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 454045
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: How does it rank?
by shadoweva09 on Sat 18th Dec 2010 17:51 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: How does it rank?"
Member since:

It doesn't matter who designed it, take the Gawker website password leaks where they didn't properly secure the passwords, 99% of security issues that actually cause damage stem from user error and ignorance of security. Even if it's just classic calling them up and tricking them into giving out there passwords.

Edited 2010-12-18 17:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: How does it rank?
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Sat 18th Dec 2010 18:43 in reply to "RE[4]: How does it rank?"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:

I don't understand your argument. I'm saying there is a clear potential for a conflict of interest in having a Microsoft Anti malware program protect a Microsoft operating system. Yes anyone can make mistakes.

There are two potential problems with having the same company

1)If Company A makes mistake 1, they are probably likely to make the same mistake over and over again.

2)Company A may purposefully not protect the system from a class of vulnerabilities that are "ahem" abused for other reasons by their large customers. ( There were some serious security bugs in windows 95 that were preserved in later versions ( through ME) for the purpose of "compatibility".

Company B on the other hand, is likely to still make mistakes, but different ones than Company A. So, hopefully, a small percentage of vulnerabilities will get through Company B and Company A.

Make sense?

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[6]: How does it rank?
by PlatformAgnostic on Sat 18th Dec 2010 20:32 in reply to "RE[5]: How does it rank?"
PlatformAgnostic Member since:

I don't think your argument makes sense. Microsoft has a vested interest in ensuring that users have the best overall experience using their computers from a performance, reliability, and safety perspective. Windows is, after all, in competition with Linux-based OSes and Mac OS X.

Anti-virus companies definitely don't have the same holistic interests. They are more interested in getting you to buy subscriptions to their products and continue valuing whatever security they provide. Thus they have an interest in being more intrusive (more popups, balloons, icons, etc) and sacrificing performance and reliability for marginally better protection (if it's better at all).

It's not like the AV products are changing the fundamental security model of the OS (and they cannot legitimately do so other than through the limited hooks the OS provides), so they are not 'plugging any holes' in the OS that Microsoft would have missed. At best they are providing a blacklisting service at a relatively high cost.

As far as I know (which is not that far ;) ), MSE is committed to using only publicly specified interfaces of the Operating System, unlike other AV vendors, so they operate more within the design of the OS, unlike some of the other products.

Reply Parent Score: 5