Microsoft Admits That Third-Party Antivirus Is More Effective Than MSE

[LimeMaster]

I don't use it on Linux. :p

I'm talking about average users that use Windows not Linux users. :p

[Riggers]

Well this seems to have gone round in circles a few times. Microsoft could easily make MSE nearer in detection rates to the other AV alternatives it`s just this would take a fair amount of resources. They would need a dedicated team scouring malware domains, testing, creating and releasing signatures on an hourly basis. Also people/automation working on better detection of malware families so specific sigs don`t need creating.

One thing to remember when talking about bloat, memory usage is only a small part of the story. Some AV`s will keep the majority of their sigs in memory if available (up to a certain amount) whereas others will have to access them from disc and we all know accessing something from memory is quicker! So just because your AV uses a miniscule amount of memory doesn`t mean it is light. Normally you`ll have to try it for yourself as different settings can also have a big impact, scanning on execution, reading, writing, etc, etc...

 

As has been said before the most important part of the whole equation sits right between your ears ;)

 

I do seem to have had to clean quite a lot of computers with MSE on lately, more so (it seems) than when it was first released. This may be due to the fact Defender is now included in 8/8.1 so the writers make sure it isn`t detected!

[Growled Member]

I'm talking about average users that use Windows not Linux users. :p

 

I know. I was teasing. I am still amazed that we need anti-virus in this day and time, regardless of the OS. I am sitting here at work on my Windows box now.  

[articuno1au]

That would be because people are scum bags. It's not a technical question.

 

If we want people to be able to do stuff with their computers, we have to deal with others being *******s.

[LimeMaster]

I know. I was teasing. I am still amazed that we need anti-virus in this day and time, regardless of the OS. I am sitting here at work on my Windows box now.

Yeah I guess! It isn't really something that should be needed, but unfortunately it is due to virus writers and due to the fact that more than fifty percent of users don't take care when on the internet. :/

[Growled Member]

Yeah I guess! It isn't really something that should be needed, but unfortunately it is due to virus writers and due to the fact that more than fifty percent of users don't take care when on the internet. :/

 

I don't think it is needed. I'm of the opinion that a lot of what these anti-virus do is scam people into believing they need them. Also, people would rather have convenience over security. That said, Google makes Chrome OS so that it scans the system at startup and if any system file is not right then it gets replaced with the correct one. They all could do that.

[Max Norris]

That said, Google makes Chrome OS so that it scans the system at startup and if any system file is not right then it gets replaced with the correct one. They all could do that.

Interesting idea, but I see two flaws with that concept on a "full" desktop OS. One is the obvious, if malware takes that scanner out or tricks the scanner into thinking a file is good then it's rendered useless. For me the bigger problem would be performance though.. ChromeOS is basically a browser and is quite lightweight, so there wouldn't be that much to scan. Waiting on a complete system scan for a full blown desktop operating system is going to have a huge hit on startup time, regardless of which OS it is. I'd be willing to bet something that like would get disabled by the majority of users just because of the inconvenience of waiting for a few minutes for their system to boot versus a few seconds.

[articuno1au]

Interesting idea, but I see two flaws with that concept on a "full" desktop OS. One is the obvious, if malware takes that scanner out or tricks the scanner into thinking a file is good then it's rendered useless. For me the bigger problem would be performance though.. ChromeOS is basically a browser and is quite lightweight, so there wouldn't be that much to scan. Waiting on a complete system scan for a full blown desktop operating system is going to have a huge hit on startup time, regardless of which OS it is. I'd be willing to bet something that like would get disabled by the majority of users just because of the inconvenience of waiting for a few minutes for their system to boot versus a few seconds.

Windows 8 essentially does that with secure boot.

 

It checks that the files are signed etc >.< Has the same effect.

[LimeMaster]

I don't think it is needed. I'm of the opinion that a lot of what these anti-virus do is scam people into believing they need them. Also, people would rather have convenience over security. That said, Google makes Chrome OS so that it scans the system at startup and if any system file is not right then it gets replaced with the correct one. They all could do that.

Suppose.

The only problem with that is since Windows Updates replace system files and it might mistakenly think the files replaced is bad, which would cause some problems. 

[Max Norris]

Windows 8 essentially does that with secure boot.

It's already been beaten, never mind that only somewhat helps systems that actually use it and have it enabled to begin with, namely people running into problems running a non-Windows OS.

[Growled Member]

Interesting idea, but I see two flaws with that concept on a "full" desktop OS. One is the obvious, if malware takes that scanner out or tricks the scanner into thinking a file is good then it's rendered useless. 

 

That's why the scanner doesn't need to be local but in the cloud, or at least somewhere that nothing can ever touch it.

 

 

For me the bigger problem would be performance though.. ChromeOS is basically a browser and is quite lightweight, so there wouldn't be that much to scan. Waiting on a complete system scan for a full blown desktop operating system is going to have a huge hit on startup time, regardless of which OS it is. I'd be willing to bet something that like would get disabled by the majority of users just because of the inconvenience of waiting for a few minutes for their system to boot versus a few seconds.

