No. of Recommendations: 4
Microsoft Security Essentials Fails AV-Test, Loses Certification OUCH !!

<snip>

Microsoft’s Security Essentials is the only free anti-virus software that failed to receive certification after a new round of anti-virus tests conducted by AV-Test on Windows 7 during September and October

Its not all bad news since there were some areas that MSE scored well.

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Security-Essentials...

Rich
Arizona
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Hey Rich,,,

Well, any failure is bad but, it looks to me to be mainly in one area, "Protection against 0-day malware attacks, inclusive of web and e-mail threats (Real-World Testing)", the other areas they did OK on, and in some better than others. But, who's Certification did they loose???

Hmmm, maybe it's time to switch to Avast or something!!!


Below are the testing company's Web-page, with the detail results.

TK...

http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_av...

(Snipped)

AV-TEST Product Review Report – Sep-Oct/2012

Version Tested
4.0 & 4.1 Website www.microsoft.com/security_essentials
Platform Windows 7 (SP1, 32 bit)

Microsoft: Security Essentials

During September and October 2012 we continuously evaluated 24 home user security products using their default settings. We always used the most current publicly-available version of all products for the testing. They were allowed to update themselves at any time and query their in-the-cloud services. We focused on realistic test scenarios and challenged the products against real-world threats. Products had to demonstrate their capabilities using all components and protection layers.

.
.
.

Hmmm,,, I wonder who owns that Company,,,, AVG maybe???
Of course, AVAST is also headquartered in Prague Czech Republic...

The AV-TEST Institute is a leading international and independent service provider in the fields of IT security and anti-virus research.

At our German laboratories in Magdeburg and Leipzig our team of 25 IT specialists boasting many years of expertise take a practical approach to the development of innovative analysis mechanisms and the application of high-quality test procedures. In order to achieve these objectives, AV-TEST provides optimal working conditions and development opportunities. After all, IT security is one of the key factors in the modern business and corporate world!


__________________________________________________________

AVG was founded in 1991 with the express purpose of protecting people around the world using the latest in cutting edge security technologies. AVG gained success quickly and is now recognized as one of the biggest players in the security software market. AVG currently holds corporate offices in Europe such as in The Netherlands, Czech Republic, Cyprus, UK, Germany, France; in the US such as in the Pensacola area in Florida, San Francisco Bay Area in California, Atlanta area in Georgia, Boston area in Massachusetts, Charlotte area in North Carolina; in the Middle East, in Israel; in Asia such as Beijing and Hong Kong in China.

___________________________________________________________
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Even though I have MSE installed on my daughter's computer, I sometimes wonder if it is a good choice. It just seems like hiring the fox to guard the chicken coop. If Microsoft can't be trusted to create an operating system that is virus-free (or close to it), then why trust them to create an anti-virus program to protect against their leaky OS.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 17
I quote PSUEngineer: "Even though I have MSE installed on my daughter's computer, I sometimes wonder if it is a good choice. It just seems like hiring the fox to guard the chicken coop. If Microsoft can't be trusted to create an operating system that is virus-free (or close to it), then why trust them to create an anti-virus program to protect against their leaky OS." unquote

There is just SO much wrong with what you say in that statement:

First, Microsoft DOES create operating systems that are virus-free. They just can't be trusted to sell them to people who won't go find a virus on their own.

Second, NO AV will protect someone from what they CLICK on.

Third, "Leaky" ?? what? water intrusion? data loss? What does that mean?

Now, I'm more an Apple basher than a MS basher, but that has to do with proprietary and predatory business practices, not quality of software. MS Software has brought the computing industry a LONG way in the last 30 years, whether anyone wants to recognize that or not.

MS being ubiquitous probably has MORE scrutiny than any other software, and they do a pretty good job of plugging software issues as discovered.

Not trying to start a flamewar here, don't even expect a reply, but that statement is just so ... wrong.

John (20 yrs in business FIXING computers, A+ Certification, TAUGHT computers at the local High School for nine years...)
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
John (20 yrs in business FIXING computers, A+ Certification, TAUGHT computers at the local High School for nine years...)

Actually, PSUE's comments are very true. Until they were beaten over the head with it and about to lose their Windows plum to OS X (and maybe Linux, if you happen to be an RMS fanboi), MSFT didn't consider security all that important. You couldn't go a day without some new exploit hitting the wire. WinME? Yeah, don't go there. No AV can protect a wayward click? Actually, quite a few of them do (and you can't blame them if the user then ignores the big red danger sign that says "THIS IS A BLEEPING VIRUS! YOU DON'T DESERVE TO USE A COMPUTER IF YOU DISREGARD THIS NOTICE AND RUN IT ANYWAYS!" Leaky? You betcha... check out the C$ share sometime.

As for your string of "creds"... unless the A+ exam was seriously revamped since I considered taking it 20 years ago and shook my head in disbelief (it didn't even address the question of IRQ and I/O address conflicts, and this was in the pre-PnP days), that cert means jack squat. Teaching computers might also mean little... most of the kids in my school could have driven circles around our HS computer "teacher," who should have been shown the door in favor of one of the bearded math teachers or the the junior high's pencil-neck. Business of it? Ok, I'll give you that... maybe, but then again, I've been building my own boxes for 15 years now, and know enough to know I want to part in fixing someone else's virus-ridden third-hand piece of cow dung.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Ploink, you are so out of date with your comments and you fail to realize that current MS OS's are very solid, but open to holes as they have to provide support for soooooo many vendors and variations.

