Microsoft Security Essentials fails another antivirus test.. again..

[ShyWriter]

.

Microsoft Security Essentials fails another antivirus test

Tim Schiesser

14 hours ago

Microsoft Security Essentials has once again proven that it's not adequate for protecting a user's computer, after failing another antivirus test by scoring well below competitors' products. Dennis Technology Labs evaluated eight major antivirus programs from October to December 2012, awarding each program both a total accuracy rating and a protection rating, and in their testing they found Microsoft Security Essentials to be significantly worse than the other seven products on the test bed.

The total accuracy rating measures how a product manages to protect a system against malware, but also how it handles legitimate applications. Dennis Technology Labs awards points for stopping threats and allowing legitimate programs to be installed and run, while subtracting points when a threat fails to be stopped and when legitimate files are handled incorrectly.

Total accuracy ratings can range from a maximum of 400 down to -1000: Microsoft Security Essentials scored a paltry 30 in this arena, while other products such as Norton Internet Security 2013 - which scored 388.5 - almost reached the maximum score. Awards are handed out for programs that perform to a decent standard, ranging from AAA to C, however Microsoft Security Essentials performed so poorly that it didn't qualify for any of the awards. All the other products gained an award, and five of them gained at least an A. (More...)

Read complete review with additional graphs at: http://www.neowin.net/news/microsoft-security-essentials-fails-another-antivirus-test

Steve

[BornSlippy]

Microsoft Security Essentials receives a lot of recommendations on this forum from people that should know better. I'm fully aware of all the arguments relating to AV test methodology but Microsoft's product is clearly unfit for purpose, we should remove it from our list of recommendations immediately.

[AdvancedSetup]

Well I use to recommend avast - and it is a good antivirus but its current marketing on the free version is a bit over the top and have now had 2 home users remove it and put MSE back on.

I have not done any in depth testing of antivirus products myself now in a couple years. I normally just pay for a product to use but I realize there is a large group of people on the Web that do not want to pay for it.

[BornSlippy]

We don't want to get into the AV debate here as It's been done to death elsewhere. If I were asked my view concerning free AV's and MSE in particular I'd strongly suggest removing it asap and installing Avira or possibly Emsisoft as the best free alternatives. I know MSE is light on resources but so is nothing at all and it's about as effective. I'm just proposing we withdraw our recommendation.

[mountaintree16]

I'm not sure what else to use that's free :/ I want to use KAV again but unfortunately I can't really afford it at the moment.

[BornSlippy]

http://www.filehippo.com/download_antivir/

Uncheck the Web Protection Toolbar on installation. I submit all my latest threat samples on a daily basis so it's bound to be safe

[mountaintree16]

It'll still protect like it used to even if I opt out of the toolbar?

[BornSlippy]

It won't prevent you from entering sites with malicious content if that's what you mean but it will prevent execution of any malware from those sites. I trust you use MBAM Pro? In which case MBAM will take care of everything else. One thing to note is that Avira will scan for incompatible software as part of the installation procedure and will flag MBAM as being incompatible (as almost all of them do).....ignore this as the latest version of Avira no longer requires you to uninstall MBAM before it it continues and they work perfectly together.

[sho-dan]

http://www.filehippo...wnload_antivir/

Uncheck the Web Protection Toolbar on installation. I submit all my latest threat samples on a daily basis so it's bound to be safe

I been using the free version of AntiVir (also has auto diff. updates) since 05 and it hasn't fail me in all years I been using this software in every day use and on my malware test box (Forgot to disable it to run my testing).

Now Microsoft is a multi-dollar corporation and still cant their act together to protect the consumer to me, its just a front for their Business world.(follow the money) MS lineup just didn't work out for me lately,IE,OS and Anti-malware, Giant sure got shredded by and for Defender. These are my options and experiences throughout the years dealing with all types of mallicous software and the like.

I agree 100% with BornSlippy

[GT500]

I am seriously wondering here if Microsoft is failing these tests because they are not paying as much as the companies that are passing the tests. I won't explain why I am wondering that, but I will say that it is a completely legitimate question to have. Lets just say that AV testing isn't just a sham because of test methodology, and leave it at that...

