HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Microsoft doesn't seem too thrilled that it failed to earn certification from the folks at AV-Test. The company made the following statement:
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Microsoft Disputes Poor MSE Grade
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Probably because they might get paid by some other companies negatively impacted by offering a free product which is better than theirs. Like, I don't know companies where people stick stuff up their asses and like to live "on the edge". Which might be seen to negatively effect business or something... 
bman212121
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,815
I'm even more confused after reading Microsoft's statement. The best guess is that it sounds like they aren't attempting to detect those files because it doesn't affect the pcs MSE is on. Let's say there is a new piece of malware for a bug in XP SP2, but hardly anyone using MSE is running SP2 without the necessary patches to fix the exploit. If that's the case they might purposely not attempt to scan for that piece of malware because it would add to the number of files and slow down scanning.
As for the 0 day exploits though... I'm not so sure that's in their favor right now. I would guess they have some work to do in that front.
As for the 0 day exploits though... I'm not so sure that's in their favor right now. I would guess they have some work to do in that front.
Disposed
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2010
- Messages
- 5,211
I don't get it. Mse falls to detect something it gets knocked. Microsoft's defense is "but it barely effected anyone". Am I reading this right?
Outamyhead
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 4,263
I don't trust a free security product from a company plagued by vulnerabilities in it's primary products.
Based on reviews I go for companies that have a long history of intrusion prevention, like Avast, AVG or Symantec (yeah I know everyone has an opinion of them, but they aren't McAfee, and they have really improved in the last few years).
Based on reviews I go for companies that have a long history of intrusion prevention, like Avast, AVG or Symantec (yeah I know everyone has an opinion of them, but they aren't McAfee, and they have really improved in the last few years).
Well... better get a mac!
No! Linux!
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Why when 90% of the vulnerabilities are user generated when they just click okay to something they really shouldn't. Which granted that is what security programs are suppose to stop you from doing, being a bad user, but a bad user is just so hard to stop from screwing themselves over.
Hell I still IE, I just use hosts file and spyware blaster along with the defaults of MSE and their firewall along with a router firewall it's perfectly fine for home computer security. I mostly just use hosts file and spyware blaster to help out the ineptitude of IE pop up blocker (often resorting to adding sites to the restricted zone to prevent getting the pop up again)
If important data was backed up, is the worst case scenario of damage from a virus is to remove and replace the OS drive? That seems cheap compared to yearly AV prices.
Or even without backup could the user boot into linux after the fact and move files to a USB drive or something similar, then format the infected drive and reinstall Windows? $0 cost, then.
I'm definitely not paying for antivirus, long live MSE.
Or even without backup could the user boot into linux after the fact and move files to a USB drive or something similar, then format the infected drive and reinstall Windows? $0 cost, then.
I'm definitely not paying for antivirus, long live MSE.
Riccochet
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 29,906
We put MSE on 1000's of clients PC's where I work. It works fairly decently ok for being free. If and when it does miss a virus we'll just boot into AVG Rescue CD and clean it with that.
I like MSE for having such a small footprint on system resources.
I like MSE for having such a small footprint on system resources.
exactly, hell to the no to paying for an antivirus. all they do is slow down your computer by always running in the background, give you popups all the time, theyre impossible to get rid of... basically AV programs are viruses that you pay to install on your computer. i have 3 computers that i use MSE on and nothing else. i reinstall windows just because of clutter or new OS version or getting a new hard drive etc long before i get any viruses and i watch tons of porn and download tons of torrents. just use your firewall, make regular MSE scans, and DONT CLICK ON OBVIOUS VIRUS LINKS and youll be fine. what a racket these guys are running!
NoOther
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 14, 2008
- Messages
- 6,468
The funny thing is Microsoft has a longer history of intrusion prevention than any of those companies.... So if you are going by companies with the best history, then you are making a hypocrite of yourself.
The problem you seem to suffer from here is believing that making a product and then securing a product are always one and the same. This is not true. None of those companies you mentioned make operating systems. They are are also much smaller than Microsoft and have less resources. What you are saying is you would rather trust in companies whose job it is to make money by 'finding' exploits with fewer resources than a company who makes money trying to avoid exploits with far more resources...
As for what Microsoft is saying here is that the testing company does not have the same resources that Microsoft does to get an accurate depiction of actual threats. What this means is that the likelihood of a person using a Microsoft OS with MSE on it having the exact same circumstances and files needed to spark the threat are extremely slim. So while technically there is a threat, it is a very low risk. Some of those threats also are not very damaging. Microsoft is taking into account various levels of threats and their impact when designing their testing software. Thus using a more beneficial risk analysis method than just a straight up test. They are also gearing their software towards the possible threats and methods which are the most prevalent and damaging. This is basically how the entirety of the IA world operates.
