Untrustworthy AV review site posts bad review of MSE

Discussion in 'Networking & Security' started by evilsofa, Dec 20, 2013.

  1. evilsofa

    evilsofa [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    10,083
    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    There's a new round of bad press for Microsoft Security Essentials, in which it is claimed that MSE missed 39% of malware thrown at it:

    http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/securit...ssentials-misses-39-of-malware-in-dennis-test

    However, this review comes from Dennis Publishing, who seems to have financial reasons to be heavily favorable to Symantec products. Early this year, it was found that another of their tests in which MSE performed poorly and Norton performed extremely well had questionable paramaters:

    http://www.geek.com/microsoft/micro...-strikes-out-on-questionable-av-test-1538990/
     
  2. /usr/home

    /usr/home [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,166
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    Symantec can blow me. That is all.
     
  3. Liger88

    Liger88 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    2,660
    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2012
    MSE has worked great for me since its inception. At least MSE has kept to its simplistic interface and knows what it is and what it isn't. It was never meant to compete with the other AV's. It just so happened that when it first released it was a kick ass product. It was meant to give every basic Windows user a readily available solution to help protect their system.

    I don't need something that can catch 99% of the 20,000 new viruses/malware signatures that pop up every damn year. I'm not an Internet whore so much that I bang every shady website, or doesn't understand what he downloads. It isn't rocket science. Plus, all the cool kids are imaging their machine these days.

    They can all blow me, especially Norton who's probably blowing McAfee. Never forget the 90's!
     
  4. XOR != OR

    XOR != OR [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    11,566
    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Agreed.

    I've had the...um..."pleasure" of working with Symantec. Both in small and large environments. It's shit. Garbage. The administrative tools are horrible, and the client his resource heavy ( prompting elevated user complaints ).

    The bottom line is to choose anything BUT Symantec.
     
  5. /usr/home

    /usr/home [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    6,166
    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2008
    I'm glad we are finally phasing out SEP for SCCM Endpoint.

    AV really is our last line of defence and very rarely do we get hits due to strict GPOs and good filtering and keeping up to date software. I'd say we see a hit a month and then it's usually always a cookie. I don't remember the last time we had an actual infection.
     
  6. Red Squirrel

    Red Squirrel [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    9,211
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2009
    Honestly I don't trust AVs in general to protect me 100%. With the whole NSA stuff going on how do we know all AV companies are not forced to NOT detect certain viruses, such as NSA written ones? It sounds a bit tin foil hat, but think about it, it's a possibility. Not saying you should not go with no AV, but you also should not assume you are 100% secure no matter what AV you use.
     
  7. jadams

    jadams 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    4,088
    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2010
    If you've kept up with even a fraction of the Snowden leaks then there is absolutely nothing tinfoil hat-ish you could possibly think up involving the NSA and what they can/want to do.
     
  8. shade91

    shade91 Guest

    Symantec and McAfee products are absolute shit. So much for the biased Dennis tests.