As far as the effectiveness of MSE, that has always been questionable. I know that in the early days it had a great detection rate (I experienced that first-hand), however it has always suffered from the fact that it has no DDA (Direct Disk Access) and DOR (Delete On Reboot) drivers, and of course that means that its detection and removal capabilities are crippled when compared to AV's from third-party vendors.

Microsoft Security Essentials was never meant to be a full-blown anti-virus. It is called "Security Essentials" after all, so we can take that to mean the absolute basic essentials and not one ounce more.

[exile360]

As far as the effectiveness of MSE, that has always been questionable. I know that in the early days it had a great detection rate (I experienced that first-hand), however it has always suffered from the fact that it has no DDA (Direct Disk Access) and DOR (Delete On Reboot) drivers, and of course that means that its detection and removal capabilities are crippled when compared to AV's from third-party vendors.

Neither of those is needed if it catches the dropper at the door before the malware becomes active/installed. Of course, these tests appear to indicate that it may not be so good at that (unless they're only testing it against already active infections).

[iammike]

We don't want to get into the AV debate here as It's been done to death elsewhere. If I were asked my view concerning free AV's and MSE in particular I'd strongly suggest removing it asap and installing Avira or possibly Emsisoft as the best free alternatives. I know MSE is light on resources but so is nothing at all and it's about as effective. I'm just proposing we withdraw our recommendation.

Sorry but Emsisoft isn't free

Link: -http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/antimalware/-

No, it isn't free - but it's affordable

Don’t rely on freeware antivirus programs! They usually only provide a scanner to cleanup the mess after the worst case scenario has already occurred and the PC is overrun by malware. You would rather be PROTECTED, wouldn't you? We presume that you would also prefer to receive personal assistance in emergency situations instead of being forced to fill out an anonymous support form, from which you might get a reply three days later, if at all. That’s why Emsisoft is a premium software vendor for premium customers! - and includes a malware removal guarantee -

[iammike]

Can't edit my posrt, but I want to add this

Isn't Emsisoft Anti-Malware freeware?

Yes and no. By default Emsisoft Anti-Malware installs as a free fully functional 30 day trial version. After the trial period you can either choose to buy a full version license or switch to the limited freeware mode. The freeware mode still allows you to scan and clean infections, but it doesn't provide any real-time protection to guard against new infections. It's useful as a second opinion scanner but you should NEVER rely on the freeware mode as long term protection for your PC. Without suitable real-time protection, your PC is at risk of becoming infected very quickly.

Link -hxxp://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/antimalware/-

[CWB]

according to the test results , the AV i am using ranks #3 .

while many users simply cannot or will not plunk down the folding green stuff to purchase a "paid for/full tilt" AV/M the "free" choices are becoming more limited .

at one time i used AVG *free* (for years) and went on to the paid-for version , then they started putting in the blurbs and other stuff ... i stopped using it .

however , as was mentioned , this is not a thread about which-is-best ...

it is about (or has turned into) "do we continue to recommend MSE" and this is based mostly on a single or limited test case(s) .

i believe that more in-depth and honest unbiased testing needs to be incorporated before making a judgment call .

[BornSlippy]

Sorry but Emsisoft isn't free

Link: -http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/antimalware/-

Yes, I stand corrected. I'd forgotten why I stopped submitting samples on their forums (in addition to the rudeness of their staff).

Use this as my second preference http://www.bitdefender.co.uk/solutions/free.html

The reasoning behind my preference for a free antivirus is simple, current and future cyber threats are malware irrespective of the platform you are using. Anti-Malware like MBAM have always been regarded as being complimentary to an AV. This needs to change. The emphasis should be on the prevention and execution of malicious software rather than viruses. At this moment in time a good Antivirus is essential but its importance is secondary to an Anti-Malware like MBAM Pro. Add a modest selection of on-demand tools and some common sense and you'll be safe.

[AdvancedSetup]

Okay well I think we are all in agreement that the main idea for this post is to alert that MSE is not as strong as it should be. I will go ahead this week and review some of our pinned topics and either make changes or add additional links for possible concern to them.

I'm going to also close this topic to prevent it from further digressing into a "which product" topic.

Thank you everyone.