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


Recommended Posts

What you mean?

Antivirus software is only as good as the definitions it has. What you can say is that MSE has never detected a virus on your machine. However, a new virus may be undetectable to MSE at this point in time, and so you would never know for certain that your system is 100% safe.
  • Like 1

wait, didn't most PC-security gurus usually said that you should NOT use anti-virus on top of another?

They mean above and beyond, not in conjunction with >.<

 

Regarding Norton not showing up in tests, it's due to Symantec having an objection to the testing methodologies used in the tests.

Symantec claim their software is a multi-tiered approach that does most of it's work on the front end stopping things getting virused rather than removing existing viruses. Thus loading a computer with viruses and seeing what Norton sees is rather ineffective. They subsequently removed their software from the tests as a result.

 

When MSE was pushed to market in place of OneCare, we were directed to tell consumers that it should not be used in place of paid third party internet security. I have to say, in the hands of an idiot, MSE isn't sufficient, but it's fine for people who have 2 brain cells to rub together (i.e. most Neowin users).

 

Just don't use Trend IMO.

Antivirus software is only as good as the definitions it has. What you can say is that MSE has never detected a virus on your machine. However, a new virus may be undetectable to MSE at this point in time, and so you would never know for certain that your system is 100% safe.

I oft make this argument and people don't get it.

 

For those sitting on the fence, he means the only way to tell you have a virus (short of it showing itself) is for your AV to tell you you have a virus. If your AV can't see it, it  won't tell you, and subsequently you think you are fully protected.

 

To simplify: You can't prove a negative.

 

EDIT:: Can we turn post merging back on plox?

Webroot doesn't use standard definitions... it's all realtime... this, the reason that standard tests don't work on thier product. 

Avast free competes with paid for suites in detection rates and has done for the last 18 months.

 

Don't pay for AV because it's a massive con.  Yearly subscription tied to one machine, pay a premium to use it on other machines, bloated suites that include useless crap such as firewalls, credit card protection, family safety and so on.

 

If you're behind a router, you have a hardware firewall.  That's already ample protection for any home user.  Combine that with the Windows firewall and you're fine.  A third party software firewall will only add annoyance and bloat.

 

Also, why would you pay for something for a year that you only get full value from on the day of release? I haven't seen any company allow you to transfer your license to a new version.  Couple that with new threats that are constantly coming out that can obliterate a company's heuristic and detection engine month to month, why on earthy you shell out for an entire year?

 

The free engines get the most important updates and they're the most lightweight, stick with free versions.

What sort of issues. Some people will always have issues with no matter what it is.

Of course, but we are talking things like the software locking up and locking down net access. Client crashing on startup, stuff like that. Also, recently they started selling Trend Micro without a disk in the box, so people could download it.. Which is awesome if you have no internet connection at the time.

 

General stupid ###### >.< It's also a bit heavier than it used to be.

 

/shrugs

 

Avast free competes with paid for suites in detection rates and has done for the last 18 months.

 

Don't pay for AV because it's a massive con.  Yearly subscription tied to one machine, pay a premium to use it on other machines, bloated suites that include useless crap such as firewalls, credit card protection, family safety and so on.

 

If you're behind a router, you have a hardware firewall.  That's already ample protection for any home user.  Combine that with the Windows firewall and you're fine.  A third party software firewall will only add annoyance and bloat.

 

Also, why would you pay for something for a year that you only get full value from on the day of release? I haven't seen any company allow you to transfer your license to a new version.  Couple that with new threats that are constantly coming out that can obliterate a company's heuristic and detection engine month to month, why on earthy you shell out for an entire year?

 

The free engines get the most important updates and they're the most lightweight, stick with free versions.

Well, first things first:

Routers are not inherently firewalled. Nor is a NAT a firewall.

 

Most AV packages offer multi-device licenses, for instance, Trend/Norton both offer 5 user packs for $129 retail (in Aus we pay a huge mark up). We can sell it for about $60. That's not a con, that's $12 a license. Do agree with the bloat part though.

 

Norton and Trend both auto update you to the latest version. If you buy Norton, you get a year of coverage with whatever the latest client is. You sometimes have to trigger the update manually, but you do get it.

 

Free clients are equally susceptible to zero day attacks (by definition). Your entire point there is moronic.

 

The benefit of paid clients is that their updates tend to come out faster than free clients.

 

The free engines aren't inherently lighter weight, or frequently updated.

 

Can I add, these companies doing free AV, ask yourself how they are still in business? If you can't work out what they're making money off of, they're making money off from you.

