Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Kaspersky, Nod32, BitDefender, Symantec, McAfee
Adjust text size:
Believe it or not, but the recently introduced, free security solution from Microsoft manages to hold its own against fully-fledged, paid security suites from heavyweight players on the security market, at least when it comes down to generic detection and heuristic techniques. In fact, Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0
, formerly codenamed Morro, fared better than the products from security companies that were fast to downplay the relevance of a free basic solution from the Redmond company. According to AV-Comparatives
, Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0 outperformed no less than 10 rival products for heuristics detection
AV-Comparatives compared a total of 16 products from various security companies, including AVIRA AntiVir Premium 184.108.40.2066, G DATA Antivirus 220.127.116.11, Kaspersky AntiVirus 18.104.22.1683, ESET NOD32 Antivirus 4.0.437.0, F-Secure Antivirus 10.00.246, Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0 beta, Avast Professional Edition 4.8.1348, BitDefender Antivirus 22.214.171.124, eScan AntiVirus 10.0.997.491, AVG Antivirus 8.5.406, Trustport Antivirus 126.96.36.19917, McAfee VirusScan Plus 13.11.102, Symantec Norton Antivirus 188.8.131.52, Sophos Antivirus 7.6.10, Norman Antivirus & AntiSpyware 7.10.02, and Kingsoft Antivirus 2009.08.05.16.
“The products used the same updates and signatures they had the 10th August, and the same highest detection settings were used. This test shows the proactive detection capabilities that the products had at that time. We used new malware appeared between the 11th and 17th of August 2009,” AV-Comparatives noted.
Obviously, Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0 was still in beta in the first half of August 2009. Microsoft only released its free security solution for Windows 7, Windows Vista, and Windows XP, at the end of September, for customers running genuine copies of Windows.
With a detection rate of 56%, Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0 managed to grab the fifth position, along with F-Secure, which delivered a similar performance. Only five products bested MSE, namely ESET NOD32 with a detection rate of 60%, Kaspersky with 64%, G Data with 66%, and Avira with 74%. However, at the same time, Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0 also delivered a very low number of false positives.
MSE mistook no more than 15 legitimate code samples for malware, while not the same can be said of Avira, Sophos, McAfee, TrustPort, Norman, and Kingsoft, which all had in excess of 15 false positives. This is why MSE received the highest possible certification from AV-Comparatives, along with additional security solutions that balanced a high detection rate with a low number of false positives.
Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0 can be downloaded for free via this link
MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:
|Comment #1 by: Dave Levinson on 01 Dec 2009, 20:13 UTC|| reply to this comment|
The AV-Comparatives test quoted was not intended to be used this way. The test looked at one feature - detection of new malware in files already on a system with all updates and all cloud technologies turned off (see page 5 of the report). So key technology used by used extensively by Panda, McAfee and Symantec was disabled. It also did not test HIPS technologies or real time protection offered by such vendors as Kaspersky and Symantec.
While Microsoft's virus scanner isn't bad at detecting viruses in files, a deeper review of its detection and review capabilities found many issues - see PC Magazine http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353386,00.asp
|Comment #1.1 by: verytiredchris on 18 Sep 2010, 18:20 GMT|
Spyware Terminator uses HIPS technology on my computer, but let in Microsoft malware. I am now considering uninstalling it and installing Microsoft Security Essentials, but I'm not quite sure what to do...............
What say you ?
|Comment #2 by: Shiv Datt Bishnoi on 02 Dec 2009, 02:22 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Morro is very good performer in computer security.
It is also provde best protection ffrom viruses.
Thanks to Microsoft
|Comment #3 by: Dude on 14 Dec 2009, 03:33 UTC|| reply to this comment|
If Micro$oft would write an OS that isn't full of holes this would all be moot. They are good at smashing competition but lousy at operating systems.
This will be yet another domination by default. Afterall, who would pay for a product when Microsoft gives it away for free. Of course if they made you pay for it it would be like paying "protection money" to the mob.
|Comment #3.1 by: RCS2000 on 27 Dec 2009, 06:50 GMT|
I totally agree with you on that one. lol. Microsoft can't write an operating system, they might as well try their hand at anti-virus software. lol, besides after releasing Winblows vista, and 7, you need to release anti-virus software to get rid of all the viruses those operating systems will attract. I'm surprised it's free though. Knowing Microsoft, they will find a way to charge u for it. lol, prolly like 300.00 like the price of vista or 7. for 129, you get basic protection, for 199, you get basic plus it will scan inside archives, for 300.00 you get the Ultimate protection. lol. Oh in order for you to scan network drives, you need to purchase the 199.00 business protection. lol. Just get a mac, and don't worry about any anti-virus software, and their charge for a new operating system, a whopping 50.00 bucks or so and your done. lol. wow. :)
|Comment #4 by: YL Groper on 06 Jan 2010, 18:27 UTC|| reply to this comment|
1, Windows has holes because you can do anything with it. It is vulnerable because you have the option of open source development.
