Microsoft Security Essentials last in banking trojan detection test

[whs]

The problem is that you really don't know whether an AV program is any good. You may just be lucky and never be attacked. I know NIS was fishing out a few of those buggers on my system, but with MSE I never saw any action. In fact at one time Mbam found a keylogger that got past MSE. Frequent scans with powerful scanners are useful. But sometimes even a blind chicken (like SAS) finds a grain, LOL. And then don't forget - imaging, imaging, imaging saves your bacon.

 

[Seffrid]

I have used both Avast and AVG in the past. Both were slowing down the machine as well as throwing up a lot of false positives. I ended up following the advice of my local repair shop and using MSE with regular manual scans using the free MBAM. I haven't had any problems in the two or three years since, but only do limited browsing, plus streaming on YouTube etc and no movie or music downloads. I mainly use the computers for gaming. I don't connect my smart phone to my computers and I don't do internet banking, using ATMs inside bank premises whenever possible. I don't do imaging although I keep meaning to look into it, but it looks quite involved.

I find the problem with switching to the "Best Performer" is that no sooner do you get the current favourite installed than another report comes out recommending something else.

 

[Callender]

Well I'd say all AV's have weaknesses. At any point in time you could be left unprotected against new exploits anyway. I've always understood that any AV will leave holes in security and try to patch those holes using other methods and other software. The main criteria for me when choosing an AV is it's impact on performance and it's configurability. Doesn't really matter if it has the best percentage figures on detections.

I'm with WHS with the Linux approach. Anything that I think is really dodgy and I'll boot from a Linux Live USB.

 

[jimbo45]

Hi there

Remember W7 is now an aging OS -- the whole thing works much better in W10 where security is integrated into the OS rather than just being an application running on it.

Even so - if you manage your computer correctly and take sensible precautions there's no reason to get ANYTHING nasty installed on your machine in the first place.

All these tests are "Fake" anyway in the sense that the Trojans are INSTALLED on the machines in the first place so that the detection tests can run.

What none of these "Tests" or "Stats" provide is the likelihood of one of these Trojans getting on to your machine in the first place.

It's rather like saying your chances of getting killed are 99.9% if you deliberately run across a Los Angeles 10 Lane freeway - but in practice since you are never likely to do it in the first place then the REAL % is probably nearer ZERO.

You can prove anything you like with Statistics -- simply use your computer and the Internet safely and you should never get any of these problems appearing -- and remember most Scams these days are of such a nature that they can't be protected against purely by software no matter how smart it is.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[Jonguy30]

Wow, this sure got heated.

The one antivirus software I use is MSE. Why? Because it is the AV that has the least bs in it such as pop-ups, ads, or slowing your system down. And it's free, has no time limit, does not require online registration and finally it has a very user friendly UI. Why doesn't all AVs have such a user-friendly UI? For example the avast UI is just horrible.

I've tried other free AVs but I didn't like them. The first one was avast! which I used for a long time. But the last couple of versions I just had it. Couldn't stand the new interface and all the stuff they keep adding to it ("bloat"). Then tried avira, but it slowed down my system so I ditched that one too. And now I have MSE and am happy with it.

I also used to use MBAM but I don't like the new version so I don't run it anymore.

 

[Brink]

   Warning

Thread cleaned. Let's keep this discussion friendly shall we. :sarc:

 

[Seffrid]

I also used to use MBAM but I don't like the new version so I don't run it anymore.

They have just confirmed that version 1.75 will continue to be supported for another year.

 

[Lady Fitzgerald]

I also used to use MBAM but I don't like the new version so I don't run it anymore.

They have just confirmed that version 1.75 will continue to be supported for another year.

The new version (2.0, not the recently released beta) is much faster than the old one and, now that the initial bugs have been worked out, it seems to work just fine. However, the UI is an almost completely different breed of cat and took me a few days to figure out how to get it set up the way I want (having the paid version and wanting scheduled scans, updates, etc. complicated things a bit).

 

[groze]

Lady Fitgerald,
I use clamav on Win98se and xp sp3 (Once other free virus manufacture stopped supported the old operating system.) There was a time I went without but I had Norton's Ghost back up and before that mine own backup using pkdos and boot floppy. I always had a way to restore from a backup. I got that nasty virus that comes after you install windows xp orginal or was it sp2 can't remember. Had to use windows 98se to download the patch and had to reinstall xp. My previous systems has a dual boot with windows xp and Windows 98se. I am still dual booting now I have windows 7 and Xubuntu 14.10

Whs,
Thank you for the tip on the Linux versions I will try them out

 

[carwiz]

That chart (and the test) is skewed in favor of the other antivirus systems. The AV segment that catches such transactions is in Internet Explorer and the OS and thus not part of the test. It's done all the time with these types of tests. They don't know how to compare it to the MS system so they use the published base numbers all the time. It will always appear that MSE falls short since they don't test it the way it is used in the system.

 

[Seffrid]

That chart (and the test) is skewed in favor of the other antivirus systems. The AV segment that catches such transactions is in Internet Explorer and the OS and thus not part of the test. It's done all the time with these types of tests. They don't know how to compare it to the MS system so they use the published base numbers all the time. It will always appear that MSE falls short since they don't test it the way it is used in the system.

So are you saying that if we're using MSE we ought also to be using IE rather than a different browser? Is that the only way that we can rely on MSE?

 

[Phone Man]

That chart (and the test) is skewed in favor of the other antivirus systems. The AV segment that catches such transactions is in Internet Explorer and the OS and thus not part of the test. It's done all the time with these types of tests. They don't know how to compare it to the MS system so they use the published base numbers all the time. It will always appear that MSE falls short since they don't test it the way it is used in the system.

