Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 17th Dec 2010 22:06 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Windows While Microsoft's Security Essentials has been very well received because of its small footprint and unobtrusive nature, it didn't always rank among the very top when it came to its detection rates. Overall, I'd still say it's one of the best antivirus tools. Now, with version 2.0, Microsoft has improved the detection mechanisms, but of course, it'll take some tests before we can see how effective they are.
Thread beginning with comment 454013
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: overrated
by lemur2 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE: overrated"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

"MSSE was able to detect 536,535 samples what's a very good detection score of 98.44 per cent."


That is pretty good, considering that there were two million new pieces of malware for Windows that have emerged in just these last 12 months. If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Oh dear.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: overrated
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 18th Dec 2010 11:52 in reply to "RE[2]: overrated"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

""MSSE was able to detect 536,535 samples what's a very good detection score of 98.44 per cent."


That is pretty good, considering that there were two million new pieces of malware for Windows that have emerged in just these last 12 months. If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Oh dear.
"

Yes, and how much of that malware targets out-of-date systems, or use social engineering?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: overrated
by lemur2 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 13:11 in reply to "RE[3]: overrated"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

""MSSE was able to detect 536,535 samples what's a very good detection score of 98.44 per cent."


That is pretty good, considering that there were two million new pieces of malware for Windows that have emerged in just these last 12 months. If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Oh dear.


Yes, and how much of that malware targets out-of-date systems, or use social engineering?
"

Most of it would target out-of-date systems, or use social engineering. The idea of ant-virus, BTW, is to detect malware once it is on a system, however it got on to the system. Once malware is on the system, anti-virus updates after-the-fact probably won't work. The only chance is if the anti-malware system detects the malware prior to or on installation, or on first access. After that, most likely, game over.

<sarcasm>BTW, the Windows systems are still compromised, even if the users did commint the horrendous errors of being out-of-date or of installing something that looked useful but which they had no chance of vetting.

Compromised systems are almost always due to evil end users.

Apparently, current estimates put it at about 50% of Windows end users who are evil in this way. Shocking.
</sarcasm>

Edited 2010-12-18 13:27 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: overrated
by lucas_maximus on Sat 18th Dec 2010 12:09 in reply to "RE[2]: overrated"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

That is pretty good, considering that there were two million new pieces of malware for Windows that have emerged in just these last 12 months. If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.


Oh here we go, Anti-Windows again. You are like a broken record.

Firstly,

Where is this "encounters a thread on average once every three days" you pulled out of thin air?!

Otherwise your claim of "it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE." is total rubbish.

Secondly,

Common sense is more important than running Anti-Virus software. Anti-Virus will always be "last line of defense".

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: overrated
by lemur2 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 13:15 in reply to "RE[3]: overrated"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Common sense is more important than running Anti-Virus software. Anti-Virus will always be "last line of defense".


Actually, what would be most useful would be visibility of the source code. People who could understand source code, and who did not write the software, can get to see what is in the software source code.

That alone would eliminate the vast majority of malware.

Where is this "encounters a thread on average once every three days" you pulled out of thin air?!

Otherwise your claim of "it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE." is total rubbish.


I made no claim, I made a calculation:

MSE detection rate: 98.44 per cent.
If a Windows system with MSE encounters a threat on average once every three days, then with a little bit of luck it could last up to a year perhaps before it fell to a threat that got past MSE.

Now, how often a given Windows system encounters a threat is entirely problematic.

However, I have seen a number of Windows systems used frequently (perhpas daily) as Internet clients which have had MSE installed, and which have gone down to malware in less than a year.

This is just an anecdote (just as my calculation is just a calculation), but there it is.

Edited 2010-12-18 13:34 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[4]: overrated
by Gone fishing on Sat 18th Dec 2010 13:54 in reply to "RE[3]: overrated"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Users make mistakes, many know next to nothing about security etc and it would be nice if they had common sense, many don't they need some help, maybe lots of help thats the point of MSE isn't it? And lets not absolve MS from all responsibility.

Now MSE just looked it up on http://www.virusbtn.com/ it been tested 4 times and failed once to detect a virus found in the wild (Avast failed non of these tests) the best performing AV has been tested 65 times and failed 3 times.

Edited 2010-12-18 13:55 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2