 

I use kasperskys Internet security, i think its good never had a problem or a virus with it.  used to use avast years ago and it was good but found nod32/ kaspersky better or at least it was years ago

It's a good client :) I like their research team, they publish often and well :)

It's 2013 and some people still worry/talk about bloat?

There's still such a thing as bloat. Not all of us need credit card protection, or facebook protection.

 

Other than "3rd party" AV companies pressuring MS, I don't see why they would let MSE effort fall short.

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 >.>

its like trying to wear 2 rubbers on top of each other. the friction will cause a break,then you will get infected with something pretty nasty.

 

Ha! I thought I was the only one to make that analogy to non technical people. When you say it like that they understand immediately. 

Now I just need one about installing toolbars...

On its primary thread sure.

 

Also, using RAM isn't inherently bad. It's only when it wastes RAM that it's an issue.

 

It also uses your network connection more, so something of a trade off there.

Other than "3rd party" AV companies pressuring MS, I don't see why they would let MSE effort fall short.

 

I think they did it as an effort to reduce infections for people who know nothing about computers then complain that there system is slowing down cus its full of malware then blaming MS cus there OS is "rubbish". Itll just be there as a crude implementation to help stop that happening but 3rd party AV will always be better

I'm still amazed that it's 2013 and people still have to worry about anti-virus software.

Unless they design an OS that doesn't allow any third party software to run at all, it's impossible for it to be immune to malware. If you write malware, there's always going to be somebody that'll run it.

I'm still amazed that it's 2013 and people still have to worry about anti-virus software.

That's cause it is STILL a requirement to have on every computer and helps the average user keep their computers clean from any viruses. Also, since MSE is the bare minimal protection, it gives people more reason to worry.

That's cause it is STILL a requirement to have on every computer and helps the average user keep their computers clean from any viruses. Also, since MSE is the bare minimal protection, it gives people more reason to worry.

 

