Submitted by Microsoft’s Live OneCare security software has failed tests which check how well it spots and stops malicious programs designed to attack Windows. OneCare was the only failure among 17 anti-virus programs tested by the AV Comparatives organisation. Microsoft’s software only spotted 82.4% of the 500000 viruses that the independent group subjected it to. The test is the second in less than a month that Microsoft’s anti-virus software has failed.
It all depends on what the 17% or so viruses that weren’t found are. If they are “obsolete” viruses that don’t spread in the wild anymore, who cares. But if they are the “mean” ones then that’s a problem.
What’s also important is to see how quick the MS team is at reacting to new viruses and preventing them from spreading.
Sorry, but your logic escapse me. If OneCare misses on viruses I do not care if they are obsolete or not. The product fails to do its job properly, wheresas all others obviously do it better. And if OneCare becomes a monoculture as much as Windows on the desktop and fails to catch maybe even only obsolete viruses the technique these viruses use may see a swift revival.
So then what…
Though if those 17% aren’t detected, would they be ‘obsolete’? Seems like not being detected is half the point of a virus.
Edited 2007-03-06 19:10
My workplace was hit by the w32.sidbot worm on Thursday last week.
It almost crippled our offices in Belfast, Singapore, London and Buenos Aires.
w32.sidbot is a variant of blaster.
This is a few years old and should be considered obsolete. Our company has its security handled by McAfee, and although they had a patch within a day, it was too late to stop the damage being done.
Blaster is a completely obsolete virus, but they can still cause a lot of damage.
The thing is not how quickly Microsoft can respond to new virus attacks, the test is how Microsoft responds to security in general. Past, present and future attacks.
I am sorry but I have to disagree with you. If I get an old computer virus, I’d expect modern AV software to be able to remove it. I am suppose to rely on the AV software. I mean, if it misses the old ones, that is a greater concern and there is no excuse about it.
You shouldn’t even question if the AV software will remove this old virus and if it doesn’t, I’d think twice before using it again any time soon.
Edited 2007-03-07 07:05
The title should not say “Windows Fails Second Virus test” but that “OneCare Fails Second Virus test” we all already know Windows is as robust against viruses as paper is against fire.
Come on give Microsoft a break. They did manage to push out an OS after 5 years after all. We should count ourselves lucky! Go Microsoft! Keep it up!
No, it should actually say “Windows Fails Second Virus test”, I tried to test OneCare on this Linux box here;
Linux ubuntu-david 2.6.15-28-386 #1 PREEMPT Thu Feb 1 15:51:56 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
And it came up with this message;
We’re sorry. This version of the Windows Live OneCare safety scanner doesn’t work with your Web browser or operating system.
You need Windows XP Home Edition, Windows XP Professional, Windows 2000 Professional, Windows Server 2003, or Windows 2000 Server. You also need either Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or MSN(R) 9.0 or higher.
Emmm, no thanks.
It may be that they deliberately wrote AV that sucks in order to avoid another lawsuit from competitors or government agencies :o))
Could be. The MS reps response certainly sounded like “oh no, somebody noticed our product sucks. We’ll do better.”
Maybe they figured people would just pay a subscription fee but not actually put the software under any scrutiny.
“It may be that they deliberately wrote AV that sucks in order to avoid another lawsuit from competitors or government agencies :o))”
If only they would have done that with their operating system..oh wait
The Microsoft’s products are always so reliable …
A good lesson to teach Microsoft to focus on their market and stop being a copy cat.
Microsoft should learn that stealing every other company’s market is not a wise move, because soon or later all these companies will move their software to Linux. One company can not simply against the whole market.
Microsoft should learn that stealing every other company’s market is not a wise move, because soon or later all these companies will move their software to Linux.
Possibly the funniest thing I’ve read on OSAlert for some time. Are you talking about the many huge companies like Symantec and Adobe, all of whom have made huge efforts to capture the Linux market? /sarcasm>
Get a clue buddy, your pipe dreams are not the same as everyone elses.
Edited 2007-03-07 10:16
They should leave anti-virus to the professionals…
“They should leave anti-virus to the professionals…”
As well as operating systems!
Well said, sir!!!
That’s not a nice thing to say. There’s plenty of room for everybody – including amateurs
That’s not a nice thing to say. There’s plenty of room for everybody – including amateurs
Heh. Seriously, though, amateurs are probably a bad fit for mission-critical operating systems. Why do you think MS are so keen to hang on to their monopoly?!
Here are the actual test result from AV Comparatives who carries out the test;
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2007_02.php
What is spooky about it, is with all the resources they throw at stuff, they still manage to suck in a field that has some very good products made by people with very limited resources. It goes to show, that you can’t just throw money at something to fix it, or make it good.
I think it would be helpful to understand the Microsoft business model. It is not based on having the technically best product. Instead, it is based on having a “good enough” product combined with their marketing prowess. They create (or purchase or consume…) a “good enough” product, and then through their mechanisms, the try to make it the “standard” product, or the norm. Once the product gains sufficient marketshare and becomes the norm, they win. Then, for the rest of the product life-cycle, they make money off of upgrades.
That’s it.
