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

[Nick H. Supervisor]

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.

[articuno1au]

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.

[articuno1au]

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?

[remixedcat]

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

[articuno1au]

Speaking of buzzwords >.>

 

It could also be that webroot are a nearly non-compete in the market..

[_neutrino Veteran]

i had been using it as my daily driver for years however it looks like that trend has ended. Just re-installed Avast.

[remixedcat]

Non compete??

[vf-]

Just don't use Trend IMO.

 

Explain please.

[articuno1au]

I've been seeing a lot of people with issues with it of late.

 

There are better choices imo, so when you have a glut of choice, may as well take advantage of it :)

[vf-]

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

[Wakers]

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.

[psionicinversion]

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

[vf-]

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

[Crimson Rain]

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

[articuno1au]

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 :)

[articuno1au]

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 >.>

[Sadelwo]

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...

[remixedcat]

Well webroot only takes up 2 mb of RAM.

[articuno1au]

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.

[psionicinversion]

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

[Growled Member]

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

 

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

[Max Norris]

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.

[LimeMaster]

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.

[Growled Member]

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

[Max Norris]

I don't use it on Linux. :p

I don't use it on Windows. Doesn't mean malware doesn't exist. (And it certainly does on Linux too.)