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!

Microsoft's Vista AV Fails Certification

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the black-eye dept.

Security 161

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft's much-hyped anti-virus solution, Live OneCare and three other Vista AV products failed to achieve the Virus Bulletin's VB100 certification. The other products are McAfee's VirusScan Enterprise, G DATA's AntiVirusKit 2007, and Norman's VirusControl. All failed to pass a series of tests that are required to display the VB100 badge. 'With the number of delays that we've seen in Vista's release, there's no excuse for security vendors not to have got their products right by now,' said John Hawes, technical consultant at Virus Bulletin."

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

excuses... (5, Interesting)

solstice680 (938214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916210)

What about "We didn't have access to Vista's internals until two months ago?"

That would be a good excuse for most security vendors...

Re:excuses... (1)

ZachPruckowski (918562) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916298)

In theory, under anti-trust rules, the OneCare Live team has no more access than anyone else. That may not be the case, but that's their line, and they're stickin' to it.

Re:excuses... (5, Informative)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916326)

Actually, the details on implementing anti-virus for Vista, and other low level filters, have been available for well over a year. Some documentation has been avilable for more than 2 years.

That's how companies like Kaspersky and AVG came out with fully Vista compliant versions of their software months ago. Software which works extremely well, by the way. (Kaspersky passed this test. It says so right in the article.)

Re:excuses... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17917368)

I switched the business I work for from Symantec (rap) to Kaspersky. I must say switching is the best thing I've ever done via the antivirus area. Not only do they support Windows and Linux, but many other OSes.

Thats okay (-1, Offtopic)

LibertineR (591918) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916212)

Its the thought that counts, right?

Now back to Texas Hold Em', bitches.

microsoft (-1, Flamebait)

Hes Nikke (237581) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916214)

proving once again just how committed to security they are.

Re:microsoft (1)

icepick72 (834363) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916240)

proving once again how boring glib security comments are *yawn*

Re:microsoft (4, Funny)

Duhavid (677874) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917110)

Who cares which lib they used? glib, libc, etc, etc.

Re:microsoft (3, Insightful)

megaditto (982598) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916436)

Well, how many people run AV on their linux/BSD boxes?

Now, since Vista is securebydesign, it too no longer needs any anti-viruses!

Re:microsoft (2, Informative)

value_added (719364) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917386)

Well, how many people run AV on their linux/BSD boxes?

Huh?

For starters, lots of people. [clamav.net]

How else to protect Windows systems?

Re:microsoft (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917512)

I have it installed. I was intending to make it scan the Windows machines on the network.

Unfortunately my laziness got in the way. The Windows machines as a result are currently filled with crap.

Hello Symantec... (0, Flamebait)

Supp0rtLinux (594509) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916246)

Hello Symantec... I'd never trust the OS manufacturer to be responsible for its security anyone, but even less so considering MS's reputation for security...

Re:Hello Symantec... (1)

L4m3rthanyou (1015323) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916994)

That's exactly what I'm afraid of.

Symantec is a pile of shit, frankly. I was actually hoping that Microsoft's AV would at least force Symantec and McAffee to get their shit together and make an antivirus that doesn't suck.

AV that's as much as a system hog as the notorious Norton is a pain in the ass, especially on Windows Vista. :|

Re:Hello Symantec... (1)

Stewie241 (1035724) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917218)

And oddly buggy at that... I remember getting a call from my mother saying her freecell wouldn't work... odd... turned out it was related to Norton Antivirus - if I stopped the antivirus, Freecell worked. How does THAT work? Ian

Re:Hello Symantec... (5, Insightful)

BCoates (512464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917442)

... Symantec and McAffee to get their shit together and make an antivirus that doesn't suck.

I'm not sure such a thing is even possible anymore. The usefulness of AV software has always been pretty questionable, and they never seem to have gotten over the threat model of months or years-old viruses being passed from floppy to floppy. Most threats are one-off now, like social engineering spam, one-day long trojan horse attacks, adware, and exploiting OS vulnerabilities to run spam zombies. As far as I can tell, my resource-hogging, system-destabilizing virus scanner does effectively nothing against any of those and there's no reason to believe it can be changed to do so.

bad logic (0, Flamebait)

dave420 (699308) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916252)

So delays mean they should have AV wrapped up? That is a completely baseless statement. What if they were working on that right up until the launch? It doesn't excuse the AV situation, but it would mean his statement is bullshit. I'm all for activism, but straight-up being a little girl about it doesn't help.