I don't use it on Linux. :P

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • A 13 billion year old secret about our Universe's origin was revealed by Sayan Sen Image by Pascal Küffer via Pexels Researchers at the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg had recreated a key chemical reaction from the early universe, producing results that could change scientists' understanding of how the first stars formed. The study focused on the helium hydride ion (HeH⁺), which is widely regarded as the first molecule to form in the universe. Scientists believe HeH⁺ appeared around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, when the universe had cooled enough for electrons and atomic nuclei to combine into neutral atoms in a period known as recombination. This marked the beginning of chemistry in the cosmos. Immediately after the Big Bang about 13.8 billion years ago, the universe was extremely hot and dense. As it expanded and cooled, hydrogen and helium became the dominant elements. Once neutral helium atoms formed, they could react with ionised hydrogen nuclei, or protons, to create helium hydride ions. Although simple in structure, HeH⁺ played an important role in the young universe. It was the first step in a chain of reactions that eventually produced molecular hydrogen (H₂), a molecule made up of two hydrogen atoms and now the most abundant molecule in the universe. Molecular hydrogen later became a key ingredient in the formation of the first stars. At the time, the universe had entered a phase often called the cosmological "dark age." Matter had become transparent to light following recombination, but there were still no stars or galaxies producing visible light. Several hundred million years would pass before the first stars appeared. For those first stars to form, large clouds of gas had to collapse under their own gravity. To do that, the gas needed to cool by releasing energy. While hydrogen atoms can help with this process at high temperatures, they become less effective below about 10,000 degrees Celsius. Molecules can continue the cooling process by releasing energy through rotational and vibrational motions. Scientists have long considered HeH⁺ a potentially important coolant because of its comparatively large dipole moment, a property that describes how electric charge is distributed within a molecule and allows it to release energy efficiently. The amount of helium hydride present in the early universe may therefore have influenced how easily the first stars could form. At the same time, HeH⁺ was constantly being destroyed. Under primordial conditions, its main destruction mechanisms were recombination with free electrons and chemical reactions with hydrogen atoms. These reactions ultimately helped produce molecular hydrogen, linking the formation and destruction of HeH⁺ to the chemistry that shaped the early universe. For many years, theoretical studies suggested that reactions between HeH⁺ and hydrogen atoms would become much slower at low temperatures. Scientists believed there was an energy barrier along the reaction pathway that reduced the chances of the reaction taking place in the cold conditions of the early universe. The new study suggests otherwise. To investigate the process, researchers recreated a closely related reaction using deuterium, a naturally occurring isotope of hydrogen that contains one proton and one neutron in its nucleus. When HeH⁺ collides with deuterium, it forms an HD⁺ ion and a neutral helium atom. This allows scientists to study the reaction in a controlled way while closely mimicking the behaviour of the original reaction involving hydrogen. The experiments were carried out at the Cryogenic Storage Ring (CSR) at MPIK, a specialised facility designed to recreate conditions similar to those found in space. Researchers stored HeH⁺ ions in the 35-metre storage ring for up to 60 seconds at temperatures just a few kelvins above absolute zero and merged them with a beam of neutral deuterium atoms. By adjusting the speeds of the two particle beams, the team measured how the reaction rate changed with collision energy, which is directly related to temperature. The researchers found that the reaction rate remains almost constant as temperatures decrease. In other words, the reaction does not slow down at low temperatures as earlier models predicted. “Previous theories predicted a significant decrease in the reaction probability at low temperatures, but we were unable to verify this in either the experiment or new theoretical calculations by our colleagues,” explained Dr Holger Kreckel of MPIK. “The reactions of HeH⁺ with neutral hydrogen and deuterium therefore appear to have been far more important for chemistry in the early universe than previously assumed,” he continued. According to the researchers, the reaction appears to be barrierless, meaning there is no energy obstacle preventing it from taking place efficiently even at very low temperatures. The findings support recent theoretical work led by physicist Yohann Scribano, whose group identified an error in a widely used potential energy surface, a mathematical model used to describe how the energy of a system changes during a chemical reaction. The error appears to have caused previous studies to significantly underestimate reaction rates under primordial conditions. The new calculations closely match the experimental results. Together, they suggest that helium chemistry in the early universe may need to be re-evaluated. Because molecules such as HeH⁺ and molecular hydrogen played an important role in cooling primordial gas clouds, the findings could help scientists build more accurate models of how the first stars formed. By showing that helium hydride was likely destroyed more efficiently than previously thought, the study offers new insight into the chemical processes that shaped the universe during its earliest stages and helped set the conditions for the emergence of the first stars. Source: Max-Planck Institute, EDP Sciences This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "What an interesting smell you've discovered"
    • It could EASILY be 70 for the base game BUT + lots of FOMO to make it up to 100-120, like a few days Early Access, online money, pre-order bonus cars, weapons, missions, clothing, avatars or profile stuff, etc... And still WAY TOO MANY people would buy those and make Rockstar insane money.
    • Just to understand: your solution to getting rid of an online password manager is...another online password manager?
    • Cjam 2.5.0.0 by Razvan Serea Cjam is a lightweight and fast MP3 editor for Windows that lets you cut, join, and edit MP3 files without re-encoding. This means your audio quality remains untouched, and edits happen instantly. Cjam is ideal for quick, lossless edits—whether you're trimming music, combining tracks, or preparing audio for learning tools or podcasts. It features batch processing, scripting support, cue and playlist file handling, and a simple interface. Cjam is perfect for anyone who needs efficient MP3 editing without the complexity of full audio suites. Cjam requires a PC running Windows 10 or later and Microsoft .NET 6.0 or later. Key features for Cjam: No Re-encoding: Edit MP3 files without losing quality. Cut and Join MP3: Easily cut, trim, and combine MP3 tracks. Batch Processing: Edit multiple files at once for faster workflows. Scriptable Interface: Automate tasks with a custom command language. Cue and Playlist Support: Handle CUE and playlist files for seamless audio management. Fast and Lightweight: Quick processing with minimal system resources. Lossless Audio Editing: Ensure your edits don't affect audio quality. Simple User Interface: Clean, intuitive design for easy navigation. File Format Support: Works with MP3, Cjam-specific file formats (CJAMC, CJAMJ, CJAM). Cjam 2.5.0.0 changelog: Added clipboard-based import/export support for mp3DirectCut Added clipboard-based export support for REAPER Added support for naming IMP3 elements Changed the Reset behavior to preserve Undo/Redo history; use Shift key + Reset button to clear it Added a new command parameter (qcp) Added 8 new entries to lang.txt (main_c124-126, main_d150-151, main_m082, vme_c014, vme_d005) Fixed a bug where the il parameter was incorrectly applied when pasting VMP3s into the main list Fixed several other minor bugs Download: Cjam 2.5.0.0 | 1.4 MB (Freeware) Links: Cjam Home Page | Cjam Manual | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      DrWankel earned a badge
      First Post
    • Reacting Well
      DrWankel earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      Supreme Spray LV earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      Genuinetonerink- Dubai earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      504
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      163
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      91
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      72
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!