FreddyFreeloader

Level 31
Verified
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
2,079
OS
Other OS
#1
Microsoft has aggressively promoted Security Essentials until not a long time ago, saying that it provides at least similar protection as any other anti-virus product, including rival software from Kaspersky, ESET, Symantec, or Bitdefender.

Holly Stewart, senior program manager of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center, admitted in an interview with Dennis Technology Labs, a company that performs anti-virus tests on a regular basis, that Security Essentials is indeed designed to remain “at the bottom” of all rankings, so users should really install third-party protection.

The surprising statements are actually supposed to show that Microsoft is trying to work with partners and security companies across the world as much as possible, with Security Essentials holding a key role in this collaboration.

The tech giant is keeping Security Essentials fully updated in order to provide the protection users need, so any other piece of software that achieves better results than this one is clearly capable of providing advanced security features.

"We had an epiphany a few years ago, back in 2011, where we realised we had a greater calling and that was to protect all Microsoft customers," Steward was quoted as saying by PC Pro. "But you can’t do that with a monoculture and you can’t do that with a malware-catching ecosystem that is not robust and diverse."

The Microsoft rep admitted, however, that Redmond previously invested a lot of money trying to make Security Essentials achieve better results in all these anti-virus tests.

"We used to have part of our team directed towards predicting test results and figuring out what might be in someone’s test. There’s always a cost to that," she said. "If they are doing that work they are not looking at those threats that are affecting our customers. We always felt that was wrong. There’s something not right about that – we’re not doing the best job for our customers."

Now it all comes down to the collaboration with partners that are supposed to provide better protection, even though Security Essentials doesn’t score well in anti-virus tests.

"We’re providing all of that data and information to our partners so they can do at least as well as we are," Stewart said. "The natural progression is that we will always be on the bottom of these tests. And honestly, if we are doing our job correctly, that’s what will happen."

Is this a way to explain Security Essentials’ recent poor performance in anti-virus tests? Maybe, but it’s pretty clear that Microsoft isn’t yet ready to develop a full-featured security product, so third-parties seem to remain your only choice for an unbreakable computer.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Microsoft-Admits-That-Security-Essentials-Is-Just-a-Basic-Anti-Virus-Product-386213.shtml
 
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
740
#2
I read a comment of member in malwaretips about "why they consider MSE as a baseline." so i think it is crystal clear now.
 

Littlebits

Retired Staff
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,868
#3
I believe the main reasons Microsoft is holding back is to keep the third-party security software market open, keep their security compatible, light on resources and very limited false positives.

If Microsoft did make MSE/ Windows Defender more comparable to third-party security products, even more users would switch to it.

Paid security products have lost many sells over the years with more freeware products getting better. If you go any of the download sites the top downloaded security products are all freeware.

Most paid products are getting worse with false positive issues, have compatibility problems especially with Windows 8, slow down Windows processes and costs too much.

Most users who know how to download files safely and utilize UAC, can get by just fine and never get infection using MSE/ Windows Defender.

The users that just will not learn can not be protected by any product period. Just one infection is too much and third-party security products can not guarantee that they can fully protect their users and many offer terrible support when a user gets an infection.

In a way, paid security products are just like scams offering false security to their paid customers.

If a user consistently gets infections, it would be a better investment for them to pay for computer education coarse than to keep paying for security products or paying for malware removal services.

AV testing sites are also scams especially when they give a product a 100% score which is impossible for any security products to achieve. Most are financially supported by the same vendors which they test.

Thanks. :D
 
Joined
Jan 17, 2013
Messages
295
#4
It´s my SOS when fininsh a license of another AV like Norton, WSA or Bitdefender.
But new version is better because are more light and really protect and remove all malware.
Thanks Microsoft
 

Spawn

Administrator
MalwareTips Staff
Verified
Joined
Jan 8, 2011
Messages
17,572
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Microsoft
#5
Since 'Windows Live OneCare' was discontinued, MSE has ALWAYS been the Basic AV on the market. Not once have I seen them advertise it as a superior product to the likes of Kaspersky or ESET.