Re:bad logic (2, Interesting)

The Ham of Truth (986166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917178)

You're calling him a little girl because he has bad logic? Then... ipso facto, you're proclaiming to us a love for unicorns and Barbie dolls?

In an unrelated topic: I don't think the statement is baseless. IIRC, Gates responds to "OSX had it first" with "yeah, but we got delayed in order to secure the product first" (paraphrased, of course). Shouldn't we then expect a higher level of security then?

Re:bad logic (1)

Matt Edd (884107) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917276)

"being a little girl" != "a little girl"

I always explain to my gfs that "being a bitch" doesn't mean "you are a bitch"... just that you are acting like one right now. Of course I have to explain this sometime before we argue.

NAV (1)

Araxen (561411) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916256)

Anyone else shocked Norton is not included in this list?

Re:NAV (1)

Columcille (88542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917032)

Symantec is on the list. These days, Symantec = Norton = Symantec, IIRC.

It's norMan, not norTon that failed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17917464)

Believe it or not, there is a product named Norman Viruscontrol [norman.com] which from a cursory review of their website doesn't appear to be associated with Symantec.

Re:NAV (1)

cheater512 (783349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917524)

Its either a typo or you need glasses.

It says Norman not Norton.

Re:NAV (1)

Kymermosst (33885) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917764)

Try reading it again.

Hell, I'll just give it to you: if you RTFA right at the end it says "Anti-virus software from CA, Fortinet, F-Secure, Kaspersky, Sophos and Symantec successfully achieved VB100 certification."

I wonder how a Free anti-virus program would do (3, Interesting)

mrchaotica (681592) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916272)

Maybe the ClamAV [clamav.net] people ought to submit their program for testing.

Re:I wonder how a Free anti-virus program would do (1)

Der Reiseweltmeister (1048212) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917678)

why in the world was this +3 Funny?

Re:I wonder how a Free anti-virus program would do (3, Informative)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917684)

There is no resident/active file scanning with ClamAV, at least not from the clamav/clamwin developers afaik.

A very good excuse... (4, Interesting)

bhirsch (785803) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916282)

A VB100 badge means little or nothing to these companies, much less their consumers.

Exactly right (2, Insightful)

Freaky Spook (811861) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916348)

Most home users wouldn't even knew the VB100 badge exists.

In that market, anti-virus sales are all about glossy packaging on shelves and fancy flash advertisments.

If their AV fails and windows gets a virus, its Windows problem, not the AV problem.

Microsoft are in a loose/loose market, but they stand to make money off joe-sixpack so they don't care.

Re:Exactly right (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17917122)

I am sure you mean lose/lose, please get it right.

Re:A very good excuse... (3, Funny)

zCyl (14362) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916760)

A VB100 badge means little or nothing to these companies, much less their consumers.
Most users would just assume that's the next version of Visual Basic.

Re:A very good excuse... (1)

DeepHurtn! (773713) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917510)

..."most users"? I suspect most users have never even heard of Visual Basic!

But maybe your low /. ID gives you a distorted perspective on this sort of thing. ;)

Re:A very good excuse... (3, Informative)

BlackRookSix (943957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916772)

Wrong. I was in an AV company for a while, and this is like the Oscars to them. Everything rides on their reputation, and this rating (along with The Pundits Choice Awards: Garner reports) can make or break a small company trying to break into corporate clients. Their sales people now face a HUGE uphill battle that they may never surmount, even if they make the VB100 next test phase.

Re:A very good excuse... (1)

Kojacked (717197) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917296)

You're right! It's just as meaningful as the adult film's version of the oscars! It means so much to them...but can you name who won best porn star of 2006? Pretty sad life if you could...

Re:A very good excuse... (2, Informative)

Apathist (741707) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917344)

You're spot on with how important it is to their reputation, but the fact is that the VB100 award had become something of a rubber stamp, due to the way it was being tested (ie. all the AV vendors knew in advance exactly what they were being tested against).

What is important about this particular round of VB100 tests is that this was the first round of tests after they changed the way the test was done (to make it more representative of what AV protection needs to actually be out in the wild, and hence more difficult to just coast through). This new testing methodology came unannounced, and caught everyone by surprise... which is why other major vendors missed it, including McAfee.

