Why Microsoft Doesn't Need Independent Antivirus Lab Tests

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by sturgess, Oct 30, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    That's access to their API, nothing to do with submitting samples to AV vendors.

    https://www.virustotal.com/en/about/
     
  2. phalanaxus

    phalanaxus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Posts:
    509
    Except that Microsoft is a collaborator for Virustotal so they should get info from them. From virustotal fax

    "In exchange for providing an antivirus solution you will receive all files submitted to VirusTotal that are not detected by your product and are detected by at least one other antivirus, along with their corresponding VirusTotal reports."
     
  3. FreddyFreeloader

    FreddyFreeloader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Posts:
    527
    Location:
    Tejas
  4. m0use0ver

    m0use0ver Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    81

    Dude i unsure how to tell you this apart from i'm under NDA with 2 of the companies that are listed on VT scan report.

    They do not receive free samples from VirusTotal.

    They both pay to have their engine used as part of the front end VT service and both pay big bucks for volume downloading of samples from the MIS back end service.

    I would suggest they need to update their wording in their about as it has been untrue for years now.
     
  5. SLE

    SLE Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    361
    What facts? You compare different numbers which result from different prevalence data. AV-Test uses some other data (their own) and have a different understanding / indicator of what is widespread.

    While M$ claimed in the past that many samples that AV-Test used and which were not detected by M$ products didn't affect users of M$ products.
     
  6. FreddyFreeloader

    FreddyFreeloader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Posts:
    527
    Location:
    Tejas
    The facts are Microsoft claims they detect WIDESPREAD malware.
    AV-Test: Industry average detection of widespread malware is 99%.
    MSE/Windows Defender: 96% of WIDESPREAD malware.
    That's apples to apples, the same samples were used for all the AVs in that test.
    http://www.av-test.org/en/tests/home-user/windows-xp/marapr-2013/

    MSE/Defender new zeroday detection is far less:86%.
    http://www.av-test.org/no_cache/en/tests/test-reports/?tx_avtestreports_pi1[report_no]=131469

    More about MSE:
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=353803
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
  7. SLE

    SLE Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2011
    Posts:
    361
    Nobody says the opposite :)
    But M$ claims that the AV-Test sample set isn't representative for ITW malware according to their own data. If that is true - why should there be a need at all. beide being good in synthetic tests, to detect as much as possible from such a set? Why spend energy to detect things that doesn't affect users? (btw. read AV-C detailled reports, they are a bit clearer about their prevalence data and sources etc. than AV-Test)

    I don't know the "real" thing but I see the different perspectives. And know everybody can decide whom to believe: a testing company which gives only a few details, or a large vendor which of course has much data... Beside that we can also look for a truth that is somewhere between. But what we can't is to compare those percentages cause they have different bases and understandings of widespread.
     
  8. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    It doesn't take a genius to see this, the results speak for themselves.

    Without actual evidence this statement is worth squat.

    I'm not saying you're wrong. Google DID buy VT after all, who knows what rules they changed to better suit them. Maybe they want to milk AV vendors for money, I don't know.

    But the current statements on the VT website simply do not align with what you're saying.
     
  9. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    10,239
    Location:
    Lloegyr
    Does this mean I should stop using MSE?
     
  10. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    What part of that article was implying that?
     
  11. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    find it a little amusing in that Microsoft who have more data than anyone,yes I do mean anyone:-from every widows PC connected to the net that uses windows/microsoft update,which is millions of PCs all over the world say one thing but the armchair experts on here know far better!
     
  12. aztony

    aztony Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Posts:
    737
    Location:
    The Valley Arizona
    Not necessarily, but they have opinions, and they are allowed to have and express their opinions.
     
  13. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    4,101
    I think "conjecture" is a more appropriate term.
     
  14. aztony

    aztony Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Posts:
    737
    Location:
    The Valley Arizona
    Call it whatever you want, that is the point of having forums like this.
     
  15. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    but they don't seem to think it is an opinion they read some stuff on the web and then they are an expert so they are posting what they consider to be facts:-Microsoft on the other hand have the facts,know what malware is actually attacking machines worldwide and develop countermeasures to the threats that are actually threats,not every bit of garbage that some of the so called independent tests throw at products,just because a product doesn't defend against a certain piece of malware that another does doesn't actually mean in the real world it will be less effective at protecting a PC:-if that malware is never going to be encountered,to protect against such is just chasing percentages in the independent tests,in the real world a product only recognising 80% may protect just as well as another recognising 99.999% in same test:-if the 19.999% is never going to be encountered
    I do however think MS should run the update service with the malware removing tool more frequently than monthly unless it can be definitely proven there is no real need to
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
  16. phalanaxus

    phalanaxus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Posts:
    509
    Microsoft is a commercial company, they sell their services and products to people to make money. They will try to protect and promote their products and interests in any means possible. Will you promote your product by saying, "hey we suck at what we do but we are good people" ?