Here is a quote from the report on the test:

Testing is conducted by:
a. Downloading the sample using Internet Explorer to the desktop, closing Internet Explorer,
conducting a context menu scan or, where unavailable, a system scan, and then executing the
sample.
6. A test is deemed to have been passed based on the following criteria:
a. The security application blocks the URL where the sample is located, thus preventing its
download.
b. The security application detects the sample whilst it is being downloaded to the desktop.
c. The security application detects the sample during the context or system scan.
d. The security application detects the sample when it is executed

Jim

 

[carwiz]

That's not what I said at all. All I'm saying is that most of the AV tests are skewed because they don't include all of MS's features for security. Windows 7, by itself, has a rating somewhere in the high 70s or 80s%. That's right our of the box with no AV running. You never see it appearing in the AV tests or even mentioned. Security for a PC is more than any single AV can accomplish. Each has strong points and each has weak points. MS choose to incorporate many security features in the OS as well as software such as Office and Internet Explorer. This is also the primary reason MS dropped support for Gadgets. These can/could operate as a browser with no security at all. They also could perform restricted I/O at the processor level for which no AV can catch. These are sometimes caught by accident when the system BSODs. You should thank the Windows OS for that. I saw countless examples of this in my BSOD Team days. Even as dangerous as these are, people still use them and find ways to override Windows' attempt to suppress them. Go figure.

I asked a simple question on another recent thread when most were saying they never heard of malware entering a PC through the Gadgets interface. My question was simply; What is the footprint that allows someone to determine the origin of malware and make that determination? Or something close to that effect. I never got an answer.

If you want a secure PC then you have to take an active part in it and make choices that support it. Relying on just an AV will not save you no matter which one you use. And it's pretty obvious from the graph above that my choices for a browser would NOT include Firefox or Opera.

 

[groze]

Carwiz,
I just thought Microsoft was lazy in not fixing the Gadget and concentrating on live titles instead windows 8 & 10. They could of add live titles to windows 7 as an option.

 

[Phone Man]

What MS features were not used in this test. They used Windows 7 OS, Internet Explorer and an AV and showed the results only changing the AV.

Jim

 

[Solarstarshines]

I've been using Webroot forever glad to know my Virus Protect is one of the top three

 

[lehnerus2000]

And it's pretty obvious from the graph above that my choices for a browser would NOT include Firefox or Opera.

Which version of Opera?
Since it seems to be based on Chrome, why are the results so different?

Once you add ad, flash & script blockers to Firefox it should be rock solid.
Once I swapped from IE6 to FF (2006?) malware attacks dropped off to basically zero.

Chrome 41 and Firefox 36(?) were rated as not vulnerable to FREAK.

Carwiz,
I just thought Microsoft was lazy in not fixing the Gadget and concentrating on live titles instead windows 8 & 10. They could of add live titles to windows 7 as an option.

More like trying to force users to use Live Tiles (just like eliminating the Start Menu)

 

[groze]

And it's pretty obvious from the graph above that my choices for a browser would NOT include Firefox or Opera.

Which version of Opera?
Since it seems to be based on Chrome, why are the results so different?

Once you add ad, flash & script blockers to Firefox it should be rock solid.
Once I swapped from IE6 to FF (2006?) malware attacks dropped off to basically zero.

Chrome 41 and Firefox 36(?) were rated as not vulnerable to FREAK.

lehnerus2000, how does Seamonkey browsers compare with malware attacks?

 

[lehnerus2000]

And it's pretty obvious from the graph above that my choices for a browser would NOT include Firefox or Opera.

Which version of Opera?
Since it seems to be based on Chrome, why are the results so different?

Once you add ad, flash & script blockers to Firefox it should be rock solid.
Once I swapped from IE6 to FF (2006?) malware attacks dropped off to basically zero.

Chrome 41 and Firefox 36(?) were rated as not vulnerable to FREAK.

lehnerus2000, how does Seamonkey browsers compare with malware attacks?

I don't know anything about SeaMonkey (apart from the name).

 

[maxseven]

That's not what I said at all. All I'm saying is that most of the AV tests are skewed because they don't include all of MS's features for security. Windows 7, by itself, has a rating somewhere in the high 70s or 80s%. That's right our of the box with no AV running. You never see it appearing in the AV tests or even mentioned. Security for a PC is more than any single AV can accomplish. Each has strong points and each has weak points. MS choose to incorporate many security features in the OS as well as software such as Office and Internet Explorer. This is also the primary reason MS dropped support for Gadgets. These can/could operate as a browser with no security at all. They also could perform restricted I/O at the processor level for which no AV can catch. These are sometimes caught by accident when the system BSODs. You should thank the Windows OS for that. I saw countless examples of this in my BSOD Team days. Even as dangerous as these are, people still use them and find ways to override Windows' attempt to suppress them. Go figure.

I asked a simple question on another recent thread when most were saying they never heard of malware entering a PC through the Gadgets interface. My question was simply; What is the footprint that allows someone to determine the origin of malware and make that determination? Or something close to that effect. I never got an answer.

If you want a secure PC then you have to take an active part in it and make choices that support it. Relying on just an AV will not save you no matter which one you use. And it's pretty obvious from the graph above that my choices for a browser would NOT include Firefox or Opera.

Thanks for this carwiz!

I do wonder, since some of us are addicted to our lovely desktop Gadgets, if you have ever seen a 3rd party alternative to the Windows Gadget Platform.

I also wonder why MS didn't simply kill the GP in an "update"--they must have corporate users with custom gadgets or something that keeps them from removing it huh...or maybe they just don't want the negative customer repercussions...