Microsoft Bombs Antivirus Tests Yet Again

[Paul Wagenseil]

One has to understand the role of Windows Defender. It is there by default the first time you connect, much like IE it gives you the possibility to install something better but gives you protection to a certain degree until you do so.

Windows Defender should never be a replacement for an AV software it should be a default protection until you get your AV. And while not perfect the fact that by default Windows protects itself from 77 percent of threats without even having an AV is a huge step in the right directions from the days where you had 0 protection. WinXP could be hacked in 5 seconds after it connected to the internet. If you didn't slipstream patches or preinstalled from a CD or Flashdrive a protection software, you'd be hacked and ready before you could click download on any AV software. Microsoft does not invest and does not have a priority in developing high priority and high quality AV products.

This is exactly right.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

Best defence is just creating an Admin account and only use it as a system password like on Linux or OS X by FAR!!

This is right too. I can't stress enough how important separating admin tasks from daily tasks is to maintaining security.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

As MS say, its the baseline for AV on Windows. Its the main AV that the malware writers have to crack so its going to do poorly compared to the more obscure AV suites. However, blocking scripts, dumping Java, Flash and being careful what you install negates the need largely for the more complex suites. Slap on EMET if you want to improve the strength.

EMET is a great help, but it's not easy to configure. How many home users are going to set it up on their machines?

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

To be honest I don't really think this is a fair and real test. I would go so far as to say it's shady and biased. In the real world I use MSE and simply do not get viruses on any of my computers. Adware, sure, but MSE really doesn't clam to go after that junk (I wish it did). Plus MSE is free, which is a huge plus, and integrated so nicely. Just saying, I swear by MSE and have no complaints.

To rehash what an earlier poster said, how do you know you're not infected? Efficient malware never tells you it's there.

If you'd rather not pay, I recommend Avira Free Antivirus. It's almost as good as the best paid offerings.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

The issue I have with these tests is they include Chinese products but fail to include Trend and Sophos products two of the most widely installed business products in the western world is it just me or is this a glaring omission?

Because Tom's Guide is aimed at the consumer, we didn't report on AV-TEST's separate business-AV round of evaluations. You can find that here, and Sophos and Trend Micro (which was also part of the consumer round) are both on it:
http/www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/business-windows-client/

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

Strange, i installed Qihoo 360 just fine and i live in Finland. Anyone else who actually TRIED it instead of just repeating the bs found in the good old interwebz?

I have Qihoo 360 too and I'm in England, so as usual they haven't even bothered to look at it.

Well, there are two versions, and the last time I checked, only the IS (score: 17) suite had a english interface. They could have updated the other one though.

AV-TEST evaluated both, as we noted in the story.

 

[daglesj]

The interesting thing is that before MS included MSE/Defender in Windows 8 it always used to score very highly.

Now that it's baked into Windows...it scores very badly in all these 'independent' tests.

Hmmm you'd think some folks would have a vested interest in it scoring badly...

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

The interesting thing is that before MS included MSE/Defender in Windows 8 it always used to score very highly.

Now that it's baked into Windows...it scores very badly in all these 'independent' tests.

Hmmm you'd think some folks would have a vested interest in it scoring badly...

You may be right, but I can't remember it ever performing well. Take a look at this evaluation roundup done on Windows XP in December 2010, in which Microsoft Security Essentials come in near the bottom: http/www.av-test.org/en/antivirus/home-windows/windows-xp/september-2010/

 

[koss64]

No mention of how many false positives the anti virus programs give, I would imagine that the table would be up sided down, also MSE scores the highest for useability, which is why I use MSE, hassle free and ease of use.

I've used Kaspersky for years, and the only times I need to even go near the software is when I want to. The firewall is very smart about my needs, and for those times when I end up getting ads with driveby kits in them(in spite of adblock), it pops up to let me know that some piece of @#$% just tried to screw with me and failed, then slides out of sight.

I guess, I can see that when I do delve into the menus it can be a little circular maybe, but we're all adults here, we can click on things that sound like they're what we're looking for. So usability is a bit of a crock, imo.

It's all well and good that so many people here seem to think that security essensials is all you'll ever need and all, because who clicks on dumb stuff anyways, but while you can exclusively use a browser with scriptblock and adblock and never see a compromising link in your life, you cannot guaruntee the same for your spouse/children/parents/relatives.

There are ignorant people using the internet, and they would like to continue being able to do so without needing to get a certification in itsec. Stop claiming that MS Defender is all you'll ever need since you're only serving to mislead people into thinking it's a viable solution.