If you have to go back to ME your credentials are very suspect! Building hardware has nothing to do with the software operation.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
If you have to go back to ME your credentials are very suspect!

Windows ME release date: September 14, 2000
Apple OS X release date: March 24, 2001

Now, you want to tell me again how my choice of operating systems for purpose of comparison makes my credentials "very suspect?" I chose what I chose for a VERY specific reason. ME was a steaming pile of unstable diarrhea. OS X has been the closest anybody's come to breaking the MSFT monopoly. Their initial releases were only six months apart, but the differences in out-of-the-box security were immense, and played an integral part in forcing MSFT to own up and make security a focus rather than an afterthought.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
We can all agree it is deplorable that Windows has some many issues. So lets get beyond that. I happen to think it reasonable to assume MSE's existence is in response to security issues. If MSFT were to be charging for MSE, that would be bad. I see the more interesting questions to be #1 How did this situation develop? and #2 Given the answer to #1, were the best decisions made?

My views -

#1 The security situation happened largely because MSFT made a strategic decision way back in the 1980s to keep their products functional with upgrades. i.e. A change for DOS 3 to DOS 4 would not render MultiPlan or MS-BASIC in need of an upgrade. This decision made if very difficult to plug existing holes and created an opportunity to add additional holes particularly as features and capabilities were added.

#2 Gates may be a lot of things, but financially short sited is not one of them. He hung in there with keeping legacy software and hardware working, so business had a reason to stick with MSFT and not look elsewhere. Very few business users or developers have moved to Linux and that in my view is largely because the cost in terms of decreased productivity is too great.

Fixing Windows is not unlike fixing some of the monster applications business built in COBOL. Rather the create smaller, clean COBOL, IT people decided long, long ago to add some more lines of code (aka spaghetti). And COBOL fate was to be replaced, not fixed. Frankly that is the future I see for Windows also. Wish I knew with what. That will be a great investment of the next 40 years.

Gordon
Atlanta
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
I missed it - did we rename this the neener-neener board?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Hey Gordon,,,,

I see the more interesting questions to be #1 How did this situation develop? and #2 Given the answer to #1, were the best decisions made?

My views -

#1 The security situation happened largely because MSFT made a strategic decision way back in the 1980s to keep their products functional with upgrades. i.e. A change for DOS 3 to DOS 4 would not render MultiPlan or MS-BASIC in need of an upgrade. This decision made if very difficult to plug existing holes and created an opportunity to add additional holes particularly as features and capabilities were added.


Well, lot of all that is true. However, looking back to the real beginning of MS-DOS 1.0, you need to go back to CP/M Written by Tim Paterson in 6 weeks, a true Quick and Dirty Operating System or a QUAD!

So, when you write 4000 lines of Assembly Code in 6 weeks, the result is a real QUAD, forget Standardized-Register-Calling-Parameters, forget Standardized-Error-Processing, and forget any type of Security Measures, NOT even a consideration. So, Bill and his boys purchased it, for $50K, and used it as their base. So, then they Tweaked it a little, and delivered it to IBM as MS-DOS 1.0.

In 1982 we developed a PC/Security Product that supported up to 8 users/Per-PC, with Log-In Security and Program and Data Encryption. In the Process we had to intercept every MS-DOS Disk-I/O call, and believe me it wasn't pretty. It was the biggest Mish/Mash that I ever experienced, in my 20, prior, years of developing Real-Time Control Systems. Of course, that was then and this is now, don't believe Win-7/Win-8 have anything to do with MS-DOS anymore. Yes, I know they still support it as a separate process.

The point is, that when some QUAD-Code gets written, just to get something up and running real quick, it hardly ever goes away or gets re-written properly. It just gets Tweaked and Enhanced and then it just lives forever,,,,,, LOL...

TK...


http://searchwinit.techtarget.com/definition/QDOS

(Snipped)

86-DOS - often referred to as QDOS, or Quick and Dirty Operating System - was written in six weeks by Tim Paterson, based on ideas in CP/M (Control Program for Microcomputers), an operating system popular with early personal computer users. 86-DOS was designed for use with Seattle Computer's Intel 8086-based computers. It contained about 4,000 lines of assembler language code. Microsoft bought 86-DOS from Seattle Computer Products for $50,000, revised it, renaming it MS-DOS, and then delivered it to IBM for its new PC.

IBM rewrote MS-DOS after finding 300 bugs in it and renamed it PC-DOS, which is why both IBM and Microsoft hold a copyright for it. Bill Gates saw the potential for MS-DOS and persuaded IBM to let Microsoft sell it separately from IBM's PC projects. The initial IBM PC actually offered the user a choice of one of three operating systems: PC-DOS, CP/M 86, and UCSD p-System, a Pascal-based system. PC-DOS, which was cheaper, proved the most popular and began to come bundled with the IBM PC in its second product release. The IBM PC brought personal computing to the business world for the first time and was successful beyond IBM's imaginings. In 18 months, IBM introduced the PC-XT, which included a hard drive loaded with a newer version of DOS. Microsoft promised a multitasking DOS, but that never happened. Instead, Microsoft developed Windows with multitasking features.
Print the post Back To Top