2. Vista blows
3. 7 isnt vista
4. Macs cant do anything. They suck. hate mac people talking about how their computer doesnt get viruses. To say a mac doesnt have viruses is the same logic to saying mac doesnt have software. Because like all software, viruses aren't compatible with a mac. Saying no viruses is only bagging on your dud $5000 worthless computer. Because you are right; Macs are so worthless that they arent even capable of getting viruses. "My computer can do so little that it doesnt even have the ability to get a virus, isnt it cool? i spent 5 times more money on it then a computer that works"
Mac - PC: buying a mac is like going car shopping and buying a car that only goes 5 miles an hour and paying 5 times more for it. then saying how awesome it is and how much better is it that you dont have to worry about car accidents and your insurance is $50 instead of $300. Why dont you noobs just learn how to secure your computers?
|Comment #4.1 by: terroare on 27 May 2010, 23:21 GMT|
I'm totally agreed with you Andre.
It is logical, that the most used platform to be attacked the most.
By the way, do you remember RAV antivirus ? yes the one acquired by MS in 2003.
RAV was No. 1 antivirus protection software on Windows and even on Linux platform.
In those days, when BitDefender was AVP the ridiculous antivirus, RAV was a complete protection solution.
And guess what ? MSE and other security products from MS are based on RAV technology.
This is the reason of the performance and low resource consumption of MSE.
In time MSE will be better, just wait :)
|Comment #4.2 by: Fieryhail on 12 Feb 2011, 23:04 GMT|
I was reading this comment and had to respond to it. I doubt you'll respond back but I'll speak my piece anyway. I'm an MCSE, and also an ACSA (Apple Certified Systems Administrator). I work heavily with both Windows systems and Unix/Linux based systems. Mostly on the server side but also on desktops. I CHOOSE to run all Macintosh for my workstation/laptop because I find they are overall MORE capable and reliable systems. Yes, it is true that a Mac Pro workstation can run into the $5,000 range, and money well spent in my opinion if you need that level of power. Also, as far as being overpriced, a Mac Pro is less expensive than a comparably equipped Dell Precision workstation by appx. $1,000.
It's not that Macs can not run software, in fact, as a Unix-based system, they are capable of much much more than most people realize. Spend some time in software development and you will realize what I mean. And it's not that Macs CAN'T get a virus, it's that the Unix/Linux security model is much more difficult to infect than Windows. There have been viruses for mac, mostly proof of concept. Bottom line is that both operating systems have numerous holes and security flaws, but it really comes down to what environment you prefer to work in. Windows or Unix. I find that Unix is overall a much speedier environment, as it makes much more efficient use of system resources. And also, for the majority of software used today (with the exception of games) there is a native Mac version as well as Windows version. Also even games are starting to be released for Mac. I think your comment is based on ignorance rather than knowledge.
|Comment #4.3 by: techbiz on 14 Apr 2011, 22:51 GMT|
lol I saw that the other comments are old but not the last one and had to stop and laugh, because the original comment is correct 100%(I was originally looking for info on MSE reputation)
"Bottom line is that both operating systems have numerous holes and security flaws, but it really comes down to what environment you prefer to work in."
The only thing you got correct.
"Windows or Unix. I find that Unix is overall a much speedier environment, as it makes much more efficient use of system resources. And also, for the majority of software used today (with the exception of games) there is a native Mac version as well as Windows version. Also even games are starting to be released for Mac."
Thats all nice and fine if it is what you prefer, BUT for normal people, Windows 7 to be more specific is the better choice.
"I think your comment is based on ignorance rather than knowledge."
I think that is backwards, this is the ONLY reason i bothered commenting, people like you are currently giving outdated information and need to be corrected , I admit I do not have my very rare ACSA but get your MCITP and we can talk.
|Comment #5 by: Andre on 20 Jan 2010, 22:43 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Still the old discussion about Microsoft vs Apple??
I am a developer by occupation and I can tell you that there are just as many holes in Leopard OS as in Linux as in Windows.
Windows is simply the most attacked by hackers because 90% of the world uses it. The hackers spend 99.9% of their time writing malware and viruses for Windows and 0.1% of their time on the other OS's.
The I-phone from Apple is now also a good example of being attacked by a lot of viruses and malware.
Why? Because it is popular (AKA much used) just like Windows.
|Comment #6 by: Tom on 25 Apr 2010, 04:50 UTC|| reply to this comment|
For what it is worth... MSE sucks! Try clicking the Antivirus 2010 popup and see how effective MSE is at not even knowing you even installed this headache of a program! Kaspersky is the only program I have found that will get rid of that nasty infection!
|Comment #7 by: Me on 02 Jul 2011, 23:07 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Kind of don't get how you can expect an oginaztion that makes a OS with that many holes in it will create an AV. If it's free, why just not bundle it with the OS? It's kind of saying there security on there OS is so rubbish, they are going to have to give a free down load to put some parts right, plus they can't includ it on the disk ?
|Comment #8 by: Anand Potukuchi on 08 Sep 2011, 12:58 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Really to be truthful i have just sent a report to Microsoft on my computer's anti-virus and i found no virus in my computer at all. As I am a developer I need to download many programs and create new ones but I find no Virus at all!!!!!!!!
|Comment #9 by: NAVEEN on 15 Oct 2011, 06:32 UTC|| reply to this comment|
ALL the people who are against MSE having in their mind that its free so that software programmers will not have work.
