137289)

BitDefender Metro uses MSE. This is bad as many people think it is immune to malware because MSE still has a great reputation on the web as the best product. Can you even install AVAST or any other AV software on Windows 8 without it interferring with MSE?

What really happens (1)

deatypoo (1837038) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137297)

So the free anti virus runs out of freeness. You need to renew your free licence. Yeah maybe later, I'm watching... something important.
You're no longer receiving virus definition files. Well who needs those anyway, you're still protected right?
Friend sends you a link that looks very legit because you're not sober, your free anti-virus seems to notice something, but you really wanted to see that other important video so you clicked allow.
Seems you needed those virus definition files after all
I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but it seems to me that they forget to mention that MSE doesn't expire?

If McAfee passes and MSE doesn't, that tells you (1, Troll)

gatesstillborg (2633899) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137299)

that certification is worth "zippo", because MSE works much better. (Which is not surprising, considering McAfee has "zippo" access to the Windows (binaries) internals.)

Re:If McAfee passes and MSE doesn't, that tells yo (2)

Frankie70 (803801) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138083)

What kind of internal access to "Windows (binaries) internals" does MS have & McAfee not have which would be useful for virus detection?

Missing Piece from Test (5, Insightful)

Eskarel (565631) | about a year and a half ago | (#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.

Re:Missing Piece from Test (2)

illestov (945762) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137417)

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.

agreed, although my reason for using MSE is that it never finds anything and never bugs me with stupid popups telling me how it found a super deadly trojan , about once every few days, reminding me of its absolute importance.

Re:Missing Piece from Test (1)

gQuigs (913879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137893)

it never finds anything

Hmm...

Re:Missing Piece from Test (1)

illestov (945762) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138261)

hahaha i was being sarcastic

Re:Missing Piece from Test (1)

inflex (123318) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137987)

Indeed. Most systems that come in here with N360, McAfee, even AVG now (try removing that sucker, it's really persistent unless everything is perfect!) are a mess in terms of performance and hijacking the browser search fields and forcibly reinstating excessive services and apps in the startup.

Clear it all away and install MSE, sure the client possibly will get infected in the future but I've found regardless of what they have had installed they invariably get infected, may as well go with the AV system that doesn't choke the system to death nor constantly shove itself in your face while you're trying to get work done. The client still "feels" protected and their system doesn't suffer profoundly.

Usability: Vipre? (3, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137377)

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?

Re:Usability: Vipre? (1)

fostware (551290) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138611)

That would be because GFI bought them out, added useless code ("it's been GFIed") and got all metro-sexual with the interface.

I'll be looking for a different AV vendor come renewal time...

Re:Usability: Vipre? (1)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138747)

My company uses Vipre. But it regularly (every day or two) locked up my computer so tightly that I had to do a hard power-off to regain use of my computer. The same behavior was experienced by several other developers. Vipre support didn't have a clue what was going on. Finally, the company relented and let us (just our department) switch to MSIE. There is no way, in my book, that Vipre gets a higher score than MSIE!

Adblockers are more effective. (3, Informative)

Ectospheno (724239) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137391)

A good ad blocker in your browser will be more effective in the long run than any AV software you install. Couple that with the common sense to not download and run every piece of crap you see on the internet and your computer will be fine. Every instance of an infection I've seen involved the person breaking one of those two simple rules.

Re:Adblockers are more effective. (-1, Troll)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138487)

> A good hosts file will be more effective in the long run than any AV software you install
FTFY. :-)

i.e.
http://winhelp2002.mvps.org/hosts.htm [mvps.org]

I'll stick with MSE thanks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137429)

The last time I tried a third party free AV, it installed its own firewall crap, then for some reason disabled it, leaving the whole bloody machine open to attack.

I'd rather AV software didn't dick around with the firewall and replace the built in one with a giant turd. It's one reason I stopped using Norton AV, well, that and the fact that it used most of my friggin' CPU and kept bleating at me every time anything happened on my PC...

Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137445)

Trust everyone BUT the guys who developed the Windows operating system for heuristic scanning, because they know that it works better than not.

Anytime you have more "paranoid" heuristic scanning, you risk blocking legitimate software. Microsoft takes this seriously - a company that sells a freeware or $60 antivirus program? Not so much.

Adblock/Noscript+Common Sense (2)

theascension (2784697) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137543)

Many of the vectors of malware these days is through java/flash exploits, I always disable the java plugin in my browser and have flash click to play. I do have MSE on my computers and MalwareBytes for a monthly search and haven't run into any issues in many years. MSE has the least bloat/memory footprint AND the lowest false positive rating http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_fdt_201209_en.pdf [av-comparatives.org] puts it at 0, if you're getting hit by 0 day malware you're just not pirating software/being cautious enough with where you browse and no program will 100% save you. For family members I've always installed avast, it's slightly more intrusive but turn on 'silent/gaming mode' and it's not too bad other than putting in an email address once a year.