Nothing to do with Vista (5, Interesting)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916302)

This has nothing to do with Vista, and everything to do with crappy anti-virus products. Neither OneCare or McAfee for XP have ever tested well, so why would anybody think that they would test well on Vista?

If you read the entire article, you'll notice a little blurb at the end that several vendors passed the test, one of which was Kaspersky [kaspersky.com] . Another excellent vendor for Vista is AVG [grisoft.com] .

Kaspersky consistantly beats [cybernetnews.com] all the other major anti-virus vendors, but I guess the story wouldn't be quite as Slashdot-worthy if it ready "Kaspersky Anti-Virus on Vista Works Great!".

Re:Nothing to do with Vista (2)

Utopia (149375) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916408)


Neowin has more details on the report.
Apprently only 0.01% of the viruses were not detected by these "failed" product.

Re:Nothing to do with Vista (2, Insightful)

Lehk228 (705449) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917018)

which virus from the .01% would you like on the machine handling your credit card number and social security number?

Re:Nothing to do with Vista (4, Informative)

figleaf (672550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916458)

Did you notice that report was created a company which sells its own anti-virus product?

Re:Nothing to do with Vista (5, Funny)

zx-15 (926808) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916460)

Kaskpersky is certainly a very effective antivirus, a lot of security comes from using 100% of CPU when browsing network folders, thus preventing the user from downloading viruses.

Re:Nothing to do with Vista (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916652)

Nice! You say "Windows One Care has never tested well" -- NEVER??

Then you point us to a page which contains a link that reads "Windows one care gets icsa labs approval"

http://tech.cybernetnews.com/2006/05/26/windows-on ecare-gets-icsa-labs-approval/ [cybernetnews.com]

Hate to say it (1)

Stochastism (1040102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916308)

I hate to say it, but Microsoft were right for once in their earlier VISTA policy of locking down the practice of hooking into the kernel. It's that feature in XP that allows malware to flourish. Just because MS made mistakes years ago that spawned an entire industry (the anti-virus industry), doesn't mean that industry necessarily has the right to continue to exist in its current form.

Re:Hate to say it (3, Informative)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916434)

---I hate to say it, but Microsoft were right for once in their earlier VISTA policy of locking down the practice of hooking into the kernel.

Locking down along with no source code is simply security by obscurity. There WILL be bugs found, and those bugs will have kernel rights. Do you think that is good? Guess what, I dont.

Vista will only reassure that bug releasers should not publish bugs, but rather sit on them. BTW, how do you clean out a kernel-infected Windows machine?

---It's that feature in XP that allows malware to flourish.

Is there an executable preventer on Linux? Nosiree, there's nothing preventing a user from affecting his own dataspace. What do you think is bad: Trashing the whole system, or trashing your ~ ? A system can be reinstalled, but most people dont back up their data.

Now, why dont Linux malwares work? They do, if the user lets them. It's just that much harder to make a program run from a browser window or from bad servers on various ports. Linux machines are usually more locked down to prevent evil stuff on the outside.

Re:Hate to say it (1)

Stochastism (1040102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916526)

I agree with everything you say! I'm simply saying that the lack of strict access privileges in the kernel level of previous MS operating systems has created the A/V industry. And they are now crying foul because they were not allowed to use the very hooks that allowed malware to spread in the first place. Of course the kernel should both be open source, AND have strict controls on access to kernel memory space.. like Linux.

Re:Hate to say it (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916552)

But they didnt lock the kernel down for the benefit of us users, they instead locked it down for a purely content driven media delivery tool.

That means we have even less access to their system. This applies to tinkerers AND system trashers.

I wonder what "premium content" spyware could do?

Re:Hate to say it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916646)

Nosiree, there's nothing preventing a user from affecting his own dataspace
You could do it with SeLinux. It'd be a pain to maintain though.

Re:Hate to say it (1)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916662)

I was intentionally leaving that out, as its a huge pain in the ass to set up and maintain.

I've only tried it once, and did a pretty bad job. Windows ACL's are only moderately better.

Re:Hate to say it (4, Insightful)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917392)

What do you think is bad: Trashing the whole system, or trashing your ~ ? A system can be reinstalled, but most people dont back up their data.

If we talking about trashing the system instead of trashing ~, you would be right in the case of a single user system.

However, we are talking about trashing everything, against trashing just ~. Obviously just ~ is better.

