AV-Test calls Microsoft Security Essentials "very good"

AV-Test calls Microsoft Security Essentials "very good"

Summary: I know that it's hard for some people to accept it, but Microsoft is capable of getting things right. One such example of "getting it right" is Microsoft Security Essentials beta. While some security vendors have been quick to dismiss this new tool, the independent testing company AV-Test ranked the beta product as one of the best security products tested.

SHARE:
TOPICS: Microsoft, Security
6

I know that it's hard for some people to accept it, but Microsoft is capable of getting things right. One such example of "getting it right" is Microsoft Security Essentials beta. While some security vendors have been quick to dismiss this new tool, the independent testing company AV-Test ranked the beta product as one of the best security products tested.

Check out the Microsoft Security Essentials installation and UI gallery

AV-Test GmbH tested Microsoft Security Essentials, the free software Microsoft launched yesterday in beta, on Windows XP, Vista and Windows 7, putting it up against nearly 3,200 common viruses, bot Trojans and worms, said Andreas Marx, one of the firm's two managers. The malware was culled from the most recent WildList, a list of threats actually actively attacking computers.

"All files were properly detected and treated by the product," said Marx in an e-mail. "That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet."

Not only that, but Microsoft Security Essentials didn't throw up false positives, and also worked well at removing rootkits.

The way I look at it, if Microsoft Security Essentials actually turns out to be a good product, then that's good news for all of up. First, it provides a good security baseline for those folks out there who don't want to pay for security. Secondly, it'll mean that other commercial security vendors will have to raise their game. After all, there's plenty of scope - maybe keeping an eye on patches (both Windows and third-party ones), highlighting installed apps that contain a vulnerability, better network and device management, or maybe even real-time sand-boxing.

There's plenty left to do!

Topics: Microsoft, Security

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

6 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • Wow...

    Not bad: 3200 and all detected with 0 false positives. Can't complain about that.

    I seriously think that MS should be allowed to ship MSE with every copy of Windows. We can argue about monopoly related issues when it comes to other non-essential functionality like web-browsers and such. But when something like MSE can eliminate the threat of viruses/trojans/worms overnight, I think that it is sad that this is forbidden just for the sake of the well-being of anti-virus companies. These are the same companies that only came into existence because of security issues with Windows (whether via vulnerabilities or, much more common recently, due social engineering that does not even need any OS vulnerabilities). Keeping the security problem artificially alive just to keep Symantec et al in business is just irresponsible.

    BTW, monopoly laws were originally put in place to protect consumers, not competitors. Somewhere along the line it became all about the well-being of competitors, and not about the well-being of consumers. Yes I realize it is fun to "stick it to MS", but lets be realistic for a second here and instead focus on what is best for the end users instead of propping up companies that should not have existed in the first place.
    Qbt
    • me too

      I also belong to the school of thought that MS should be (not just allowed to) providing good/effective Anti Malware for free. AM is protecting users from vulnerabilities in the OS, in other words DEFECTS. Ideally, the vulnerabilities should be fixed in the OS or application, but until that happens we need AM to block the vulnerability.
      Ron_007
  • RE: AV-Test calls Microsoft Security Essentials

    What do you mean IF it turns out to be a good product?

    The reviews keep coming in, and the reviews are good. The rankings on the AV-Test are just further evidence to support the reviews!
    GoodThings2Life
  • RE: AV-Test calls Microsoft Security Essentials

    Hi, I downloaded and installed SE on the day that it was released for sue with, for now, my Windows 7 RC. so far I am very happy with it. In full scans it checks nearly as many files as did my Norton 360 beta, and though I didn't actually take a watch to it, I certainly think that it was at least as fast. On the quick scan it covers a good many files and manages to do it quite quickly. The updates seem to be reliably coming through at least twice a day, so I feel pretty well covered. My general feeling is that Microsoft has done a really admirable job with it.
    CharlesEtheridge
  • RE: AV-Test calls Microsoft Security Essentials

    But, again, the Feb AV-Comparatives report panned it (OneCare: same engine) for not doing well at detecting threats from the past year. Current, real threats in other words. Its May report (part 2 of the Feb report) said that it did very well for emerging threats, and it has done well for false positives.

    PC Mag didn't show it being very effective either:
    http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2348996,00.asp
    rseiler
  • Adrian, a question for you...

    Why is it that blogs like these never appear on the ZDNet front page? I only got to this by doing a search on ZDNet.

    I also don't believe it is based on popularity, because I see quite a few blogs on the front page for long times that don't get high votes at all.

    It makes sense though why there are so many anti-MS blogs, since I guess they are more guaranteed to be on the front page for longer.

    For instance, this one was on the front page for a long time:

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=1832

    But it was immediately removed from the front page after the inaccuracies were discovered, and the redaction itself was also not on the front page (one again, the only way to find these is to do a search for it).

    http://blogs.zdnet.com/igeneration/?p=1849

    Weird...

    [Yes, I realize I am once again risking having my posts deleted, but I would really like to believe that we can ask these kinds of questions and not be censored. I guess something like an open forum is too much to ask for]
    Qbt