I take it then you have never gotten a support call at 9:00pm from a frantic user who cant browse because Norton decided to randomly block port 80 or an entire campus not being able to browse the internet because Endpoint(yes Norton again, sorry but they have been a thorn in my side most of my adult life) starts blocking the server and random clients from browsing the network and internet. While I agree that enterprise solution may require more than Widows Defender it cannot come at the expense of the sanity of the people who use the computers and the people who have to support them.The solutions at the top very often have steep user requirements and have the stability of a Jenga tower built by a novice just waiting to collapse.

 

[leeashton]

appears this is more a case of personal preference, on my PC dit defender does not even start where avast does!

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

appears this is more a case of personal preference, on my PC dit defender does not even start where avast does!

Do you have them both installed? If so, uninstall one of them -- not a good idea to run two separate AV products side-by-side.

 

[ddt529]

Proprietary software vendors will tell you a different story. Some of those high scoring AVs on this list render those apps unusable. Personally, knowing how to safely navigate the web and access email does far more to prevent infections than any robust AV suite will. I use security essentials on win7 and defender on win8 with malwarebytes as a secondary manual scanner. Cannot remember the last time I got a virus. Also let's talk about ransomware such as cryptowall. A lot of the AVs don't even detect it. Yeah...I'll pass on this evaluation.

 

[Fr33Th1nk3r]

1 word. Linux.

 

[computertech82]

I use avira myself. It has been ranking well for a year or 2.

 

[chittychitty]

Because Bitdefender is first on the list, I downloaded a trial version of their antivirus to give it a shot. The first thing it tried to do, before the software was even installed, was to uninstall Microsoft Security Essentials! If I was a casual user they may have even gotten away with it, but I run other software that prevents sneaky moves like that.

I don't trust Bitdefender, and now I don't trust av-test.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

Because Bitdefender is first on the list, I downloaded a trial version of their antivirus to give it a shot. The first thing it tried to do, before the software was even installed, was to uninstall Microsoft Security Essentials! If I was a casual user they may have even gotten away with it, but I run other software that prevents sneaky moves like that.

I don't trust Bitdefender, and now I don't trust av-test.

That's exactly what the Bitdefender software should be doing. You don't want to have two different AV solutions running on the same PC, as such a setup would create a substantial performance hit.

 

[JackNaylorPE]

I had a relative on my wife's side who was having problems. The computer was essentially unusable and I was asked to take a look at it. Having been down this road before, I asked if she was using AV and malware software, and she said yes, Defender / SE.

I keep 30 day trials on a CD that I took over there and installed one of those mentioned here .... it took several passes but it found over 1200 infections. After that I still had to remove 3 or 4 of them manually.

 

[Kadathan]

@Jacknaylor This is my experience. People who say "Defender is all that's necessary! I have it and I never get malware!" Are being naieve. It means you don't click on stupid links, fake buttons, and you know how to safely navigate. It doesn't mean your stock, free AV is the best thing ever, it means you're being safe. Unfortunately many people don't have the experience or knowledge to be safe on the net, and sometimes even the safe people end up exposed some way or another, and in these cases windows defender isn't enough. If you're going around recommending only defender, stop doing that, you're putting people at risk for absolutely no reason.
It's like telling someone else they don't need a helmet because you ride a bike all the time, and never fall off of it or hit anything, so they must also be super good at it and it's completely safe. What's right for you may not be right for others or right at all.

 

[Alpha3031]

I had a relative on my wife's side who was having problems. The computer was essentially unusable and I was asked to take a look at it. Having been down this road before, I asked if she was using AV and malware software, and she said yes, Defender / SE.

I keep 30 day trials on a CD that I took over there and installed one of those mentioned here .... it took several passes but it found over 1200 infections. After that I still had to remove 3 or 4 of them manually.

If you're going for a on demand scanner, Malwarebytes is definitely very good, and the on demand part is free. For normal use a thirty day trial is nice and all, and good for convincing someone to buy it, but a computer usually needs AV for more than that.

 

[Paul Wagenseil]

I had a relative on my wife's side who was having problems. The computer was essentially unusable and I was asked to take a look at it. Having been down this road before, I asked if she was using AV and malware software, and she said yes, Defender / SE.

I keep 30 day trials on a CD that I took over there and installed one of those mentioned here .... it took several passes but it found over 1200 infections. After that I still had to remove 3 or 4 of them manually.

If you're going for a on demand scanner, Malwarebytes is definitely very good, and the on demand part is free. For normal use a thirty day trial is nice and all, and good for convincing someone to buy it, but a computer usually needs AV for more than that.

Malwarebytes is great if you're already infected and you need to remove things. But it won't do much, if anything, to prevent infection in the first place.

The nice thing is that since it's not really antivirus software, it won't interfere with the real thing. The optimal setup is to have serious AV software to block infection, and Malwarebytes to scan weekly or so (it'll pick up the non-malicious things that AV software often ignores, like browser hijackers). And then, of course, account segregation, EMET, etc....