MS Security Essentials test shows 98% detection rate for 545k malware samples
Summary: According to recent tests conducted by AV-Test.org aiming to measure the performance of Microsoft's Security Essentials, the freeware application achieved 98% detection rate for 545k malware samples including viruses, bots, trojan horses, backdoors and Internet worms, also achieving 90.
According to recent tests conducted by AV-Test.org aiming to measure the performance of Microsoft's Security Essentials, the freeware application achieved 98% detection rate for 545k malware samples including viruses, bots, trojan horses, backdoors and Internet worms, also achieving 90.95% detection rate for 14,222 adware/spyware samples it was tested against.
However, AV-Test.org didn't find any effective "dynamic detection" features (HIPS/behavior blocking) in place, and therefore samples with malicious behavior were not detected due to the application's reliance on malware signatures only.
Testing MS's Security Essentials is one thing, benchmarking it against other market propositions is entirely another. What both of these practices have in common, is the potential to leave the end user with a false feeling of security (Does free antivirus offer a false feeling of security?) by ignoring the fact that antivirus software is only a part of their defense in-depth security strategy (Secunia: popular security suites failing to block exploits; Secunia: Average insecure program per PC rate remains high).
Naturally, the final release for Microsoft's Security Essentials is already sparking debate on its performance characteristics when benchmarked against commercial products offered by competing vendors. For instance, Symantec, dismissed the application as a “a stripped down version of the OneCare product Microsoft pulled from retail shelves“ in July, and most recently commented that it offers "reduced defenses" :
"From a security perspective, this Microsoft tool offers reduced defenses at a critical point in the battle against cybercrime. Unique malware and social engineering tricks fly under the radar of traditional signature-based technology alone—which is what is employed by free security tools such as Microsoft's"
And whereas different comparative reviews (Norton Antivirus 2009 Versus Microsoft Security Essentials: A Comparative Anti-Malware test; Anti-Virus Comparative August 2009) show different results, protecting from known threats only, in times when cybercriminals are efficiently tricking signatures based malware scanners (Modern banker malware undermines two-factor authentication), can cause more harm than good by attempting to simply build awareness on Internet security threats by offering a freeware antivirus scanner to millions of end users.
What do you think? TalkBack.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
I have to defend Microsoft on this...
[i]last[/i] company to be complaining.
I can't tell you how many computers I've "fixed" simply by removing
any and all Symantec/Norton products from a computer, then
installing Avast or AVG.
Symantec makes some of the worst software out there. I can't stand
their products.
I also find it amusing that the Uninstall never works for Norton
anything. You always have to go to Symantec's website and download
their specialized "Removal Tool" just to get rid of the bloody thing.
I agree
So Im not the only one then.
Symantec/Norton products
Hey....
RE 0002739532
But another point is that any real serious
threat MS is going to send a definition out.
Plus I don't want all the other CPU and memory
and HD intensive activity on my system.
First off I have never had any virus ever
period.
Secondly if I did I think MS Essentials would
get it off.
If not then it is time for a format and
reinstall which takes very little time with any
normal modern PC etc. Windows 7 and this will
work for me.
I have a question for you...
He didn't say...
Not directly...
"Plus I don't want all the other CPU and memory
and HD intensive activity on my system."
That's the same question I ask when...
I asked my employer that question this past week. His response was that it's not a virus. Then he asked me how many Macs have I deal with that had viruses...
I guess he didn't see how circular that reasoning is.
Thankfully, someone let me know that I could check things out with the activity monitor.
very little time ?
kindly explain how to format and reinstall windows and 100 or so applications in very little time......
Very little time
I use Norton Ghost, forget the Symantec bashing, it works all the time, every time. It is used by major computer manufactures for their system restore function also. Dell is the first to come to mind.
Not to do this is to doom yourself to hours and hours of headache when the need arises to reformat; believe me, it will come!
Norton SOS
Anti-viruses do have a security role
Simply put:
NOT an AV product, where cyber criminals and other "evil-doers" are constantly trying to out wit security experts.
Symantec just negated any future complaints
So MSE doesn't compete with your product? Excellent, we'll expect to hear nothing about you running to the DoJ or the EU about this matter then.
I'm no fan of bundling in general
I have to disagree.
At least when it comes to the state of current A/V implementations. They try to be all things to everyone and as such cause more problems than they solve (decreased performance, applications which fail to work, incompatibilities, etc).
MSE doesn't do that. It is an A/V scanner and that's it. Thus it appears to have avoided the performance hit and I suspect it won't create nearly the problems other packages have.
It might be one I won't hesitate to put on my friends systems.
Perhaps I was unclear
I am happy MS has released this AV and will not mind at all if it includes it in the OS since the importance of basic security (in my own opinion) supersedes the interest of security. I agree that many of the solutions cause the problem you speak of though I have found Avast to be more reliable than Symantec and McAfee and it rarely causes any performance issues for the most part.
Completely agree...