Microsoft's OneCare takes last place in anti-virus evaluation

[macstorm]

The top dog in the tests was G Data Security's AntiVirusKit

March 01, 2007 -- Microsoft's Windows Live OneCare came in dead last out of a group of 17 anti-virus programs tested against hundreds of thousands of worms, viruses, Trojan horses and other malware, an Austrian anti-virus researcher reported yesterday.

The AV Comparatives Web site, which is maintained by Andreas Cleminti from Innsbruck, Austria, posts quarterly results of tests that pit the top anti-virus products against a dynamic list of nearly half a million individual pieces of malware.

Top dog, according to Cleminti's tests, was G Data Security's AntiVirusKit (AVK), which nailed 99.5% of the malicious code. Not far behind were AEC's TrustPort AV WS, at 99.4%, Avira's AntiVir PE Premium, at 98.9%, MicroWorld's eScan Anti-Virus, at 97.9%, F-Secure's Anti-Virus, at 97.9%, and Kaspersky Labs' AV, which stopped 97.9% of the malware.

Better known products such as Symantec's Norton Anti-Virus and McAfee's VirusScan posted results of 96.8% and 91.6%, respectively.

Holding the bottom spot was Microsoft's Windows Live OneCare, the consumer security suite that the Redmond, Wash. developer launched last year. OneCare took care of just 82.4% of the malware.

Cleminti also tested the 17 products against polymorphic viruses, those which produce sometimes vast numbers of variants as they try to sneak by scanners. "The results of the polymorphic test are of importance because they how flexible an anti-virus scan engine is and how good the detection quality of complex viruses is," said Cleminti in his write-up.

Only Symantec's Norton AntiVirus and ESET's NOD32 Anti-Virus caught every variant of the 12 polymorphic families, he said. In that test, OneCare placed 15th, detecting every version of only two families, and missing seven of the polymorphic families completely.

Cleminti's report is available online (download PDF).

This is not the first evaluation to give a Microsoft security program a black eye. Last week, for example, Australian security company PC Tools released research that claimed Windows Defender -- Microsoft's anti-spyware title -- detected just 46% to 53% of spyware.

"We are looking closely at the methodology and results of the test to ensure that Windows Live OneCare performs better in future tests," a Microsoft spokesperson said.

Source: Computerworld

[Slimy]

AV Comparatives is a good site. Poor Microsoft. Then again, OneCare is just a new born. At least they've started somewhere... 82,40%

[Deathray]

Not to be too off topic, but the antivirus programs that took top honours... I've never heard about them before and now I'm intrigued ;)

OneCare... well that's not surprising based on what has already been said about the program, I'm just curious how this would be allowed to happen. I would assume they'd have plenty to test their product against

[Mr. Gibs]

f-secure owns. But for a new product like onecare by a company that has no experience in anti-virus and ****. Its still a good start.

[NienorGT]

Took me long to find it. (Well, 1 minute is long to find the real site of the "best" antivirus IMO)

http://www.gdata.de/trade/productview/727/16/

Btw, for people saying that it's good for MS's first entry, let me says that MS actually brought a company of Antivirus and a company of anti-spyware for making One Care in 2005...

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/72600/microsof...-consumers.html

Edited March 2, 2007 by Nienor

[Mr. Gibs]

Took me long to find it. (Well, 1 minute is long to find the real site of the "best" antivirus IMO)

http://www.gdata.de/trade/productview/727/16/

Btw, for people saying that it's good for MS's first entry, let me says that MS actually brought a company of Antivirus and a company of anti-spyware for making One Care in 2005...

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/72600/microsof...-consumers.html

Well yes they bought the company to make the software. But its them who are doing the virus finding and updates yeh?

[NienorGT]

The previous team that was working on the previous software from the previous company with some new MS people to put this together :p

I simply mean that is not a "new" start...

[Mr. Gibs]

The previous team that was working on the previous software from the previous company with some new MS people to put this together :p

I simply mean that is not a "new" start...

Ah ok, didnt know that lol.

[ahfunaki]

Anyone ever use this AntiVirusKit? If so, how is it?

