• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

MSE Missed 100% Of Malware In This Test

MSE is utter garbage. Most of the infected machines we deal with - are running MSE. It's tragic.. I just dealt with a Cryptolocker3 on Friday, he was littered with Malware, and of course - MSE was on there. What I find sad is people still put faith in MSE, and some incompetant IT people still deploy it.
 
ImpulsE69 said:
It says malware. Which is it?
Click to expand...
Make sure you click on this link in article since is explains their testing: http://www.cso.com.au/article/398860/ethreatz_automated_malware_testing/

They only test for malware arriving via HTTP communication. This would explain MSE's poor performance since it's a given its real time protection sucks.

Overall, this might be a good benchmark for evaluating the web filters in the products tested. Obviously malware can arrive from other sources other than the Internet.

I think the test is valid because they actually run the file, so it is a dynamic protection test.

MSE stopped being good within 12 months of them purchasing Reliable Antivirus (RAV) which was a good product, with a good team. After they fired the team, and disbanded the lab, it's been nothing but downhill from there. I cannot believe anyone would willingly install it. In fact I use Defender Uninstaller to totally remove it from PC's.

I'd rather have nothing than MSE.
 
Misleading title with a link to a poorly formatted site that looks to have been 100% computer generated with no editing.

Sounds legit.

Regardless of protection software used, you can't fix stupid. I'm not going to install a trojan-like (something like ESET or kaspersky) program that tells me what I can and cannot do with my computer and freaks out I try to do anything remotely outside what it deems normal.

Modding old games is a nightmare with programs like that.
 
You should really have an SSL inspecting AV and/or gateway product to protect your pc. Folks are smart and stuffing a virus through SSL is an easy way to get into your pc!
 
Yet another sketchy blog with a sketchy test with the OP using it as gospel on his personal vendetta against MSE.

See you all again next month!
 
People still continue to recommend MSE even after all the terrible test results. Yeah it's free but so is BitDefender Free, Avira Free, Avast Free and Panda Free and all do a pretty good job.
 
MSE is one of the only AVs (paid or otherwise) that doesn't ask for personal information to use past a trial period.

I am fine with not clicking everything that looks interesting because I trust my AV will save me. At least I can know that I have one less program company selling my email address to anyone that will pay them for it.
 
sweenish said:
Regardless of protection software used, you can't fix stupid. I'm not going to install a trojan-like (something like ESET or kaspersky) program that tells me what I can and cannot do with my computer and freaks out I try to do anything remotely outside what it deems normal.

Modding old games is a nightmare with programs like that.
Click to expand...
Modding? Hell, installing! Quite a few games that predated NT being required will have files that show up as suspicious key/mouse/disk loggers, and be blocked.
 
I don't use MSE for it's detection rate, I use it because I know it's not going to break anything or have compatibility problems.

It's also not the only one which had a low detection rate at some point in the testing. You could argue that in July 2014 several A/V's had rather poor detection rates and in fact throughout the testing the detection rates varied quite a lot with their random samples. If anything these results show just how varied detection rates can be regardless of A/V vendor and that A/V's in general shouldn't be relied upon for protection.
 
TheRyuu said:
I don't use MSE for it's detection rate, I use it because I know it's not going to break anything or have compatibility problems.

It's also not the only one which had a low detection rate at some point in the testing. You could argue that in July 2014 several A/V's had rather poor detection rates and in fact throughout the testing the detection rates varied quite a lot with their random samples. If anything these results show just how varied detection rates can be regardless of A/V vendor and that A/V's in general shouldn't be relied upon for protection.
Click to expand...

Exactly, cherry picking these "studies" is completely and totally meaningless. Every single zero-day issue has a handful of AV that catch it, and a handful more that don't, and who's on what list changes with *every single issue*. If we throw out all the sensationalized graphs and big colorful marketing misdirection, even the "worst" performer in all these tests seem to have a detection rate above 90% of all known viruses.

Honestly, a 90% detection rate is more than I practically would expect from an antivirus product. The slowest wolf in the pack can still catch a deer, and that's what matters at the end of the day.
 
The problem is that MSE is the only security program that is not itself malware.
None of them are very good, simply because good computer security is impossible. They all catch old known threats, low hanging fruit, and obvious attack vectors, and only if the user allows it to do it's job.
The main problem with all anti-virus/malware/spyware programs is that even a minimal amount of false positives almost completely negates it's actual hits due to users being behaviorally trained to automatically hitting 'allow'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top