Get Smart about Business Spending
Security Essentials fares well in AV-Test trial
Microsoft 's new Security Essentials software has passed at least one exam so far--a review by security testing firm AV-Test.org.
Using the latest version and definition updates of Microsoft Security Essentials (MSSE) downloaded from the Web, AV-Test ran the product through a series of tests on Sept. 29 and 30 to judge its effectiveness at fighting malware.
(Credit:
AV-Test.org)
To check static known malware, AV-Test pitted Security Essentials against the most recent WildList, a sampling of 3,732 viruses and other threats compiled by the WildList Organization. Microsoft's product successfully detected and blocked all of the samples in both manual and active scanning.
AV-Test also threw its current set of 545,034 viruses, worms, Trojans, and other threats at Security Essentials. MSSE successfully caught 536,535 samples for an overall good detection score of 98.44 percent.
In AV-Test's battle against adware and spyware, Security Essentials stopped 12,935 out of 14,222 samples, earning a detection grade of 90.95 percent. No false positives came up in a scan of over 600,000 clean files from Windows, MS Office, and other commonly used programs.
To check dynamic malware, which is based on its behavior rather than static lists, AV-Test found that MSSE had no "dynamic detection" in place as the software failed to find any of the recently released malware used in the test. AV-Test noted that other standalone antivirus products don't include behavior-based detection either, although that feature is typically found in full security suites.
MSSE also found and eliminated all 25 rootkits that AV-Test threw at it.
Security Essentials did only a fair job of cleaning up infections. Facing 25 different malware samples, the product removed all active components as part of its repair process. But in many cases, some remnants of the malware were left behind, as inactive executable files or empty Registry keys.
Finally, AV-Test found that the speed of Security Essentials scanning was about average compared with that of other security products.
AV-Test's review of Security Essentials was run on Windows XP with SP3, Windows Vista with SP2, and Windows 7 RTM, both the U.S. English and German 32-bit editions. A series of papers on the methodology used by AV-Test in its testing process are at the company's Web site.
CNET's Seth Rosenblatt also looked at Security Essentials this week, while CNET News reporter Ina Fried has said the beta version of the product recently saved her from a Koobface attack.
Lance Whitney wears a few different technology hats--journalist, Web developer, and software trainer. He's a contributing editor for Microsoft TechNet Magazine and writes for other computer publications and Web sites. You can follow Lance on Twitter at @lancewhit. Lance is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and he is not an employee of CNET. 
but this is certainly VERY good, at least people won't have to put up with lousy stuff like Avast and AVG, nor ads with Avira. Something free, fast and light. but no behavioural detection hmm...
I settle on Avast for all my family and Friends because their applications is very simple to use. Even though you do not have auto scheduling scanning on the Free Editon. It has all 7 shields that can be customized to your liking.
Together all 7 sheilds make a great AV package. But the most important is that it re-directs internt traffic through its engine to check every possible download of everything. Making it a great protection since it DOES stop traffic on the spot if it detects malicious activity.
This - re-direction - IN NO WAY CREATES A OR BUGS DOWN YOUR COMPUTER.
This is how an AV should work.
I understand your preferences MAY BE IN SOMETHING ELSE - but writing FUD such as your comment is not of any help.
Avira free
Malwarebytes free
SUPERAntiSpyware free
Iobit Security 360 free (which also has realtime protection).
WOT
Firefox.
That's all you need, and you don't have to spend a dime. Of course being careful is the most important factor, and not downloading via P2P like half the world does.
Here is my current setup on Snow Leopard.........................
:)
Windows XP Media Center with updates set to "download but nag me to install"
Online Armor Free Firewall
Malwarebytes Free
and...
nothing else.
Malwarebytes is not resident, only scans when I turn it on,
I use Limewire occasionally,
*and* I use Bit Torrent often.
Vicky is either Paranoid or a Virus Magnet.
Symantec & McAfee exec's should be scrambling right now because a good amount of their business is likely going to go away especially in this tough economy. Free & effective are as good as it gets!
When the final version comes out, I will probably keep it on this computer, since it is so easy on the CPU resources.
Load it on your friends system. Also to update your system just open up MSSE and do an update. It should update it to the final release.
IMHO there are certain aspects of an OS that should be allowed to have anti competitive practices if the intention is to secure a system from idiot users. (I've been using Windows since 1993 and I've had 1 virus in that time back in '95. If you are a bit careful and keep your system patched, you do not need AV software. Firewall and basic AV software are both critical to the security and integrity of an OS and dare I say it.....a matter of national security.
After MSBlaster a few years back I'm willing to actually use those words even though they have been thrown around WAY too easily in the last 9 years. Granted we haven't seen anything nearly as destructive as Blaster in the last 3+ years. However Blaster showed us what can happen to an unprotected computer OS ecosystem. XP SP2 was a good step in the right direction, vista another good step, Win 7 is another. However until native AV software comes preloaded with Windows. Its simply going to be minor steps.
Oh and to counter whatever iTard who will doubtless come up and scream switch to Apple. If OS X was so perfect why is Apple releasing almost monthly patches? Why is 10.6 shipping with AV software under the hood? No OS's security can protect the system from an idiot user who clicks YES.
@Vurk: I am neither paranoid, nor a virus magnet. I have those all just in case. I run Iobit Security 360 for anti-malware, Vista firewall, and Avira for my AV. Those are the only things I run realtime. The others are precautionary, other people use this computer occasionally.
Microsoft detected only 90.95% of spyware and your headline is how well they did? That is a mediocre score. If Norton or Kaspersky got that score the headline would have been how badly they did (Symantec recently detected 99.95% of the same sample set.
Worse, you wrote, "To check dynamic malware, which is based on its behavior rather than static lists, AV-Test found that MSSE had no "dynamic detection" in place as the software failed to find any of the recently released malware used in the test". This sounds like a major flaw in a product that many people will end up relying on. The headline should have been, "Microsoft does poorly in recent review by AV-Test.org"
Microsoft detected only 90.95% of spyware and your headline is how well they did? That is a mediocre score. If Norton or Kaspersky got that score the headline would have been how badly they did (Symantec recently detected 99.95% of the same sample set.
Worse, you wrote, "To check dynamic malware, which is based on its behavior rather than static lists, AV-Test found that MSSE had no "dynamic detection" in place as the software failed to find any of the recently released malware used in the test". This sounds like a major flaw in a product that many people will end up relying on. The headline should have been, "Microsoft does poorly in recent review by AV-Test.org"
- by fritzj92 October 10, 2009 8:03 AM PDT
- Dude... @Dlevinson15... symantec cost $, MSE is 0.00... 9% difference for alot of money... i'll take the free
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(19 Comments)@ Everyone else my set up
Windows 7 Ultimate (7600)