[VR-Zone] Microsoft's Security Essentials loses certification after failing AV-TEST

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VR-Zone

I can hear the gales of laughter echoing through the Internet from all those people who love nothing better than smack talking Microsoft and its products following the news that the company's free security software package Security Essentials has lost its certification after bombing the security testing done by AV-TEST labs.

While Security Essentials scored exceedingly well when it came to usability - 5.5 out of 6; which included false positives and system resource impact, but fell down really hard when it came to zero-day protection where it only picked up on 64% of new threats in comparison to the industry standard of 89%.

Apparently its heuristics engine is where the problem seems to be, and which has been reported as a problem before, and the lack of a solid behavioral scanner, something that has increasingly become an industry standard requirement. On a slightly positive note though MSE did manage to detect 100% of malware that was three months or older.

The other areas that failed to impress the team at AV-TEST was the less than stellar way that Security Essentials handled the removal of "critical system modifications" with a repair score of only 3.5 out of 6.

As a fan of MSE it is sad to see, what was once regarded as a really good security software package by the industry, start this kind of downward slide. I guess it's time to find a new anti-virus package.

---

More here.

Those using MSE, watch out, it may be potentially dangerous.

Not like there are any other alternatives, unless you enjoy over-bloated crapware.
Common sense > Any AV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wez

Common sense > Any AV.

---

:up:

That really is too bad. I detest nearly every other AV scanner out there.

Hopefully MS will pick up on this and fix things sooner rather than later.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wez

Not like there are any other alternatives, unless you enjoy over-bloated crapware.
Common sense > Any AV.

---

Another:up:

The only AV program I liked was NOD32.

BTW, av-comparatives and dennistechnologylabs came to a similar conclusion. I lost faith in MSE a long time ago. That program has been going downhill for a long time now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wez

Not like there are any other alternatives, unless you enjoy over-bloated crapware.
Common sense > Any AV.

---

:rofl:

Legitimate websites never get compromised. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKYMTL

That really is too bad. I detest nearly every other AV scanner out there.

Hopefully MS will pick up on this and fix things sooner rather than later.

---

Its been like this for at least six months now and apparently getting worse. Hopefully this will get their attention. I still have my doubts.

I honestly find just malwarebytes to be far more reliable than MSE at this point.

I too use common sense over an AV. The only reason I have an AV on my laptop is so that my colleges network will let me onto the internet. My desktop usually doesn't run an AV but I have been too lazy to Uninstall MSE since lanfest.

I got Norton 2010 for like 2.99 in a clearance bin used it to upgrade to 2011/2012 and I love it, its seamless, i never notice it at all even though its always running. don't notice scans and doesn't use anything system wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterg

doesn't use anything system wise.

---

No, just no, stop fooling yourself... it guzzles resources like crazy. A SSD system with norten feels like a HDD system in case of launch times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hornet331

No, just no, stop fooling yourself... it guzzles resources like crazy. A SSD system with norten feels like a HDD system in case of launch times.

---

No it doesn't its one of the lightest AV softwares on the market.

I can't speak for Norten IS even though I've heard good things but the anti-virus is no more intensive than MSE.

common sense wont always protect you unfortunately.

Just go visit deviant art for an example of a "legitimate" website that isnt safe.. bogus ads roll through about once every two or three months it seems.


Norton just straight up sucks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by masterg

I got Norton 2010 for like 2.99 in a clearance bin used it to upgrade to 2011/2012 and I love it, its seamless, i never notice it at all even though its always running. don't notice scans and doesn't use anything system wise.

---

So you bought a virus?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by =SOC= Admiral

I too use common sense over an AV. The only reason I have an AV on my laptop is so that my colleges network will let me onto the internet. My desktop usually doesn't run an AV but I have been too lazy to Uninstall MSE since lanfest.

---

same here. never use it though

most av will slow boot\load times and any that dont are not very secure
avast can add ~25% to the time it takes to boot a laptop
mse is one of the lightest and it still slows things down

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Legitimate websites never get compromised. :rolleyes:

---

well, common sense involves using UAC, not torrenting bad files, and actually running security updates on both your browser, its plugins, and your OS.

also involves using ad-blockers as well, or at the very least 'on-demand' mode for plugins.

honestly, i have not seen ANYTHING get through UAC* that didn't come from torrenting and on up-to-date systems.

*one time when i intentionally DLed a suspicious file**, it got through my test AV and only UAC caught it. removing it took another 3 anti-malware tools.

**was trying to see how easy it was to catch a virus; I hadn't got one on any of my systems for 4+ years at that point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

Norton just straight up sucks.