In the case of a multi-user system, trashing one users ~ is much better than trashing everything. Most home PCs are multi users. Office PCs are invariably single user, but they should get backed up.

It is much easier to back up a single user's directory than an entire system.

Finally, limited access to the system makes it harder for viruses to propagate. How is it going to run again after a log out? Most people do not regularly run executables from their own directories: the executables they do run will not be infected. Certainly something like bash_profile or an autostart directory, but cleaning these up should be trivial. Am I missing anything here?

OH NO, NO VB100??!? (5, Funny)

madsheep (984404) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916332)

I heard they also didn't earn the WTF200 or the LOL500. Based on failing to get the three of these certifcations and seeing how all three of them are as equally popular..this software will surely be going no where.

Re:OH NO, NO VB100??!? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916492)

But it was certified by the IOACA (Internationall Organization for the Advancement of Criminal Activity).

Re:OH NO, NO VB100??!? (1)

inphorm (604192) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916630)

Lol.. what's even funnier is that here in Australia, VB is a beer.. so the thought that they didn't pass the VB100 is quite amusing...

I'm kind of the opinion of "who cares" as well. Although I did notice that the publishers of this also have their own AV software, no conflict of interest there..

- paul

http://www.paulpichugin.com.au/ [paulpichugin.com.au]

Great Sales Pitch (3, Informative)

Zonnald (182951) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916340)

Tried to follow the links to the report to see what the fuss was about. First I was told I had to register for Free. I did that then clicked on the report - only to be told I had to subscribe. Not going to happen.

For obvious reasons I will leave it to the reader to decide if they want to go and have a look, no links will be provided.

Mark the article tile as FUD and sensationalism. (1, Interesting)

solitu (1045848) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916342)

Vista doesn't come with a antivirus program.
Live OneCare, Mcafee are not specific Vista -- You can install them on XP too.

And 99.99% detection rate is nothing to be sneered at.

Re:Mark the article tile as FUD and sensationalism (1)

Apathist (741707) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917374)

Not quite.

It's 99.99% of a very limited test set. Against all know malware, most of those products get something like 70-95%...

Remind me.... (0, Troll)

edwardpickman (965122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916366)

why am I supposed to upgrade to Vista?

Re:Remind me.... (5, Funny)

wordsnyc (956034) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916418)

They rang the fucking bell days ago. Salivate, dammit.

Re:Remind me.... (1)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916474)

This fucking bell... it indicates that there is to be fucking? 'Cause I'd surely salivate for that. Or food. Food is always good too.

Re:Remind me.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916908)

That has got to be the funniest comments I've seen on /. in a long time. Thanks wordsnyc!

Re:Remind me.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17917550)

Shit. Sometimes being nerdy backfires. Like when you see salivate and try to translate it from latin >.<

*What* VirusControl? (4, Insightful)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916380)

The other products are McAfee's VirusScan Enterprise, G DATA's AntiVirusKit 2007, and Norman's VirusControl.
Norman's VirusControl. Yeah, that doesn't look like an attempt to market a product that deliberately sounds like a competitor...

Now, if you're excuse me, I need to get back to setting up my Linkskey router...

Re:*What* VirusControl? (5, Informative)

DeeZee (84216) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916616)

Norman was founded in 1984, well before Peter Norton made an antivirus utility.

Thanks for playing, though!

NORMAN... (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916704)

... is in Ireland!

Re:*What* VirusControl? (1)

JambisJubilee (784493) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917022)

Pfft. I know a genuine Panaphonics when I see it. And look, there's Magnetbox and Sorny.

Wait a minute (1)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916396)

Microsoft's anti-virus was 'much-hyped'? I don't recall any Microsoft anti-virus software being much-hyped. Where was I during this hyping? Cynically scoffed at maybe, but I don't remember much hype going on.

What Bill Thought (1)

stox (131684) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916410)

Steve: We need to have Vista committed to security.
Bill: You mean make all our security programmers wear straight-jackets and prescribed large doses of anti-psychotic drugs.
Steve: I guess so.
Bill: OK, get right on it.

Umm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916416)

Call me uninformed but what is Virus Bulletin and why do we care what they think?

Re:Umm.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916486)

We care about all things anti-MS around here.

