Microsoft Security Essentials fails AV-TEST again
Microsoft's Security Essentials software has once again failed AV-TEST testing, with the company downplaying the results while also promising to learn its lessons.
Responding to the latest AV-TEST results, in which Security Essentials and its enterprise-grade equivalent missed out on certification for the second time, Microsoft's Joe Blackbird promised that the company would try to do better - but claimed that the test was possibly a little unfair.
'AV-TEST's test results indicate that our products detected 72 percent of all "0-day malware" using a sample size of 100 pieces of malware. We know from telemetry from hundreds of millions of systems around the world that 99.997 percent of our customers hit with any 0-day did not encounter the malware samples tested in this test,' Blackbird claims, pointing to AV-TEST skewing results by using malware samples which are not present in the wild in any quantity as one reason for his software's poor showing. 'AV-TEST's test results [also] indicate that our products missed 9 percent of "recent malware" using a sample size of 216,000 pieces of malware. We know from telemetry that 94 percent of these missed malware samples were never encountered by any of our customers. When we explicitly looked for these files, we could not find them on our customers' machines.'
Aside from the use of uncommon malware samples, Blackbird also took exception to how AV-TEST weights it scores. 'AV-TEST reports on samples hit/missed by category. We report - and prioritize our work - based on customer impact.' Despite this, Blackbird has promised that Microsoft will try to do better. 'We continually evaluate and look at ways to improve our processes. We know from feedback from customers that industry testing is valuable, and their tests do help us improve.
'We're committed to reducing our 0.0033 percent margin to zero,' Blackbird concludes - somewhat sneakily reducing the 28 per cent of 0-day malware and 9 per cent of recent malware missed by Microsoft Security Essentials in AV-TEST's testing using figures received from customer telemetry, and reaching a much less scary figure.
Previous Article
27 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyI trust them.
It sits there quietly and protects efficiently and by what it was saying above, it's doing it very well despite the scare tactics from a testing developer looking to attract attention by badmouthing Microsoft.
Microsoft Security Essentials was subjected to exactly the same testing procedure on the same malware corpus as every other package on test. Most passed with flying colours; Microsoft's did not. These are the facts, and no amount of arguing from Microsoft will alter them.
So while MSE has been taking a hit recently for coverage, I still use and recommend it since I'm careful enough to avoid viruses entirely, and the people I recommend it to are savvy enough to see through and and avoid nearly all. Most windows reinstalls I've done were just from corrupt system files and adware, not malware infections. In fact, I'm the one with the most malware cases (I'm excluding annoyance scripts because those do nothing truly harmful besides use some CPU time) in my entourage... with a total of 1 infection in something like 10 years...
'We're committed to reducing our 0.0033 percent margin to zero,'
Not bad then for REAL cases then is it?
I've never heard of AV whatever they're called until now Gareth. However, I'm not doubting their credentials if you aren't.
I use the test that if you don't get any viruses there isn't any need to change. If I ever get a virus, then Ill use something else.
As already mentioned, most other AV suites just have constant pop ups demanding updates/payment. MSE does none of this, and this is why I install it on all the family+relatives pc's because pop ups just confuse people.
Our local computer publication tested several free and commercial internet security and antivirus products, and MSE was rated last in the test. Alerted by this, I decided to give a shot to a couple of other free programs mentioned (Avast, avira and comodo) and quickly went back to MSE. Even the installation of those programs were somewhat infuriating with them trying to sell me something I didn't want at every turn. And regarding unnecessary pop-ups, there's some serious attention whores out there, too.
The main appeal of MSE is that it intergrates with the OS much better, due to being an MS product. Because of this I find it uses WAY less resources than other alternatives.
If I had to use another product then it'd have to be winClam. All other Commercial solutions are too resource hungry and all other free alternatives are just adware.
I used to use winClam in my BartPE builds, but it's no good for everyday AV, imo. Last I saw, no real-time protection and it was very strictly A/V - I'm way too lazy to scan like a responsible person. Just give me something with real-time protection and I'll scan files from torrents.
I've been using Avast for years (early on due to MS' stupid Genuine Advantage check on MSE) - other than the install being hideously annoying, it's great. Although last go-round, it would not leave me alone with wanting to install Chrome. Literally every few days it would pop up with a message saying I was 'nearly done' installing Avast, the last step being to install Chrome. Suspiciously, when I got fed up and fired off a pissed (like fire and brimstone pissed) message to Avast, the popups stopped. Come to think of it, maybe I'll replace it with MSE next time the license comes up...
Speaking of, no freakin wonder Chrome has the marketshare it does, since it's now part of the shovelware that comes along with every piece of free software on the entire internet (Chrome's not bad, but getting lumped in with the Ask toolbar is...I dunno, kinda degrading?)
It's like bundling a product with a free handjob from a hobo with if you ask me.
My own experience of MSE is good as-well, stopped using Avast to use MSE and havnt had any problems since.
This^ I've not experienced any difficulties with MSE, but I'd like a bit more faith in it since I came off Symantec..
Go MSE!
Indeed, MSE seems to be quite pants. Anecdotal evidence supplied by readers is hardly a convincing argument to use MSE, especially when confronted with the results of empirical testing.
Well if it was anecdotal evidence you might be right -- 'Anecdotal' as defined implies that verification is dependent on the credibility of the party presenting the evidence. Seems to me that the vast majority of those posting on this thread have good evidential reason to trust MSE-as they are quoting from their own experience. I will stick with MSE thanks.
In other words: people use MSE, they have not fallen victim to malware, ergo MSE works. Same logic, and same flaws: would they have fallen victim to malware if they did not have MSE installed? In many cases - with the readership of this 'ere site, anyway - the answer's no: most people here aren't stupid enough to put themselves at risk by using out-of-date software, dodgy cracks from random Russian webpages, or clicking on the interminable "reset your PayPal access" links they receive via email. Thus it's impossible to say whether MSE is providing protection or their behaviour is providing protection.
That's why independent testing exists: the only way to be sure anti-malware software works is to expose it to malware, not to install it on client machines and say "our telemetry says nobody's infected." It's also why failing AV-TEST is a bigger deal than Microsoft is making out.
Not that I'm trying to convince anyone to switch anti-virus packages here. Frankly, I don't care: use whatever works (or appears to work) for you. I run Linux, so it's a moot point.
hooray for evidenced based reasoning!
I know right, eventually you have to give in :D