---

I really hate to admit it... but the latest Norton Antivirus is actually very good. I've used it for 6 months now and it has caught everything i came across, almost to the point of being just annoying because it had a habit of flagging and quarantining non-virus'.

I have been a norton hater since the windows 95 days, but their current product is solid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I really hate to admit it... but the latest Norton Antivirus is actually very good. I've used it for 6 months now and it has caught everything i came across, almost to the point of being just annoying because it had a habit of flagging and quarantining non-virus'.

I have been a norton hater since the windows 95 days, but their current product is solid.

---

See, it's not just about catching the cr@pware, it's about not catching false positives. For instance, if I make an AV that blocks or sandboxes any executable because "it might be a threat" (which, technically, it could be) it will still score great on catching the viruses, but at the expense of extreme user annoyance. The closest I've gotten to an unobtrusive AV seems to be Avast (in silent mode I forget that it's even running), though that also spends some of its time disabled because of a nasty a habit of sandboxing every application that I compile and run manually. I know, understandable since it could just as well be malware that's running hidden, but quite annoying since i compile a lot :rolleyes:. The best-case scenario would be no AV + a solid dose of common sense, but I prefer to have an option for that one time when something goes wrong.

EDIT: Here's their latest report on various AV solutions, I found it interesting enough to share: http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home...7/sepoct-2012/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew LB

I really hate to admit it... but the latest Norton Antivirus is actually very good. I've used it for 6 months now and it has caught everything i came across, almost to the point of being just annoying because it had a habit of flagging and quarantining non-virus'.

I have been a norton hater since the windows 95 days, but their current product is solid.

---

Yeah, it felt just wrong installing Norton but it does appear to work pretty well. I also don't notice any hit in performance. Sadly like you I had a few false positives too. I would rather that than it not catch anything at all like MSE.

Wonder what this is like for Endpoint Protection as it is effectively and extension of MSE...

-PB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paulbagz

Wonder what this is like for Endpoint Protection as it is effectively and extension of MSE...

-PB

---

Probably about the same.

Would wanna hope not!

-PB

I've used Comodo's firewall in tandem with various AV software over the years and its been solid ( not to mention a plethora of other tricks and safeguards). If software can't phone home in the event that something malicious gets through, it stops there. The majority of the security suites have average at best software fire walls ( and windows firewall is a complete joke )

The issue with proper security is it can and will impact the user no matter what. If it doesn't it isn't true security. Its a placebo. Its unfortunately an all or nothing thing for it to be truly effective. User friendliness and convince have to take a back seat when security is involved. That said the average person is unwilling to go to such lengths nor is knowledgeable enough to do so which is why cyber crime is as lucrative as it is. Given the whole thing is such a cat and mouse game pleading common sense is pretty laughable.

Let's think for a moment...

How many windows machines have you had to clean malware/tojan/viruses/whatever where the user had been using Internet Explorer?

99.9% .. and my experience some were even using Security Essentials and it was update to date... In most cases you switch the other to any other webrowser Opera/chrome/firefox and advise the user to only use IE on web sites that don't work without it and they rarely ever have a problem. MS can't even stop MSN or hotmail from being hacked so why would you trust their av/firewall products??

One might say there's a pattern there ;) I personally would use the above MS products, but at the same time it's MS' way of keeping IT going and that's important.

^^^ winner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Legitimate websites never get compromised. :rolleyes:

---

:shrug: Most of my browsing is done on a Linux system with NoScript installed in the browser and set to block all except those sites with exceptions. I've not encountered anything getting through such a setup, nor heard of anything getting through it. Even on Windows systems, though, appropriate security measures avoid 99.99% of any problems you may encounter.

AV software, by nature, makes your computer slow. It cannot effectively prevent/detect malware (especially 0 day threats) without monitoring everything that is going on, and that monitoring isn't resource-free. You do whatever you like, but I'll stick with a not very permissive script blocking strategy, browser running with heavily restricted access, and common sense approach. I've not encountered any malware infections in years using that strategy, and I'm sure the same is true for many others.

--Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

Let's think for a moment...

How many windows machines have you had to clean malware/tojan/viruses/whatever where the user had been using Internet Explorer?

99.9% .. and my experience some were even using Security Essentials and it was update to date... In most cases you switch the other to any other webrowser Opera/chrome/firefox and advise the user to only use IE on web sites that don't work without it and they rarely ever have a problem. MS can't even stop MSN or hotmail from being hacked so why would you trust their av/firewall products??

One might say there's a pattern there ;) I personally would use the above MS products, but at the same time it's MS' way of keeping IT going and that's important.