So, this is nothing new since 2009.

Edit: If they did, then I'm sure it would have similar consequences like the EU Browser Ballot..
 

Littlebits

Retired Staff
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
3,868
#6
Microsoft basically has their hands tied, they have the technology to make the best AV for Windows without having compatibility problems or false positives but if they did this it would destroy the AV market and they would get accused of trying to run a monopoly.

Any way MSE/ Windows Defender can protect those users who are not reckless and do pay attention. Many of my customers get by just fine with Microsoft security products and I don't need any AV testing site to tell me otherwise.

Thanks. :D
 
Likes: Bruce

Exterminator

Super Moderator
MalwareTips Staff
Verified
Joined
Oct 23, 2012
Messages
12,280
OS
Windows 10
Antivirus
Kaspersky
#7
Microsoft Admits That Third-Party Antivirus Is More Effective Than MSE



When Microsoft Security Essentials started falling behind in effectiveness tests, we stopped recommending it. Microsoft is now officially saying that they've shifted their focus and establishing MSE as a "baseline."

PC Pro is reporting that Microsoft has "admitted Windows users should install antivirus above and beyond its own Security Essentials." In a recent interview, Holly Stewart of the Microsoft Malware Protection Center said that Microsoft has changed its approach to antivirus and aim to share their antivirus research with other companies and establish MSE as a "baseline" for other programs to build off of:

Microsoft said:
"We’re providing all of that data and information to our partners so they can do at least as well as we are," she said. "The natural progression is that we will always be on the bottom of these tests. And honestly, if we are doing our job correctly, that’s what will happen."

She added that Microsoft wants "everyone to do better than us because we know that makes it harder for the bad guys".
Source
 

Petrovic

Level 63
Verified
Joined
Apr 25, 2013
Messages
5,280
#9
Microsoft Admits MSE is Bottom of the Heap, Recommends Using 3rd Party Antivirus



Actually, the headline should probably read… “Microsoft Admits MSE is Bottom of the Heap, Recommends 3rd Party Antivirus - or does it?“.
This story, complete with supposedly substantiating quotations direct from an interview with a Microsoft representative, is currently all the buzz.
Here are just several variations of the same theme:
Microsoft: Security Essentials is designed to be bottom of the antivirus rankings – PC Pro
Microsoft Admits That Third-Party Antivirus Is More Effective Than MSE – Lifehacker
Goodbye Microsoft Security Essentials: Microsoft Now Recommends You Use a Third-Party Antivirus – How-To Geek
According to the PC Pro article, “Microsoft has admitted that Windows users should install antivirus above and beyond its own Security Essentials”. All articles include the following quote attributed to Holly Stewart, senior program manager at the Microsoft Malware Protection Center, during a purported interview with Dennis Technology Labs:
We’re providing all of that data and information to our partners so they can do at least as well as we are. The natural progression is that we will always be on the bottom of these tests. And honestly, if we are doing our job correctly, that’s what will happen.
I have dug down through all these articles and associated links, right back to the source, and it seems to me that there is very little foundation for these headlines. It may all be true and factual of course but I couldn’t find any official record/transcript of the original interview with Holly Stewart, no official statement from Microsoft, nothing which actually substantiates any of these claims. As far as I am concerned, this lack of confirmation relegates the entire story to mere hearsay. What we have here is a typical example of reporters jumping on the band wagon without first seeking to confirm the facts - just the type of reporting that can easily perpetuate false or misleading information.

As I said earlier, I do not know if this story holds any truth or not. On the surface, knowing how poorly Microsoft Security Essentials has fared in recent AV tests, one could easily afford it a degree of credence. On the other hand, it’s difficult to believe that Microsoft would actually recommend Windows users should dump MSE and install a third party antivirus. I, for one, am not prepared to accept information at face value which has emanated initially from an unconfirmed source and then been passed on from article to article, virtually verbatim.

Source
 
Likes: Littlebits