[Aero Ultimate]

No surprise that MS releases a shoddy security product, but that it's that abysmally bad to place last? :x

[Shasoosh]

to many charts

best antivirus is?

[Malisk]

to many charts

best antivirus is?

Check the summary PDF? The answer depends on your needs. Not only detection accuracy plays a role, but feature sets too.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/erge...summary2006.pdf

I personally use and recommend NOD32 for great detection rates, fast speed, configurability, and frequent updates. That AV also takes the prize as Overall Winner in this test. Kaspersky is often brought forward as having near top scores in accuracy, but it lacks e.g. heuristic scans like NOD32 that can occasionally be useful in very sudden virus outbreaks. I'd avoid anything Symantec/Norton as many agree it has low performance. We also missed good enterprise-scale monitoring features in the Corporate Edition of Symantec Antivirus here. Try AVG or Avast! if you're a home user that can't stomach paying for it. :)

Edited March 2, 2007 by Jugalator

[Shasoosh]

i use nod32

AVK+ looks interesting..

would you recommend it over nod32?

*nod in hebrew is Fart :) no kidding..

any way, one care is out of the question :)

Edited March 2, 2007 by Namooth

[Aero Ultimate]

Check the summary PDF? The answer depends on your needs. Not only detection accuracy plays a role, but feature sets too.

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/erge...summary2006.pdf

The 2006 tests are totally outdated, and the test results are not valid anymore!

Look at the actual test results from February 2007 which just got released, things changed quite a bit:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Here are the results from the 2007 report pdf:

As you can see, Nod32 did even worse than Symantec! :blink:

[Cosmin]

As everyone expected :)

[macstorm]

Anyone ever use this AntiVirusKit? If so, how is it?

I'm actually using it since last december (screenshot) and the system resources usage is pretty acceptable IMO (the maker claims this 2007 version is around 30% lighter from previous version). However, I had to make some tweaking on it disabling certain options (did also a custom install) in order to suit AVK 2007 to my needs.

Btw, AVK uses two antivirus engines, the current 2007 version includes the Kaspersky+Avast! engines.

Former 2006v. was Kasp+BitDefender :shiftyninja:

[+Batfink Subscriber²]

The BBC has just picked this up: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6418965.stm

Windows fails second virus test

The OneCare software has failed two independent tests. Microsoft's Live OneCare security software has failed tests which check how well it spots and stops malicious programs designed to attack Windows.

OneCare was the only failure among 17 anti-virus programs tested by the AV Comparatives organisation. Microsoft's software only spotted 82.4% of the 500,000 viruses that the independent group subjected it to. The test is the second in less than a month that Microsoft's anti-virus software has failed.

Batfink

[ATLien_0]

Nod32 and Norton at the top overall not bad, nod32 is much less heavy on resources compared to norton from what i hear

[L3thal Veteran]

Nod32 and Norton at the top overall not bad, nod32 is much less heavy on resources compared to norton from what i hear

You didn't just hear it, by the way. Its a known fact ;)

[*John*]

Norton FTW! :wub:

[Koolslacker]

Who really uses CareOne! If you really want a antivirus program, you are better off buying a third party software, then using CareOne.

[Aero Ultimate]

Who really uses CareOne! If you really want a antivirus program, you are better off buying a third party software, then using CareOne.

Exactly. No one with at least one working brain cell left would use that OneCare crap :x

Absolutely any other AV is better - even Norton :pinch:

[JockStrap]

Norton FTW!

No, Norton ****ing sucks.

[Quillz]

Exactly. No one with at least one working brain cell left would use that OneCare crap :x

Absolutely any other AV is better - even Norton :pinch:

I have several working brain cells and I use OneCare on my laptop. It works fine for me, not to mention that I'm very good about avoiding any suspicious files. Please don't assume that everyone who uses this program doesn't know any better.

[Aero Ultimate]

I have several working brain cells and I use OneCare on my laptop. It works fine for me, not to mention that I'm very good about avoiding any suspicious files. Please don't assume that everyone who uses this program doesn't know any better.

You mean you knowingly wasted money on a crap program that placed last in the AV test, even though you knew better? :blink:

That doesn't sound very smart to me, not at all :pinch: