Microsoft Security Essentials Struggles in New Antivirus Tests

[nsane.forums]

Microsoft's popular free antivirus program Security Essentials has put in a mediocre showing in the latest quarterly tests from German test outfit AV-Test.org, finishing second bottom out of 22 products. In Q1 2011 Security Essentials 2.0 (MSE) performed well at the least demanding test, that of spotting malware drawn from the industry-agreed Wildlist selection, scoring 100 percent. It also put in a good performance against a large group of recent malware samples selected by AV-Test itself, with a creditable score of 97 percent detection.

However, the product's performance deteriorated sharply when pitted against 107 recent zero-day malware web and email malware attacks, described by AV-Test as 'real-world' testing', spotting only half. The product's performance in 'dynamic detection testing' - noticing malware on or post-execution - was also modest at only 45 percent.

For context, the test average for real-world and dynamic testing was 84 percent and 62 percent respectively.

The top-scoring product in the tests was BitDefender's Internet Security Suite 2011, with a maximum weighted score of 6.0 across all tests, ahead of BullGuard Internet Security 10, F-Secure Internet Security 2011, and Kaspersky Internet Security 2011, all on 5.5. MSE scored 2.5, ahead of only one product, CA Internet Security Suite 2011.

AV-Test also looked at the impact of antivirus software on the performance of the PC. By this measure, often rated as important for many consumer users, MSE did relatively well, scoring 162 (lower being better) against the average of 171. This test showed a surprising degree of performance difference between suites, with BitDefender against doing well with a score of 111 against BullGuard's dismal 539.

Security Essentials was in the end awarded a 'pass' certification under the AV-Test assessment for making the grade in at least 11 of the 18 tests, putting it ahead of five products that failed altogether. In addition to CA's suite, these were Norman Security Suite Pro 8.0, McAfee Total Protection 2011, PC Tools Internet Security 2011, and Comodo Internet Security Premium 5.0/5.3.

Do the zero-day tests matter in everyday conditions? Arguably, yes. A common attack method is to hit users with zero-day exploits and so the ability to spot this challenging category of malware is crucial. According to AV-Test's quarterly results, MSE's performance in this test has also deteriorated quarter-on-quarter, dropping from around 75 percent to Q1's 50 percent.

"Microsoft is offering a free of charge virus scanner: MSE. The product is missing effective email and web protection and also dynamic detection/protection technologies, so the product performs worse when compared with other free or paid AV/ISS offering," said Andreas Marx of AV-Test by email to Techworld.

"That's the big problem with this tool - the majority of the other products tested includes such protection features, so they are performing better in our tests. And we expect that they are performing better in the 'real world' as well, which is the focus of our tests."

An individual user's exposure to a zero-day attack will depend on a number of factors, including the range of applications used and how assiduously a PC is patched.

As Marx noted, MSE is a free product - many of the rival suites charge upwards of £20 ($33) a year for a license. However, the dividing line isn't necessarily whether a product is free or not; several rival products offered in free versions did better than MSE. It is possible that free programs now need to include a wider range of detection features than they might have done in the past.

Version 2.0 of MSE was launched in December 2010 and anecdotal evidence suggests it has only enhanced the program's huge popularity. By September 2010, the software was said by Microsoft to have been installed on 31 million PCs globally, including 1.7 million in the UK.

The most interesting message of these tests is that a product can drop in effectiveness quite quickly, before in all likelihood rising again as a new version appears that adds new security elements.

View: Original Article

[majithia23]

no wonder ,

never liked it though ....

its slow , bland , and big slow in updates too .... <_<

[T4C Fantasy]

what lol? its the fastest security program for windows -.- it doesnt slow down the computer at all maybe 2% max.. while every other virus protectant slows down your pc alot, and it updates everyhour -.- slow my ass LOL

[niharjhatn]

LOL WTF look @ AVG's position in that av-test.org report...

WTF!

They probably did not configure various options for some of the other AVs, especially ESET :blink:

[majithia23]

@T4C Fantasy

check this link -- Lightest AV Test ,,,

it might help you to understand what fast is and clear your misconceptions .......... <_<

[DKT27]

Cmon guys lets not make it a AV war, things can be said is a better polite way. And each to it's own. ;)

[T4C Fantasy]

that list is outdated -.- 2.0.657 is latest version that has to be 2009 early 2010 benchmark :P

and look at the first and last benchmark its nearly the best scored on there -.- its not slow :)

[bwop]

I don't know man. I've become pretty skeptical of these AV tests.