 

That's why I say people chose convenience over security. You only boot up once a day, so what if it takes a  few minutes?

[Max Norris]

That's why the scanner doesn't need to be local but in the cloud, or at least somewhere that nothing can ever touch it.

Brings its own overhead, never mind problems stemming from connectivity issues. If I take my laptop out of range from my network, how's that going to work? (Plus there's the usual "NSA backdoor!!" nonsense if somebody wants to go there, I don't but /shrug on here I'm not surprised by anything anymore, that's not directed at you.)

 

That's why I say people chose convenience over security. You only boot up once a day, so what if it takes a  few minutes?

Well that's purely personal preference of course. Me, I'll take my 15ish second boot time, and haven't had to deal with an oops as far as security goes in ~10 years, never mind it doesn't do jack for people who don't power down their system at all except maybe that once-per-month update. Out of about 15 desktop/server systems here only two ever actually get a full restart/powerdown as they don't have battery backups attached to them, barring a Windows/*Nix kernel update of course. Relying on protection that only runs once a month isn't terribly secure, especially for the malware that doesn't start up until after the system boots anyway, not all of them are rootkits.

[Ryster]

I suppose admitting you've got a problem is the first step down the road to fixing that problem.

 

Maybe they'll devote a few more resources towards developing MSE now?

[Growled Member]

...., and haven't had to deal with an oops as far as security goes in ~10 years...

 

Same here. I rarely have any problems here at work on Windows. It's been years since we've gotten any viruses and we send and receive a ton of email every day and use a browser constantly. I've ran Windows 7 at home until recently and I've never had to install any anti-virus on it. That is what leads me to believe that a lot of this anti-virus scare is just that, a scare tactic.

[Crimson Rain]

If they couldn't write a secure OS, what makes you think they can plug the holes any better?

 

It's like asking an engineer why their building fell down. If they knew, they wouldn't have let it happen.

 

Also, I'm inclined to think there is some pressure to be had there >.>

Stop talking out of your ass. x86 systems by design allows any arbitrary code and deep system level access.

 

Can you write a virus for Windows RT?

 

MSE was one of the best antivirus when they put effort on it. Recently they are not focusing on it; that's why it has been going downhill. I think it is a bad decision on their part.

[Chemaz]

Did anyone really read the article? It mentions that the reason they've slipped on the tests, and why they're near the bottom is that they have shifted focus from the tests to real world threats and up and coming threats. Its says they spent a large amount of time and money on trying to pass those av tests to "look" good, while the software might actually not be that good in a real life situation.

 

So does make you think that some of the AV companies at the top may just actually be focusing on passing the tests, and dont give a crap about it working well in a normal day to day situation

[+Fulcrum Subscriber¹]

I don't think MSFT ever intended MSE to replace, not even COMPETE with 3rd party AV. If we recall the dilemmas Microsoft was facing: bad publicity revolving around seemingly less secure OS than competitors and antitrust lawsuits.

 

MSE has been a very successful product for MSFT by reducing bad publicity and I think it has to stay marginal to save them from any further antitrust lawsuits.

[articuno1au]

Stop talking out of your ass. x86 systems by design allows any arbitrary code and deep system level access.

 

Can you write a virus for Windows RT?

 

MSE was one of the best antivirus when they put effort on it. Recently they are not focusing on it; that's why it has been going downhill. I think it is a bad decision on their part.

Yes you can you ignoramus ****wit.

 

You know how we know that? You can root the device, arbitrary code can then be executed.

 

More to the point, this has absolutely nothing to do with the instruction set the chip executes, otherwise Android would be malware free as well. Have I mentioned that there is Malware for ia86 chips also?

 

You are the worst kind of poster. You are simultaneously wrong and being an *******. Even better than that, you took something out of context to attack. My point was that there's a benefit to third parties being in control of the anti-malware work.

 

If Microsoft could have blocked it (or had thought to), they would have done it in their operating system. It's likely they will in future versions, but getting the people who wrote the OS to look for problems with the operating system, as I said, like asking an engineer why their building fell down. They wouldn't have built it that way on purpose.

 

Next time you want to take a swipe, at least be right.

 

[javajolt]

Kingsoft Antivirus is good, but does not work on Windows 8.1 :(

[LUTZIFER]

I'm not to concerned. In all the years I've been using computers, I've gotten 2 minor viruses which I've manually removed myself.

And I've been dealing with warez and such since 1995, and porn sites.

Although I in a porn sites aren't the culprits for viruses, many people think that's how you get them.

I feel very safe with MSE and Malwarebytes Pro, and my own brain. ;)

[LittleNeutrino Veteran]

never had a problem but it never hurts to add more, after reading the initial report i installed Avast essentials again.

[Noir Angel]

MSE/Defender is crap (and they still haven't fixed the bug that causes slowdowns in folders with a lot of EXE's after about 5 years), but it certainly beats having no antivirus at all, a lot of users are still plenty stupid and it's a good thing to have it in Windows out of the box. Of course I usually install Avast for anyone the moment they ask for my help but I can't help everyone :P