Re:Umm.. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916716)

Virus Bulletin is a major newsletter in the anti-virus/malware/spyware/etc industry. They publish disections of new "threats", various studies, and reviews of the latest products. It's not really a resource for the general population because subscriptions are expensive and many of the articles are quite technical (source code, executable disassembly, "kernel hacking", etc). It's more of a trade publication where people in the industry can keep track of the latest trends and what new technologies are coming around. You should care about what they think because they are one of the de facto authorities on these kinds of things. It is distributed in PDF form so it is probably floating around somewhere out there. If you can get a copy and read some of the technical articles you'll get a better idea of what they are all about.

No excuse, like no excuse... (4, Funny)

djupedal (584558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916454)

"With the number of delays that we've seen in Vista's release, there's no excuse for security vendors not to have got their products right by now..."

Security vendors. They're all alike. They say they come to help...to save us from all things dark, but in their black hearts, they all want the same thing. They all want to RULE the earth!

Better Solution (2, Informative)

MikeDataLink (536925) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916498)

I think the better solution is to get noobs to be better educated on how to avoid spyware and viruses, etc in the first place.

This website has a great video I think all noobs should be required to watch BEFORE owning a computer.
http://www.my-pc-help.com/video/v10017.htm [my-pc-help.com]

An ounce of prevention is always better than the cure.

Actually, cure is now worth more (3, Funny)

ChromeAeonium (1026952) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916576)

Prevention may be better than cure, but did you know that, contrary to the popular adage, an ounce of prevention is actually worth much less than a pound of cure? Its simply the law of supply and demand. Most people lack the foresight to use prevention, so they run for cure when the shit hits the fan. This leaves large quantities of prevention just sitting in warehouses, collecting dust. They even buried a few tons of it next to those E.T. games for the 2600. Due to this oversupply, and the huge demand for cure, the cure-prevention exchange rate is one ounce of cure is now worth 5.78 pounds of prevention.

Re:Better Solution (1)

Falladir (1026636) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916696)

I think the better solution is to get noobs to be better educated on how to avoid spyware and viruses, etc in the first place.

Yeah, but Windows was so un-secured and so prone to attack that even semi-competent users can wreck there systems. I doubt that Microsoft consists of such utter dullards that Vista will be *easier* to crack than XP, but even if it's a good deal harder, it will still be broken enough for spyware to get out and for botnets to persist.

Also, there's the occasional "aww fuck, did I really just execute that file?" (I've done it once and I'm pretty knowledgeable; I'm sure even fairly well-educated noobs will fall for something eventually) that will also fuck up a system. And while that doesn't mean you lose all your data (utterly malicious viruses are rare, too unprofitable to be worth the time) it could very well mean a rootkit that's impossible to dislodge without going nuclear.

The real and lasting solution is to make reformatting and reinstalling everything a task for an average user in a couple of hours (preferably with little enough attention that the user can watch a movie at the same time), instead of a task for a geek overnight, IF he can find all the CDs that the programs came on. At least when automatic detection and configuration work properly, GNU/Linux has reached this target (which is ironic, because reformatting is not needed often on a Linux machine, due to better security practices and of course obscurity) with APT and remote package repositories. But proprietary software has to protect itself, so there would need to be measures in place to prevent unauthorized users from downloading the material. A simple solution, though not perfect, would be to store small licenses in a privileged folder on the user's hard drive, so that he need only migrate this license folder (and his documents and configuration preference files) to the new installation.

That would be a good solution, but of course the license folder would be a popular target for attack. Plant something there that instructs the machine to download malware (that would pose as MS Office, or whatever) up reinstallation, and the system is back in the botnets.

Re:Better Solution (1)

Gen. Malaise (530798) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916964)

Way to pimp your own site..... noob

This is just one review... (4, Informative)

Aryeh Goretsky (129230) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916500)

Hello,

I shared my thoughts on this over here [neowin.net] on Neowin.Net's forums, so I really don't just want to do a cut-and-paste job and post what I wrote in verbatim here.

This is one of the first of a series of comparisons to include Microsoft Windows Live OneCare that Virus Bulletin [virusbtn.com] Magazine has been doing for many years. While I suspect it is more frustrating than embarrassing at this point for the team responsible for Microsoft's Windows Live OneCare, this is really Microsoft's first attempt at providing their own comprehensive anti-malware solution—MSAV [wikipedia.org] , the product which shipped with DOS does not count, it was licensed from Central Point Software (who was later acquired by Symantec) who, in turn, had licensed the software from Carmel Software—and it is going to take some time and lots of signature release cycles in order to get their detection rate fine-tuned.