Also note that every AV software has holes in it, some more or less harmful to the consumer. Overall I have found that MSE is one of the best products out there and many times and in many different measureables it has been at or near the top. This is also something to take into account.
All that being said, I am not advocating MSE as much as just breaking down the reason for MS's response. Personally I am an advocate for layered security no matter the case. And if you are just relying on one source for your security then you are a fool. Even if it is just malware checking, I advocate using various methods to protect against that.
bigdogchris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2008
- Messages
- 18,708
What a stupid comment. Please remove your tin foil hat.Probably because they might get paid by some other companies negatively impacted by offering a free product which is better than theirs. Like, I don't know companies where people stick stuff up their asses and like to live "on the edge". Which might be seen to negatively effect business or something...
MSE has been "sliding" in performance for a long time. AV-TEST.ORG is one of the most respected, independent AV reviewers out there.
No one is being paid for good or bad reviews. Many of AV-TEST top performers are smaller companies which would be trampled by Norton and McAfee if there was money being thrown around.
dr.stevil
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 9,266
eh... MSE is 'okay' but I've never really been all that impressed with it outside of it's memory and cpu cycle footprint (and being free of course).
After seeing that 'test' and reading the article, I switched back over to avira free until I can pick up another license of Nod32
After seeing that 'test' and reading the article, I switched back over to avira free until I can pick up another license of Nod32
DeathPrincess
Fully [H]
- Joined
- May 15, 2010
- Messages
- 18,205
Ok, ask yourself why CoD gets good reviews? Same situation, different setting. Still believe it's "tin foil"?
MavericK
Zero Cool
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 31,901
In my experience, it's neither better nor worse at virus detection than ANY of the other end user options (Avast!, McAfee, Norton, etc.). However, as others have said, the memory footprint and general un-intrusiveness makes it the primary choice for me.
Johnny_Utah
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2010
- Messages
- 177
Ok, ask yourself why CoD gets good reviews? Same situation, different setting. Still believe it's "tin foil"?
I'm with Princess on this one. It's quite obvious that this does in fact happen...however whether it DID happen in this case is anyone's guess.
I agree with an earlier posted comment about MSE + Malewarebytes on Window's boxes...it's the best combo out there.
I also use NOD32 which has proven itself as well. However, for FREE protection, MSE and Malewarebyte's can't be beat. Avast and AVG etc are wayyyyy too intrusive for my likes.
IMHO Security Essentials is better than most of the AV out there, and it's free. That's saying a lot as most MS software sucks. Nod, Avast and kaspersky are promising too.
AVG, McAfee and Symantec are dogshiat. Just useless memory hogs that don't detect a damn thing unless it's from 1997.
I'm a senior sysadmin for a large university, I see every virus there is every day.
AVG, McAfee and Symantec are dogshiat. Just useless memory hogs that don't detect a damn thing unless it's from 1997.
I'm a senior sysadmin for a large university, I see every virus there is every day.
MSE isn't free for business use... you should read those EULA's you click through.
1000's of PC's running a home use program in an enterprise enviroment? Better hope you dont get audited....
I like MSSE and it's the only protection I use on Windows, but that testing was pretty objective. The sub-scores may not represent actual threats failures (gazillions of malware infections are often geographically limited, and not threats to most users), and as MS states, some of these are exploits which don't affect users (I assume because if they're keeping SE signatures updates through WU, they're also installing OS updates too).
I haven't even seen a infection detected or cleaned in like forever under Windows, but I'm not the typical warez-monkey/porn addict/britneyspears.jpg.exe.vbs link clicker who seem to constantly get infected.
I haven't even seen a infection detected or cleaned in like forever under Windows, but I'm not the typical warez-monkey/porn addict/britneyspears.jpg.exe.vbs link clicker who seem to constantly get infected.
I haven't even seen a infection detected or cleaned in like forever under Windows, but I'm not the typical warez-monkey/porn addict/britneyspears.jpg.exe.vbs link clicker who seem to constantly get infected.
I'm the same. I've used MSE since it came out and have never had a problem (on many PCs). But, I only use legit purchased software and browse forums/sites that have legit operators (like [H]).
electech98
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2002
- Messages
- 1,800
We use Symantec Endpoint Protection for most of our business clients, and have used MSE for businesses smaller than 10 users.
I'm not very impressed with either of them, really.
Does anyone have any opinions on Kaspersky for business/enterprise?
