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


Recommended Posts

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!

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.  

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.

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. :/

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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?

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.

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?

...., 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

 

  • 1 month later...

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. ;)

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

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!