I don't expect this first Virus Bulletin product comparison to be the last, and the question really isn't how Microsoft did this time: It is how their product does over the next year or two that matters. If it gets worse or stays the same, they are just another competitor in the space (albeit the one with the deepest products). If, however, their detection rate improves, it is going to make it just that much more difficult for their competitors to compete against them.

As a disclaimer of sorts, I should mention that happen I work for one of the computer security companies that Microsoft competes against with this products, so this dicussion is far from academic for me. Frankly, though, I'm not expecting Microsoft's entry into this space to have any effect on my employer—we are good at what we do and have a very loyal customer base. Also, we tend to compete against other, similarly-sized companies in the field. What I do worry about, though, is how some of my friends and colleagues at the largest companies are going to handle Microsoft's entrance as they are going to be competing head-to-head against Microsoft for marketshare.


Regards,

Aryeh Goretsky

living on borrowed time? (1)

codepunk (167897) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916774)

The Netscape engineers thought they had a loyal following and they where very good at what they
did also....poof gone

Foxpro had a loyal following and great engineers....poof gone

DR Dos had a loyal following and great engineers....poof gone

Word Perfect had a loyal following and great engineers...poof gone

You probably have a loyal following and great engineers....yea you guessed it, poof gone

Big whoop.. (1)

scoot80 (1017822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916536)

So what? For someone only wanting basic protection, its probably good enough. For someone wanting better antivirus protection, they'll get another antivirus program. Is this supposed to be big news?

Strange... (4, Informative)

Critical_ (25211) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916556)

Has anyone bothered to do some fact/typo checking before posting this stuff?

Microsoft's offering was one of four suites which failed to detect all malware. The others were G-Data AntiVirusKit 2007 v.17.0.6353, McAfee VirusScan Enterprise 8.1i and Norman Virus Control 5.90.

See, I run McAfee VirusScan Enterprise on Desktops and Servers here without problems. The latest version in the 8.0 line is 8.0i patch 15 [mcafeehelp.com] . The Vista-compatible version is 8.5i [mcafeehelp.com] which also works on Windows XP. There is no version 8.1i that I know of. Obviously this doesn't change the message that McAfee didn't earn the seal but I've never had problems with the VirusScan Enterprise line. To be frank, I've never encountered a single infection or uncontrolled virus problem on our network.

Plus, who honestly uses just *one* virus scanner on the perimeter of their Microsoft Server-system based network? I certainly don't. For example, Exchange 2003 server on the perimeter runs software from GFI which has three separate virus scanning engines. This coupled with application executable hash-based protection offered in BlackICE takes care of the rest of the problems at the desktop/server level. It's the price we pay for using MS software.

Re:Strange... = P4wn3d (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916904)

To be frank, I've never encountered a single infection or uncontrolled virus problem on our network.


I'm betting you just haven't unearthed the creepy malwares, I've seen it miss many times.

Re:Strange... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17917254)

Full disclosure: I am a GFI technical support employee.

GFI MailSecurity 10 can have up to five, not three as the parent said, antivirus scanning engines: Kaspersky, Bitdefender, AVG, McAfee, and Norman. The product always includes Norman and BitDefender. I think our sales guys can set you up with the AVG engine for free if you ask for it, but I'm not sure if they're still doing this, since AVG is moving away from licensing their stuff for free these days.

Re:Strange... (2, Interesting)

sporkmonger (922923) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917570)

I've had problems with it. Namely this problem [zdnet.com] . We ended up having almost every install of Office corrupted, as well as huge numbers of random system files as a result. My previous employer had to run System Restore on virtually every single computer on the network. The only computers that weren't down that day were the servers that were running Solaris and the Macs in the QA department. After that experience, I swore I'd never willingly install any of McAfee's products again.

Sensationalism at its finest (1, Insightful)

I'm Don Giovanni (598558) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916562)

According to the BBC article on this matter [bbc.co.uk] , Live One care failed the test because it only detected 99.91% of the malware rather than 100%. And McAfee and the others did better but didn't achieve 100%. So, yes they failed, but at least talk about this in the proper context by using the actual numbers, instead of linking to a blog entry with the sensationalistic headline "Microsoft's Vista anti-virus solution slammed". Does slashdot not even *want* to have any credibility?