I cannot tell you how many times customers have brought in computers that are heavily infected with many of these AVs installed (over the course of many machines that is).

Uninstall the current AV, add the ones I like, and voila! Problem solved.

More telling, many times people come in with their PC's running like molasses, and all I typically need to do is remove their AV and put in MSSE.

The difference in PC performance is startling.

Most of these security suites are so bloated, you really do need a newer computer to run them effectively. Got a PC from 2005? Forget it!

Yeah, the updates and full scan with MSSE is slow, but why does that really matter?

[majithia23]

@bwop

IMO , it is always ( ok , mostly ) ,, the user who is to be blamed for infecting and messing up a system ,

not the other way around , a system messing up because of an AntiMalware set up .... :P

the statement every wise geek quotes , " each to his own . " , ,,is a very well validated and substantiated statement ,

because , leaving a few exceptions aside ,

no anti malware suite is bad enough to let a system get infected that easily .... ;)

one package will be good in some respect , and the other in some other ,

so that narrows down to your personal tastes and comfort level with a product ...:)

i have seen many systems at my folks places , which despite running a AV ( as they report , its running ... ), getting heavily infected .

reason

--- expired product .

---- updates turned off .

---- faulty settings ( turning of modules .)

---- installing 'exceptional' AV's

----- Rogue AVs

----- no anti viruses ..

-----Conflicting set ups

----- Out of Date OS .

----- COMMON SENSE LEVEL 0% ( most important ... )

so , it explains ...

and there are many who dont even prefer using an Anti Virus Set up ....:sneaky:

and the modern AV suites are not bloatware , ( again leaving some exceptions ...) ...

ESET , Norton , Avast , for eg ... ---- Light , Fast , Accurate . :yes:

just my opinion -_-

[johndoe]

where can i download the latest (i think v3.1) box patch for bitdefender ? there were a couple of hotfile links in the forums which have expired

[bwop]

@bwop

IMO , it is always ( ok , mostly ) ,, the user who is to be blamed for infecting and messing up a system ,

not the other way around , a system messing up because of an AntiMalware set up .... :P

the statement every wise geek quotes , " each to his own . " , ,,is a very well validated and substantiated statement ,

because , leaving a few exceptions aside ,

no anti malware suite is bad enough to let a system get infected that easily .... ;)

one package will be good in some respect , and the other in some other ,

so that narrows down to your personal tastes and comfort level with a product ...:)

i have seen many systems at my folks places , which despite running a AV ( as they report , its running ... ), getting heavily infected .

reason

--- expired product .

---- updates turned off .

---- faulty settings ( turning of modules .)

---- installing 'exceptional' AV's

----- Rogue AVs

----- no anti viruses ..

-----Conflicting set ups

----- Out of Date OS .

----- COMMON SENSE LEVEL 0% ( most important ... )

so , it explains ...

and there are many who dont even prefer using an Anti Virus Set up ....:sneaky:

and the modern AV suites are not bloatware , ( again leaving some exceptions ...) ...

ESET , Norton , Avast , for eg ... ---- Light , Fast , Accurate . :yes:

just my opinion -_-

I agree with much of this, but I have to cater to the lowest common denominator. I need software that catches stuff, doesn't report false positives and doesn't make a PC older than 2 years (or one equipped with a Celeron) run like it's infected.

I've read and heard the claims of Norton, Macrappee, Kaspersky, etc, saying they've been streamlined, and my experience has vastly different from their marketing claims.

I consistently get complaints from people about their AV making their machines run slow, and that's from people who are not infected.

In fact, I often joke with a customer that comes in with a slow computer that they are infected with Norton, and I almost always get a positive response where the customer laughs and knows exactly what I mean.

[DKT27]

where can i download the latest (i think v3.1) box patch for bitdefender ? there were a couple of hotfile links in the forums which have expired

It's posted here. :)

[harpua]

I used ESET for many years but last year installed MSE. Although it doesn't offer many configuration options, it is extremely simple, lighter on system resources (ime) and actually seems better at removing infections than ESET. In short, although clearly not the best, I find MSE to be good enough, combined with my common sense, MalwareBytes and Comodo Firewall. And it's free and doesn't need to be patched or constantly updating licenses.

[johndoe]

where can i download the latest (i think v3.1) box patch for bitdefender ? there were a couple of hotfile links in the forums which have expired

It's posted here. :)

Thanks a lot!!!