Security tools that work with Windows Vista have failed tests to see if they can detect viruses circulating online. Microsoft's Windows Live OneCare security tool was one of four products that failed independent tests carried out by the Virus Bulletin. The security testing group found that Live OneCare missed far more active viruses than any other program tested.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-10-02
99,91 is just slightly better than the lowest acceptable success rate (1/1000)- There is still much room for improvement.
However, it has everything to do with the OS in question, since the amount of viruses for Windows is several thousand times larger than any other platform. We can not afford as much as a single failure.
Member since:2006-07-04
Wow, you couldn't just admit that you were mistaken when you ranted about the 99.1% figure, and then thank me for correcting you so as to save you from ranting further based on false stats? Are internet egos so fragile that people need to defend each and everything that they say even when shown that they were speaking based on incorrect info?
The fact is, Live One Care is within the range *you* put forward for acceptibility. End of story (as far as your rant is concerned). *You* put that range forward, nobody else. (Though, I suspect that if you knew that the real success rate was 99.91%, you'd have ranted about how horrible that was, and that the minimum acceptible success rate would be 99.991%, no?)
As for there being room for improvement, nobody denies that. Microsoft says they will take steps to improve, and McAfee claims (or implies, at least) that their latest update would catch 100%. Given that the vendors are going for 100% detection rates, what exactly was the point of your rant to begin with? That improvements should be made? Duh!
Member since:
2006-07-04
"Actually a 99.1% success rate is a major fiasko. This means 0.9% are getting through which is truely horrible.
What matters is not what gets caught, but what slips through.
The successrate should be in the range >99.9%. Anything lower is embarrasing and a prove of poor development(resources) or poor use of that/those."
------------
Just to correct you, the success rate was 99.91% (not the 99.1% that's getting thrown around here), which is in the range that you, yourself, consider acceptable. And again, that was the *worst* rate, and again, has nothing to do with the OS in question.