Re:Sensationalism at its finest (2, Insightful)

sadsfth (593188) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916670)

"Live One care failed the test because it only detected 99.91% of the malware rather than 100%. "

If we extrapolate the data does this mean that of the known 100,000+ pieces of malware targeting windows we're only in danger of 9,000+ pieces.

If so what a relief;-)

Math (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916728)

90+ :)

     

Re:Sensationalism at its finest (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917250)

Live One care failed the test because it only detected 99.91% of the malware rather than 100%.

So you're okay with having all of your Vista machines get fucked up 0.01% of the time?

That's a legitimate question, by the way. There are good reasons to answer 'yes' to it, but we need to be clear that relying on that service implies an acceptance of risk that is greater than that of some of its competitors.

Re:Sensationalism at its finest (2, Funny)

ThinkFr33ly (902481) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917366)

Does slashdot not even *want* to have any credibility?
You must be new here.

options... (0, Offtopic)

Grinin (1050028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916578)

I am most pissed that I have to order crappier computers from Dell if I want to get Windows XP on them. To get a box without an OS on the HDD I have to buy some P.O.S. My clients need machines really fast sometimes and can't always wait for me to get the parts in and build it myself... and its really frustrating that I can't order them a good machine without Vista on it.

Shouldn't that be illegal?!

Re:options... (1)

newt0311 (973957) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917006)

Its called tying and it is very illegal (anti-trust kind of illegal) for everybody except for MS. why not for MS? I wish I knew.

Re:options... (1)

scoot80 (1017822) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917074)

No, not necessarily illegal.

However, they really should have a grace period of at least 6 months where they are still selling their computers with the option of Windows XP. After all, you can't guarantee everyone's business application will run on Vista, so untill thats sorted, businesses will still want to run XP, or 2000 for that matter.

Unfortunately, they don't really care about that point of view, what they do care is about selling as many machines with Vista on it. For the home user buying a new PC, it probably won't make much difference in the end.

Re:options... (1)

Grinin (1050028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917692)

I have always made it a point to wait for the first Service Pack to be released before deploying a new Windows version onto corporate networks. Right now Vista is way too buggy for me to allow my clients to put them to use. Personally, I think having an OS free HDD on a new computer should always be an option. I shouldn't be forced to buy a specific model just because I do not want to use the only OS they are offering me.

It would be really nice to see the government grow some brains, step in, and force these big companies to change their bad habits. Yes, I know Microsoft has major kick-backs to their channel partners, but I don't think this is fair for the consumer. Especially since NTLoader is so stubborn at interacting with other operating systems...

Why can't they just play nice?

ESET Nod32 Rocks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916592)

Bit obligatory, but it's worth saying that ESET track record on the VB100 has been exceptionally strong for the past 5 years....

Farnsworth says... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17916614)

Thus, solving the AV problem once and for all.

Vista is irrelevant to this "award" (1)

RootWind (993172) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916644)

This is really a test of the scan engine and database. You would most likely get the exact same results from using the same product on all platforms they sell it on. Since they didn't test the same products on XP (why VirusBulletin always skips around with OS is beyond me), I am not sure how anyone could make any correlation to Vista versions of antiviruses.

Terrible Tagging (3, Insightful)

Guanine (883175) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916766)

This may be tough on my karma, but I have to get it out: goddammit what's with the worthless tagging? I know the feature's beta, but if I see "haha" or "yes" followed by "no" one more time ... (ok I have no recourse). But seriously guys this feature is supposed to, as far as I can tell, eventually provide a useful augmentation or even replacement for search. Please try not to screw it up.

Best AntiVirus Still.... (1)

HerculesMO (693085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17916900)

NOD32. Low resource usage and high effectiveness. What more can you ask for?

Whoever submitted this (1, Funny)

wumpus188 (657540) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917020)

Whoever submitted this article is a troll. We all know that Vista do not need anti-virus.

New tag (2, Funny)

arpy (587497) | more than 7 years ago | (#17917114)

defectivebyaccident

All I want to know is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17917468)

which one of them can wipe the viruses off my PCs? I've got dozens infected with Eicar all over my network and I can't seem to get rid of the buggers. And my Exchange server is clogged to the brim with spam messages by "Gtube", which I guess is a YouTube copycat. What's up with that?

FAILZORS... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17917586)

tIrollkore (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17917734)

officers. O7hers

mod5 up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17917754)

Morning. NoW I have WASTE OF BITS AND his clash with
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?