---

IE since at least IE9 had been a really safe browser
https://www.nsslabs.com/reports/brow...neered-malware

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by safan80

In most cases you switch the other to any other webrowser Opera/chrome/firefox and advise the user to only use IE on web sites that don't work without it and they rarely ever have a problem.

---

man, i can tell you haven't done enough real-life technical support/maintenance. I can personally attest to 0% success rate in 'not using IE prevents malware."

almost all malware infections are PEBKACs.

EDIT:

to be more clear, switching browsers does NOT prevent someone from downloading from a bad link. Teaching them that clicking on bad links is bad when you switch their browsers* is the key to lower infection rates.

* you don't really even need to switch their browsers. although, as a web developer, please do anyways, anything below IE10 is unacceptable.

It's interesting to note AV usage through the scale of increasing computer savviness.

Clueless - Runs whatever their PC came with, if anything.
Normal - Installs an alternate browser and some crappy AV solution.
Clever - Installs an alternate browser and claims AV isn't necessary because they're clever.
Informed - Installs an alternate browser, exercises good caution to avoid malware when possible, but still runs a good AV package to protect against that which can't be avoided simply by being a clever user.

Only those ignorant of security and malware in this modern age assume that they can be safe because they know to hover over links to see where they're going, refuse to open attachments from those they don't know, and other such basic things. If your computer is connected to the Internet, you're vulnerable no matter who is sitting at the keyboard. If your computer is a PC you bought in 1992 that never has anything new installed on it and doesn't have a NIC, congratulations, that boring system is safe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Karolis

IE since at least IE9 had been a really safe browser
https://www.nsslabs.com/reports/brow...neered-malware

---

Windows xp still has 40% of the windows market and cannot run it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Generic user #2

man, i can tell you haven't done enough real-life technical support/maintenance. I can personally attest to 0% success rate in 'not using IE prevents malware."

almost all malware infections are PEBKACs.

EDIT:

to be more clear, switching browsers does NOT prevent someone from downloading from a bad link. Teaching them that clicking on bad links is bad when you switch their browsers* is the key to lower infection rates.

* you don't really even need to switch their browsers. although, as a web developer, please do anyways, anything below IE10 is unacceptable.

---

Teaching internet security in a vacuum?
It takes more than teaching a person to avoid bad links, they have to want to change their bad internet habits. You are teaching them to be more security aware such things as keeping their ant-virus software up to date and having the latest security patches installed. Sure the younger users are easier to get to about internet security, but it?s the older users that are not tech savvy a lot of times just don?t care, they just want their games and MS office to work. Most users that are in a bad way are still using windows xp which stops at IE8. Windows 7 doesn?t even have a final release build for IE10 yet. There are computer users that act like drunk drivers who don?t care that he drives drunk or in this case uses the computer in a unsafe manner he?s going to become a repeat offender. I teach them but I'm not responsible for the choices the user makes on their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

It's interesting to note AV usage through the scale of increasing computer savviness.

Clueless - Runs whatever their PC came with, if anything.
Normal - Installs an alternate browser and some crappy AV solution.
Clever - Installs an alternate browser and claims AV isn't necessary because they're clever.
Informed - Installs an alternate browser, exercises good caution to avoid malware when possible, but still runs a good AV package to protect against that which can't be avoided simply by being a clever user.

Only those ignorant of security and malware in this modern age assume that they can be safe because they know to hover over links to see where they're going, refuse to open attachments from those they don't know, and other such basic things. If your computer is connected to the Internet, you're vulnerable no matter who is sitting at the keyboard. If your computer is a PC you bought in 1992 that never has anything new installed on it and doesn't have a NIC, congratulations, that boring system is safe.

---

I would add the users who are aware of that that they need to be cautious of their habits on the internet to a separate group knowledgeable but dangerous.

I use MSSE in school on 400PCs and it keeps them all clean of infection! If it can protect a PC with a bunch of junior hackers using them it must work ok!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chinaguy

I use MSSE in school on 400PCs and it keeps them all clean of infection! If it can protect a PC with a bunch of junior hackers using them it must work ok!

---

the question is are you sure they are clean? My co worker said nearly the same as you "I use MSE and my computer is clean". Then i simply install trial version of kaspersky pure 2.0 after a full system scan it found 8 trojans 3 malwares :) . Note: he doesn't even visit suspicious sites or make risky things on internet, i mean his common sense is good :)

We have Endpoint protection and have had less issues then when using Sophos.