Re:Adblock/Noscript+Common Sense (2)

Nyder (754090) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137735)

I found common sense isn't very common.

Re:AV-Sotfware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42138449)

Is that for the people who plan on being charged with copyright infringement, or who decided they which to go to jail for child pornography.

Here are some tips which no will ever listen too.
1. Don't operate your computer as Administrator unless your doing Administrative task.
2. If you using Microsoft windows 7, and your using any version other then Ultimate YOU NEED TO UPGRADE TO ULTIMATE.

Just these two tips will block 99.9% of all viruses.

You have to ask yourself "why does a company provide a free AV program?"
Answers:
1. To install a program that gathers information about all files on the victims computer.
{This information is sold to Law enforcement, copyright police, and to who ever desires the knowledge of knowing what files are on tens of millions of computers}
2. To nag them to buy the subscription version.
{To have the owner of the computer pay them to sell their information to Law enforcement, copyright police, etc. ..}

And I'll just add this so maybe you'll understand:
For all the people using Windows7{home, basic, pro} upgrading to Windows8 pro is an improvement in your security options.

For all the people using Windows7{Ultimate} it is definitely a down-grade in your choices about securing your system.

AV-Test is a Joke. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#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:AV-Test is a Joke. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138275)

Has Netcraft confirmed it?

Re:AV-Test is a Joke. (1)

Nostromo21 (1947840) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138743)

Kaspersky is Russian, da comrade? ;-p

Grading curve? (2)

illestov (945762) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137613)

All three antivirus checkers lose 3 points in just three months? also, "Yes, Windows Defender is enabled automatically when no other antivirus is present, but its technology comes from the Microsoft products that failed the recent tests. Don't rely on it. Install a better antivirus right away." sounds like an ad by one of its competitors

I've been infected with MSE running... (0)

pongo000 (97357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42137697)

...which doesn't instill a lot of confidence in me as to the integrity of MSE. Maybe there's a good reason the certification was lost.

Re:I've been infected with MSE running... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42137953)

I've seen computers infected while running latest patched versions of: McAfee, AVG, MSE, Norton and Kaspersky, I'm guessing it's like which brand of hard drive is most reliable. Ask 3 months from now and get a different answer.

I dunno (2)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138039)

I dunno about this article. I've used just about everything out there... I used Kaspersky for a very long time, and in my opinion was the best for a long while. I very rarely got an infection. But when I switched to MS Security Essentials I was DONE with virus. I haven't had a single computer in my house (and I have 5) get infected since I started using it. And just so you know I'm not a Microsoft shill, fuck Microsoft, they suck, I pirate their god damned OS... fuck em. Anyways, Security essentials works great. I rutinely still scan with other AV if I'm having any sort of issue just to be sure, but nothing. I really think it comes down to useability. It just works well and integrates with windows well.

The article talks alot about 0-day exploits and such... but really, how many of us are going to get hit with one of those? I mean yes, I'd rather be protected, but at the expense of some of the draconian tactics some other packages lock your computer up in? Install Bit Deffender and then try installing some open source, macroing utility or something and the damned thing goes nuts.

NoScript (1)

godel_56 (1287256) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138139)

I use the commercial Kaspersky which always comes out near the top, if not always best in AV tests, but why has no-one mentioned Noscript? I suspect it has saved me from all sorts of nastiness that my AV program never even got a chance to see.

Lemme Guess, Only Win8 will be certified. (1)

gelfling (6534) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138213)

Oh no that could never be, could it?

Idiotically ineffective rating system (5, Informative)

slashmydots (2189826) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138671)

I'll save you the trouble reading. They're idiots. The winner out of all of them was bitdefender? That slows down your system like a damn boat anchor. I've had customers bring in a computer to my shop claiming it had a horrible problem and the only problem was that it had bitdefender. As soon as it was gone, responsive times dropped 10x lower. It's unbelievable how bad that product is. For them to not consider system performance in any way means they obviously have no idea what they're doing. The same goes for Kaspersky. Their new 2013 version is a nightmare for system performance. Norton Internet Security was third so yep, that's how responsible THESE idiots are.

Its Free, And it has no spyware or paid upgrades (2)

detain (687995) | about a year and a half ago | (#42138859)

Yes MSSE is not the best anti-virus software out there, but it is one of the only ones i feel safe that it will never ask me to install other promotional products, it will never try to load weird webpages or install spyware. It has no upgrades to a better paid for version that it frequently bugs you to upgrade to. It is probably the last offensive, least obtrusive, least annoying anti-virus software out there. Coupled with being behind a firewall and intelligence enough not to open binaries from questionable sources it works well enough.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...