I'm not very impressed with either of them, really.
Does anyone have any opinions on Kaspersky for business/enterprise?
Maybe he manage these in a non-enterprise environment.. Like IT contracting jobs? My company manages thousands of computers and most of them are not related to each other ie not the same companies.
Under 10 computers per site?
bman212121
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2011
- Messages
- 1,815
It works fairly well but if you leave the default options with "smart mode" scanning you can kiss your productivity goodbye. (It will try to scan the entire folder before letting you see it) As far as detection goes it would probably be better with defaults but we use the "on execution" setting and only a handful of times do things slip by.
The server portion of it is what makes it stand out versus some other pieces of software. You can put everything into groups and set lots of tasks and policies to run on the pcs. It also works well to deploy small scripts to your computers if you don't have something in place for that.
In the past 10 years we've had McAfee, NOD32, sophos, and kaspersky. Out of all of those we've disliked Kaspersky the least. (There is no winning with AV software)
LMAO, no shit...
Article smacks of someone with an axe to grind. I haven't found anything that gets past mse on any production machine that is kept updated. That and it is still less intrusive than anything else. Until avg, avira, avast and the others accomplish that, I won't be installing.
Win 7, mse, malwarebytes..I haven't even had to use combo fix in at least a year. Rarely even need malwarebytes these days.
Win 7, mse, malwarebytes..I haven't even had to use combo fix in at least a year. Rarely even need malwarebytes these days.
Actually it's free for small business (less than 10 pc's)
Microsoft System Center 2012 Endpoint Protection is free if you have the right "partner" status with Microsoft
MSE at home, and I've seen the ocassional hit, like once every few months on the wife or kids systems.
At work we have the corporate version, and I usually see a hit once or twice a month due to people surfing where they shouldn't
I would bet a few 6 packs that the tester were paid off by other "Retail" anti-virus solution vendors to not pass Microsoft Security Essentials. As I've used it in virus removals a few times as it found malware/viruses other pay for solutions didn't. The people hosting that test had no incentive to pass MSE.
the best av protection is the end user. common sense goes a long way. i run msse and occasionally malwarebytes i have never had a virus or malware but then again i dont go to questionable websites or blindly click yes to every dialog box that pops up.
The axe to grind is this - MS is now including AV in its OS from the point of install.
All the other AV companies will not be happy about this. Until Windows 8 came out it was a open playing field. Give it another year and a lot of these companies will be out of business.
Hence why since about August of this year we have seen numerous 'independent' reports stating that MSE/Defender isnt very good.
Hmmmmmmmm.............
All the other AV companies will not be happy about this. Until Windows 8 came out it was a open playing field. Give it another year and a lot of these companies will be out of business.
Hence why since about August of this year we have seen numerous 'independent' reports stating that MSE/Defender isnt very good.
Hmmmmmmmm.............
The main problem with AV is the more popular it gets the less effective it gets.
The crime gangs will work on beating the top five AV programs and that would give them a break in to probably 75% of machines for 24 hours. MSE is really popular and you can bet its one of the first they test their code against.
You need to find one of the lesser known ones and hope they do enough work to keep it effective.
Me? I use MSE still but bolstered with EMET3.0 on max to help against the zero day stuff.
The crime gangs will work on beating the top five AV programs and that would give them a break in to probably 75% of machines for 24 hours. MSE is really popular and you can bet its one of the first they test their code against.
You need to find one of the lesser known ones and hope they do enough work to keep it effective.
Me? I use MSE still but bolstered with EMET3.0 on max to help against the zero day stuff.
rudy
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2004
- Messages
- 8,704
I never had a large problem with avira except they bugged the hell out of you in their free version which is why I quit using them.
AVG, I still use on a few machines but they have really screwed up, missing stuff and making machines unbootable after a update, not excusable, the antivirus is suppose to stop problems not create them. Same BS I used to deal with, with norton.
Avast seems to be my favority now, MSE on machines of people who dont know anything because its light and out of the way.
AVG, I still use on a few machines but they have really screwed up, missing stuff and making machines unbootable after a update, not excusable, the antivirus is suppose to stop problems not create them. Same BS I used to deal with, with norton.
Avast seems to be my favority now, MSE on machines of people who dont know anything because its light and out of the way.
Semantics
2[H]4U
- Joined
- May 18, 2010
- Messages
- 2,811
Reminds me i wonder when EMET will be for windows 8 there is 3.5 the tech preview but still nothing official for 8 which would help bring in some new features.
I don't know why they don't install it as standard. Who cares if it stops someones piece of shareware from 1998 working.
MS it's time to switch on all the security as the default!