-PB

I am using kaspersky for a long time. Now got 6 licences but after all those years KIS2013 made me unhappy. I am not sure if i will continue with kaspersky or change it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Particle

Clueless - Runs whatever their PC came with, if anything.
Normal - Installs an alternate browser and some crappy AV solution.
Clever - Installs an alternate browser and claims AV isn't necessary because they're clever.
Informed - Installs an alternate browser, exercises good caution to avoid malware when possible, but still runs a good AV package to protect against that which can't be avoided simply by being a clever user.

---

I think you're missing the "security crazed, but no AV software" category. Those of us who go out of our way to keep our computers out of harms way by running non-x86 hardware on our primary browsing systems, running less common (Linux) or even obscure OSs (FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Gnu Hurd, etc.), making sure the browser is running with a user that has almost no access to anything, and even still use plugins to prevent scripts from running and don't use flash (the latter primarily because it isn't available on many of these platforms).

I think you're also forgetting the new demographic that doesn't have PCs, and does all of their browsing on Android/IOS tablets and phones where traditional (realtime) AV protection isn't available.

Bottom line, claiming that any people that aren't using AV aren't protected or somehow ignorant is a pretty big generalization.

--Matt

Quote:

---

While Security Essentials scored exceedingly well when it came to usability - 5.5 out of 6; which included false positives and system resource impact, but fell down really hard when it came to zero-day protection where it only picked up on 64% of new threats in comparison to the industry standard of 89%.

---

I'm pretty sure Microsoft's (questionable) monthly definition updates play a big role in this. Most other AV solutions update definitions as often as every day, hence such a high (89%) industry average which can in no way be entirely reliant on ever-failing heuristics: point in case, it's the sole category where MSE performs badly, just like it did on the previous test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaD

I'm pretty sure Microsoft's (questionable) monthly definition updates play a big role in this. Most other AV solutions update definitions as often as every day, hence such a high (89%) industry average which can in no way be entirely reliant on ever-failing heuristics: point in case, it's the sole category where MSE performs badly, just like it did on the previous test.

---

They aren't monthly, they are daily.

My bad then, I just assumed they were since a monthly definition update always shows up along with the rest every second Tuesday of the month.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JaD

I'm pretty sure Microsoft's (questionable) monthly definition updates play a big role in this. Most other AV solutions update definitions as often as every day, hence such a high (89%) industry average which can in no way be entirely reliant on ever-failing heuristics: point in case, it's the sole category where MSE performs badly, just like it did on the previous test.

---

MSE v1.0 was a very decent product. It got 4, 4.5 and 5.5 in AV-TEST during 2010. This is the point where it got loads of publicity and main AV companies showed their distaste for MS trying to compete with paid products with a free product. In 2011 MSE v2.0 was released and it got much poorer results in AV-TEST 2.5, 3.5 and 5.5. MSE 2.1 got 3.0, 5.5 and 5.0. Latest protections are down to 1.5. Its quite obvious. MSE is basic AV/AS protection nothing more. Hence why MSE v5 is called Windows Defender in Win8. Plus i am sure all other AV companies appreciate for MSE performing worse.

http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/t...t_no%5D=102237
http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/t...t_no%5D=110968
http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/t...t_no%5D=121355

Can you disable the anti-virus portion of Windows defender in Windows 8 and still use the firewall?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BababooeyHTJ

Can you disable the anti-virus portion of Windows defender in Windows 8 and still use the firewall?

---

You can. Install other AV.

I've used Avast with Waterfox for some time, combined with common sense I've never got any viruses / malware etc. Yay :D

AVG Free for almost a decade here.
Common sense about not clicking on links/ads.
Install ABP on people's machines with Chrome/Firefox to keep them from clicking on stupid stuff.

Any questionable links I want to check out, I fire up a Mint VM and go from there.

Virus free since ~2003

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syn.

Hence why MSE v5 is called Windows Defender in Win8. Plus i am sure all other AV companies appreciate for MSE performing worse.

---

It says version 4.0 here in W8.:shrug:

Since I have no common sense and do all my banking online, I use Kaspersky Internet Security. Last few years no issues at all. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mats

It says version 4.0 here in W8.:shrug:

---

Strange. That would mean they rebranded an older version. Maybe something went wrong with the 4.1. I assumed since MS billed Win8 Win Defender as a replacement for MSE 4.1 that it would mean it is v5. Anyway i am testing out Bitdefender atm, seems very nice so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WangChung

AVG Free for almost a decade here.
Common sense about not clicking on links/ads.
Install ABP on people's machines with Chrome/Firefox to keep them from clicking on stupid stuff.

Any questionable links I want to check out, I fire up a Mint VM and go from there.