    By the way I suggest you to read what you wrote, think of what you are accusing people of doing and what you just did.
     
  17. aztony

    aztony Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Posts:
    737
    Location:
    The Valley Arizona
    That would be the same M$, who having the facts of their OSes under constant attack, for years, were amazingly late getting to the game in providing viable Anti-malware solutions. For many years M$ customers had to be reliant on other vendors to provide the tools needed to protect Windows OSes from being exploited. I wouldn't say that M$ has an enviable history/record of looking after their customer's best interests.
     
  18. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    they had no real reason to get in on the game from a marketing point of view,the market was all ready saturated with products,its possible they only entered because they had knowledge the others didn't and could see that in reality products offered didn't actually serve the windows users well,why else offer free solutions? is not like an AV vendor using free products to try and tempt you to buy their paid for product
     
  19. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    I have read what is written,so you think lots of the posts here aren't saying Microsoft basically don't know what they are talking about? Don't you think it is in their best interests to actually make sure users are kept malware free?don't forget business users are a big part of their revenue and they cannot afford for that sector to be compromised if possible(not possible 100% of the time no matter which solution is employed)
     
  20. FreddyFreeloader

    FreddyFreeloader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Posts:
    527
    Location:
    Tejas
    Microsoft has admitted their MSE is substandard and users would be better off using a 3rd party AV.
     
  21. aztony

    aztony Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2012
    Posts:
    737
    Location:
    The Valley Arizona
    That's the problem with the world today. If I created a product that was later discovered to be flawed, with a many holes that could be/and was being exploited I would feel it my obligation to either fix the product, or get my customer the tools necessary to protect against exploits, regardless of whether it made sense, or not, from a marketing or any other point of view, as quickly as possible.

    Somebody had to fill the demand because of M$ reticence.
     
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2013
  22. elapsed

    elapsed Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Posts:
    7,076
    Logical people exist, amazing. Nice post.

    There's a difference between what they said and what you think they said.
     
  23. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    Microsoft do fix holes when they are discovered or can be exploited,there is no software ever written without some flaws that only come to light with time Microsoft are no different tan any other software company apart from their market share:-that market share is the real reason their products are targeted,not because they are actually more vulnerable than other products,for the malware writers its basically a numbers game
     
  24. phalanaxus

    phalanaxus Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2011
    Posts:
    509
    I can't speak on behalf of other people but I can say what I think. I say they really know what they are saying BUT bend and share words/knowledge however they see fit for their interests as any other business would do.

    It would be in their interest to keep people malware free if either protecting systems get them money, or systems infected meant they lose customers. In MSE/Defender/MSRT cases it doesn't grant them money, and infected windows in usual won't cost them customers.

    For large business practices you can't use MSE, search for system center which is licensed for a hefty sum.

    An of course no solution is bullet-proof, they are designed by humans after all.
     
  25. Inside Out

    Inside Out Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2013
    Posts:
    421
    Location:
    Pangea
    I used to trust a lot in those so-called big independent tests, but you can't help doubting them anymore when according to A LOT of reviews, users of some AVs with supposedly great detection keep getting badly infected more frequently than those of "weaker", but still popular alternatives. Not to say that there are no products that both test well and do a good job IRL, but people will always react when a piece of software that's supposed to do its job 24/7 fails them in one way or another, no matter how stupid or naive they may be.

    In this article, Microsoft admit to having gamed it in the past, so it stands to reason that some of the other vendors might also be doing it:
    Producing only a "basic" AV for Windows makes sense, because they wouldn't beat more sophisticated third-party AVs at their own game anyway and would just have introduced more bugs. If they have one advantage over a dedicated IT security company, it would be knowing their own OS inside out. They shouldn't be blamed for playing to their own strengths. Also, "basic" doesn't necessarily mean poor. An AV can still be quality if it has a good, solid engine and signatures even though it may lack some fancy features.
     
    Last edited: Nov 3, 2013
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.