Webroot: Vista's Defender stops 16% of 25 Spyware Samples

According to the results of a two-week study of Windows Defender by Webroot, a leading antispyware vendor and Microsoft competitor, the product missed 84% of a sample set of 25 spyware, Trojan horse programs and keyloggers. Many of the samples were unable to install on Vista and simply crashed, but others got through just fine. Webroot's Spy Sweeper product spotted all of the samples.

Gerhard Eschelbeck, Chief Technology Officer at Webroot, said the point of the study was not to draw specific conclusions. He acknowledged that 25 samples was a tiny fraction and that it may be possible for Microsoft or other competitors to pick samples of malicious code that would evade Webroot's Spy Sweeper. "It's important to leave the interpretation up to individuals. People need to make their own conclusions about it," he said. Eschelbeck noted that Microsoft should update Windows Defender quicker than on a weekly basis. Webroot has been hurt by Microsoft's entry into the desktop and enterprise security business and the company's decision to offer Windows Defender as a free download.

News source: InfoWorld

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Norway Tells Apple Change iTunes or Face Court

Next Story

Rogers to Be Exclusive Apple iPhone Provider in Canada

24 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

No surprise there - Windows defender is as much of a joke as the firewall, they're just half-assed attempts at making Vista more secure.
They're not remotely as good as serious solutions.

In a study conducted by me with 25 women, I determined that I was the best lover that any of them have ever had – or ever will have.

Of course women should not draw any specific conclusions about this study, but should nevertheless take it at face value and consider it to be totally fair and unbiased.

Octol said,
In a study conducted by me with 25 women, I determined that I was the best lover that any of them have ever had – or ever will have.

Of course women should not draw any specific conclusions about this study, but should nevertheless take it at face value and consider it to be totally fair and unbiased.


Haha... *LOL*... :nuts:

tmf2 said,
Microsoft should sue them ! These antivirus companies have been spreading these lies for months now.

and Microsoft users should sue Microsoft for provideing CRAPPY Code in the first place..

Damn I cant belive Users will evan PAY for Windows OneCare.. It is Microsoft is the one who makes that Crappy coded OS that has Holes.. but yet Microsoft has the Balls to start charging for Software that will fix the Crappy holes..

dl0711 said,

and Microsoft users should sue Microsoft for provideing CRAPPY Code in the first place..

Damn I cant belive Users will evan PAY for Windows OneCare.. It is Microsoft is the one who makes that Crappy coded OS that has Holes.. but yet Microsoft has the Balls to start charging for Software that will fix the Crappy holes..


Yay for ignorant, inaccurate, biased rants. Oh, no wait ...

ummm Many of the samples were unable to install on Vista and simply crashed, does it really matter that is doesnt detect ones that don't work lol, for all we know microsoft might have got rid of some definitions that dont install on vista in the Vista version of Windows Defender, or there might be nothing to detect. It wouldn't suprise me if they ran Webroot on XP and Windows Defender on Vista.

The fact the many of them were unable to install means they were probably checking if they were detected on install, where windows defender is mainly for scanning for installed ones as it scans every day, and I bet it would have picked up more than 16% if they actually ran a scan :).

And yeah its a competitors study, comparing a free anti spyware to the best commercial one, IMHO Windows Defender is by far the best free antispyware and its great they are bundling it with vista.

And 25 samples, come on, I bet they only picked the most difficult ones, or ones they knew only theirs detected, and come to think of it is Windows Defender designed to catch trojans, thats anti virus isn't it? I bet most of their "samples" were trojans.

</rant>

why not say it didnt stop 4 out of 4 LOL?
i mean testing with 25 samples pretty much looks like "hey we couldnt find more that fast to get a "decent" percentage that shocks ppl"...
additionally its a competitor...
rofl c'mon, this study is as informative as my finger put in poo.

-fm

They really don't want us to believe this, right? I'd never believe what a company tells me about their competitors.

Symantec did the exact same test comparing different Anit-Spyware programs. According to them theirs was the best (no surprise) but Windows Defender, Webroot, and Ad-Aware all scored the same. This test is completely flawed. I have been using Windows Defender since the Beta days... and no problems whatsoever... actually it hardly uses system resources unlike Webroots software.

Well of course WebRoot is going to fix the results so that SpySweeper is more effective. I'm sure if Microsoft did the same test, they would show how ineffective SpySweeper is. Frankly, I'd prefer a third-party conduct comparisons.

Massively misleading headline. Defender only stops 16% of the 25 spyware items tested.
TWENTY FIVE?!?!?!
I get more than 25 different things of spyware through email (thank god for junk mail detection) every day.

I'm not saying its incorrect, it very well might be accurate. But that's a woefully small sample size.

I used to use Spybot for a long time and swore by it. After having a severe infection sneak by spybot a couple of years back, I downloaded the trial for Webroot and was quite pleased to learn that it would remove the infection and it did. I have since used that on my system and gladly paid for the subscription. For me personally, that is the best for my needs.

When you stop and think about it, Microsoft is taking the best step in including an anti-spyware program in Vista. At least they are helping to prevent some of the infections and most obvious ones. I deal with enough systems where the end user doesn't even know about spyware and garbage software and then sit amazed to learn that they were infected. Even though people have heard about it and have seen it, often times they still sit unprotected.

I agree with the article for the most part, you can't help but wonder how skewed it is though coming from a competitor. But, if Microsoft does update the definitions as often as possible, then they would definitely gain a foothold in the market.

Is this even front page material? Is this test even worthy of all those words in that article? A competitor saying their product is better, there’s a surprise. And their testing procedure was pretty poor. Who knows if the definitions were fully up to date, or if the 25 samples (only 25?) were hand picked by the testers to be known difficult to detect (or maybe the testers knew Defender couldn't detect those particular items at that time).

I was completely under the impression that Windows/Vista Defender was as good as all the other currently leading programs...

Maybe the only reason I thought that was because of Microsoft's good marketing and the fact that it's free for genuine users. Don't get me wrong, I think it's a good program (although it might be lacking regular updates) and I like how it can run as a service and not bother me often (in fact, I never get bothered by it).


(First comment posters are so immature... grow up already)