Virus free since ~2003

---

I stopped using AVG once it became huge bloated and was actually causing weird webpage stalling. Removed and issues went away.

Honestly I don't even use AV software on my personal PC anymore. I've never needed it in the past and I don't go to dark corners of the internet anyway, so my chances are already pretty low of getting an infection. I run a MBAM scan on occasion and have yet to find anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kromosto

I am using kaspersky for a long time. Now got 6 licences but after all those years KIS2013 made me unhappy. I am not sure if i will continue with kaspersky or change it.

---

I am in the same boat as you, Kas 2013 just simply is the worst on Windows 8 & 7 for that matter.
I built 7 machines the other day running Win 7. The client wanted Anti-Virus and I have used Kaspersky for a long time. I purchased two Kas 2013 packs from Newegg and it would not install on Win 7. I ended up finding a Kas 2012 download and used that.

What Aniti-Virus is good now for Win 8 ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buckeye

I am in the same boat as you, Kas 2013 just simply is the worst on Windows 8 & 7 for that matter.
I built 7 machines the other day running Win 7. The client wanted Anti-Virus and I have used Kaspersky for a long time. I purchased two Kas 2013 packs from Newegg and it would not install on Win 7. I ended up finding a Kas 2012 download and used that.

What Aniti-Virus is good now for Win 8 ?

---

Did you try the latest product update Version 2013 (13.0.1.4190) >> http://www.kaspersky.co.uk/productupdates

Only time I've had an issue with Kaspersky was a very early version of 2012, Kaspersky update the overall product every so often to iron out any bugs.

Mine runs out in the next few days, I might give something else a try... been using Kaspersky for about 5 years.

One of our clients uses Kaspersky in their office and I swear every time I'm in there each month at least one PC hasn't updated in days because the updater has been stuck "downloading" for 200 hours doing nothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nelly

Did you try the latest product update Version 2013 (13.0.1.4190) >> http://www.kaspersky.co.uk/productupdates

Only time I've had an issue with Kaspersky was a very early version of 2012, Kaspersky update the overall product every so often to iron out any bugs.

Mine runs out in the next few days, I might give something else a try... been using Kaspersky for about 5 years.

---

On my Win 7 machines with KAS 2012 they work great.
I have used the latest KAS 3013 on fresh Win 7 machines and it won't install.
When running KAS 2013 there are just to many issues to keep in on my machine.

Heh. Can't remember the virus, but it wasn't anything new. My friend got infected pretty badly, but didn't want to lose his data. I backed everything up to an external and wiped the drive. Reinstalled Windows, threw MSE on, and called it safe to plug in his external and recover files. Sure enough, immediately re-infected..

so basically what you are saying is he had something new?

nod32, it doesn't bother me, doesn't hog resources and does its job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ziddey

Heh. Can't remember the virus, but it wasn't anything new. My friend got infected pretty badly, but didn't want to lose his data. I backed everything up to an external and wiped the drive. Reinstalled Windows, threw MSE on, and called it safe to plug in his external and recover files. Sure enough, immediately re-infected..

---

you know when you copy everything back....you actually copy back the malware right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Buckeye

On my Win 7 machines with KAS 2012 they work great.
I have used the latest KAS 3013 on fresh Win 7 machines and it won't install.
When running KAS 2013 there are just to many issues to keep in on my machine.

---

same with me on win7 machines 2012 is still the best. on my development machine i got 2013 and sometimes i see that kis2013's peak working set hits 1.5 gb.

also if you didn't noticed kis2013 makes your computer vulnerable in the opening stage. both firewall and av stays down for a while and during that time you can downlaod eicar test virus file with out a problem also blocked applications can access internet.

EDIT: i tested this problems by manually downloading eicar file and with a small app i wrote that only opens a tcp connection to www.google.com at porth 80. also haven't tried it with the new patch "d" so they may already fixed it.

And this just goes to show that no matter how careful you are on the net you could still be at risk: http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/...en-t-Browsing&

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by STEvil

common sense wont always protect you unfortunately.

Just go visit deviant art for an example of a "legitimate" website that isnt safe.. bogus ads roll through about once every two or three months it seems.


Norton just straight up sucks.

---

Yep... I actually had an ad on Hotmail try to infect a computer I was on, once, even. It doesn't matter how legitimate a website is, if it has external content it is a technical risk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoldenTiger

Yep... I actually had an ad on Hotmail try to infect a computer I was on, once, even. It doesn't matter how legitimate a website is, if it has external content it is a technical risk.

---

Adblock isn't only a convenience, it is a safety measure!