Therefore they are against MSE
|Comment #10 by: ben on 23 Oct 2011, 12:39 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Microsoft security essentials is doing good. in fact it detects malware that cannot be detected by avast, avira,AVG, eset, bit defender and many other more. thanks to this anti virus this really solves our problem when several virus attacks happened to us. later we found out that the virus silently disables the anti virus mentioned above and it also disabled your firewall but you can never see any notification that your anti virus and firewall is disable. this virus creates a duplicate of your folders and finally hide it. (sexy.exe, porn.exe) these are the folders we've found during the attacks. I hope you'll support MSE..................posted from Philippines.
|Comment #11 by: Krazy Kree on 10 Jan 2012, 23:18 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I had a MSE on my computer in which It did not detected a high security virus. Now it has been the talk that free programs is less than the operation of the paid ones. I have an Windows 7 in which it is said that the firewall is so much better,than the firewall on XP and Vista which I had owned both. So from those two OS I had used Internet Security softwares,Mostly at the time Norton. But with Vista,Norton was a memory hog on that system and so was Kaperskey. So now I am using McAfee SaaS program. I did like the Norton in which it was automatic so to speak.
|Comment #12 by: dcssteve on 27 Jan 2012, 16:00 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Used Kaspersky for years. It got very complicated to administer and blocked many valid operations. It required constant setting of options. It also affected system performance at times. Security Essentials has been a blessing. I spend zero time administering it and it does the job never getting in my way. I am NOT a Microsoft fan but they hit the ball over the fence with Security Essentials. I have remove Kaspersky from every computer I touch and install Security Essentials.
|Comment #13 by: Hukfin on 27 Jan 2012, 19:03 UTC|| reply to this comment|
Just downloaded MSE so I don't have real evidence on pro's and con's. It seemed to have very favorable reviews. I downloaded MSE because I was having a horrible time with Vipre, the support sucked and it really slowed my laptop down which unfortunately runs Vista. So I required an antivirus software that did not make the performance worse. MSE does the job performance wise.
|Comment #13.1 by: PD DAWG Xbox Ambassador on 07 Mar 2012, 10:26 GMT|
Oh..... wow what have I found on this blog forum board abunch of people and truely selfish incorrect infomation about any of the 3 main Based OSi, OSD, and OS32. Heres to the people in this conversation that brags about thier WTF certs they have. Windows is faulted for the fact its the higher used OS dealing with credit card infomation storage, DCOM site storage on passwords and webcerts. MAC OSi is at fault cause its a backbone from Linux people not Unix since UNIX is from 1992 dismissed project since then. I agree MACs are very expensive and you have to constantly pay for a reformat, but not a PC. They can reformat everyday, anyday, and while they are sleeping with out worries. Microsoft MSE is Windows Live one care and why it is free is not cause of making up for the supposed patch holes you mistaken from some one saying that in another website. They use it free cause its a prefered open source code engine and the TOS EULA states in the TOS if you read it " doubt you people do " that its based on a membership as free to share, rewrite, and reproduce the spftware to your liking. Now I agree with the people in here about Linux, but here is why both WinX86/32>64 and MACi10 are Linux. Wow bet you didn't know that. The UAC is the same as Sudo Su in linux just with out the load terminal. The UAC in MACi is the same thing also with out the @host login. LOL to the guy up there who claims to be a big time Apple person and to the other with all his / or her certs. You don't know jack. I agree with Kaspersky, but its a 34% hog on processor. Its has a code injected type of admin on root monitor that is from Linux on terminal of redhat. So Sudo Su yourselves and think this for a chance. There is no perfect software, there is no perfect hardware, and if there was then why are we always upgrading. * off for now. Get Microsoft MSE its better than any other free service.
|Comment #14 by: PD DAWG on 07 Mar 2012, 10:41 UTC|| reply to this comment|
I really wonder if any of you people understand that no of what your saying is making sense to the topic at hand. Windows has more need to be attacked cause of its high rate of use more so than MACi. It as Microsoft has more use in creditcard infomation and site storage DCOM storage to attack that MAC does. Tho MAC is not my choice either for the hardware in them suck * more than a Emachine on walmart clearance. Plus MACi piggybacks off of all open source projects from guess who " Linux " for those who call it UNIX your wrong. Linux has and is the project source turn over since 1992 when UNIX on core 2 went south and they converted to Linux project in New York. Now I give Microsoft this> they have the fastest runtime core clean script, they are compatible with just about any hardware
Copyright © 2001-2013 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at