Microsoft Security Essentials ranked second last in AV-Test's

I personally dont think spywareguard or spywareblaster are needed anymore as most free a/v sollutions will do a better job at protecting you.

Not to unduly sing praises to it, but so far my testing of MSE has been positive. It has, on 3 occasions, caught and cleaned malware that symantec (twice) and avast (once) missed. In defense of avast it missed adware which some a/v overlooks anyway if there's no damaging component.

We could just as easily be arguing over engine oil and saying what I always told folks back when I "turned wrenches" for a living: Use a brand name and keep it changed regularly.

The biggest issue I run into when someone's computer gets infected is failure to update and other user errors, no matter what a/v they use.

Hopalong X said:

I be he said:

I personally dont think spywareguard or spywareblaster are needed anymore as most free a/v sollutions will do a better job at protecting you.

They are additions to the AV not a replacement.
Active X's can be installed many ways including Flash player. You Tube, Flash games even Flash advertisements can install them.
If you can see the Flash playing you are possibly getting an Active X installed. Some good or neutral and some bad.

Then we can talk JAVA which is full of internal security holes all by itself.

Of course the best Java security is not install it on your system.

True, i stand somewhat corrected. I wonder if IE9 with the screen filter on combined with UAC enabled would be secure enough.

gregrocker said:

These tests are often skewed to the sponsors of the sites. I'll believe Consumer Reports but that's about it. CNET has banner ads for the same software they review, often on the same page.

The real test is where the bits hit the road and that is what we witness via the realtime traffic here.

The bloatware AV's cause nothing but trouble while missing major infections, while MSE and Avast5 solve most of the lardies' problems, let Win7 run completely unhindered, and rarely do we see reports that they have missed major infection.

MS defends it's OS as though it's company's survival depends upon it. It's first effort at an AV is as much of a home run as it's latest OS - well worth betting the company upon. If it were anything less (hasta la Vista) you would be hearing about it here.

While your logic is sound, I do not believe that it applies in this case. As noted in the screenshot, AV-Test.org is independent and that fact alone tends to give them credibility.

I can't say that the AV that I use is the best, but I feel more comfortable with it than MSE. I believe that the primary reason that mamy people use MSE is just because of it's usability, but then one would wonder why bother with an AV at all, if it's first virtue wasn't it's effectiveness?

we should put this into perspective

1) who actually PERFORMS these tests and what EXACTLY is their relationship to the magazine / vendor / other "interested 3rd parties".

2) By the time the tests are actually performed THEY ARE ALREADY MASSIVELY OUT OF DATE -- MS releases almost daily security fixes for stuff it gets info about --I'm sure the others do the same.

3) On any one day you could get totally differring results depending on when the vendors database and software was updated.

4) I think anybody using computers seriously realizes that for NON work places the days of "PAID FOR" security are coming to an end so people who supply this type of stuff are jostling for market position -- by getting their stuff loaded on to private PC's eventaully they will hope to get into the corporate market --where for reasons I can't fathom Macafee still seems to have a monopoly.

5) Many many people have never had a virus inspite of installing NO security at all. OK these days that might not be a wise move but 99.99% of infections tend to be caused by USERS not taking the most elementary precautions on their systems --such as replying to "bogus email security questions" from Banks, giving away passwords, allowing youngsters (early and sub teens) to borrow their computers and download whatever from the internet, and pirating music / other stuff via torrents and warez sites.

Even now people still fall into elementary traps like "You've won xxxx, please pay yyy to release your winnings" whereas any sensible approach would be if you actually wanted to reply would be "Great news --please deduct yyyy from my winnings and forward me the rest".

so forget all this stuff over what package is better than the other -- at the bottom line they are all probably much the same -- I would tend to go for the one that uses the least resources and overhead which currently is MSE --and I'd trust the manufacturer at least to know its own OS and make adjustments rather than relying on some 3rd party vendor having to "reverse engineer" parts of the Windows kernel or just rely on published API's.

We should all remember that this is an ever changing scenario -- there can never be (until we start using Quantum Computers) a 100% secure computer or OS - just like an escape proof jail).

Using computers SENSIBLY is the best defence -- everything else is irrelevant.

This also means keeping Online transactions secure -- ensuring and checking your Bank transactions regularly, frequently change your passwords and if testing / downloading software from an unknown source try it out on a SANDBOX or VIRTUAL machine FIRST before loading it to your Working system.

Cheers
jimbo