The success of the Microsoft platform is due in large part to the fact that they (intentionally or not) left huge gaping holes in functionality that allowed ISVs to secure mass market positions without the usual process of creating a niche and carving outward for years. They release a platform that is practically unusable without a certain set of aftermarket software from third parties. The more room you leave for others to make money off your platform, the happier your development community will be.
Unfortunately, people like the out of the box experience to be complete, and Microsoft’s installed base is often clueless about what third-party software they might need to properly use their platform. Microsoft is in the tough position of being forced to fill in the gaps that have made their platform so profitable for ISVs. Like Apple, they are finding that going at it alone and building every single mass market necessity into your platform is daunting, and licensing third party software to be included by default is both expensive and an antitrust suit waiting to happen (for Microsoft at least).
These mass market platforms are massively complex. Like the semiconductor industry, it is just too expensive to do your own research, build your own technologies, and hope to eek out an advantage over your competition. The semiconductor industry is well on its way to becoming Intel out on its own (as the market leader) and everybody else collaborating with IBM. The platform industry is consolidating in a similar manner, collaborating on the OSS stack to gain a competitive advantage on the market leader. Even within the Linux microcosm we see collaboration around Ubuntu to head off the dominant vendors.
Mass markets demand common and ubiquitous solutions, and collaboration is the best approach. The market leader bandwagon can only go so far before the tidal wave of collaborating opposition undermines their economy of scale.
The market leader bandwagon can only go so far before the tidal wave of collaborating opposition undermines their economy of scale
However, a company can make a ROYAL LOAD of money during that period, which can last 20+ years!
… when a virus takes over your computer, you start sending spam without your consent and you get a notice by your ISP to install a REAL AV.
when a virus takes over your computer, you start sending spam without your consent and you get a notice by your ISP to install a REAL AV.
FOR YOUR HUMBLEST GIVE ATTENTION
FROM: THE DESK OF HONORALBE MUSTFSON SMITH, PRINCE OF NIGERIAN CONSOLATES
IT is with greatest saddness I must to give you notices of the passing by of you distant relative JOHN VON RICHSON. As his exutor of the will, I am to give you aware of his kindest attentions to leave you the sum of 10 MILLION DOLARS. Not fortunates, I am undable to wire you said gifts. However, I arrange a wire to transfer said sum to you bank account with sufficient information. Please contact me as soon as you are going to read this so we can make your arrangements.
For His Godliness
Your Servant
Oh the poor man, if you are unable to help him, I will let him use my bank account.
Emmmm, but only if there is a disscount on six months supply of Viagara, and a kit to make my pennis bigger.
Edited to “fix” spelling of Discount, Viagra and Penis, otherwise they will not get through some pesky filters in my email client
Edited 2007-03-06 23:45
I think this is okay, as those 17% viruses are not “Microsoft Certified” only. So people, Windows is very safe to use!
Who knows what calculations went into the making of OneCare. The simplest explanation and most likely the truest is that Microsoft are just not very good. Other, paranoid calculations include the notion that OneCare just has to be very good at catching viruses that affect Vista since it’s not really in Microsoft’s interests to continue with “support” for WinXP and co.
Just my 2 cents, but I don’t think there’s any need for an average home user to pay for this stuff anyway. Good practice + reasonable sense + Comodo Firewall + AVG = no cost at all and not too many stolen CPU cycles. Symantec’s products – which score well in this test – are absolute system monsters and take over your machine. No one’s going to reach 100 per cent anyway; if they did, the zero day exploit would not exist.
I guess results like these just reinforce the notion that Microsoft these days is a gigantic sales and marketing machine with a sprawling litigation office and somewhere, mysteriously where, and fabulously expensive if you believe Microsoft, an R&D office. Perhaps the R&D office these days has to spend so much of its time writing checks for “marketing contributions” that it just doesn’t get much time to do stuff on computer code. I mean, why test the cow when the suckers will buy the milk anyway.
I think MS just wants to control the entire computing industry, and, hopefully, that isn’t going to happen. It doesn’t surprise me that their ‘virus protection’ is an absolute flop. It sickens me to hear the guys at Staples saying ‘It’s the best out there right now.’ Lame.
OneCare uses developers and technology Microsoft acquired from GeCad, a Romanian AntiVirus maker. Just wondering, how good did their product perform before they got taken over?
GeCad product was named RAV Antivirus, and it was a fairly decent product. But now, you can see for yourself
So, did anyone else see the www4 site of osnews? Wow, that is quite horrific: http://www4.osnews.com/
No kidding I do not like that at all this site is easy to read, easy on the eyes and easy to navigate.
If it is not broke don’t fix it, Zdnet was once easy to read and navigate now they have made it almost impossible to view so I stay away from it.
The link to OSAlert v4 website might have been mistake.
OSAlert v4 is not really ready for public, there are still several bugs and security flaws plus missing features. Especially IE user up to version 6 have troubles viewing current v4 implementation.
My take: It’s better to wait a few more weeks, until everything has been finished and stress tested.
Wow, if the site looks like that I think I might stop coming here. Thats awful.
Am I the only one who thinks the new looks site looks good? ….actually, don’t answer that! Sure it’s not perfect but it makes a change!
Shame AdBlock Plus doesn’t seem to want to block the ads on it though
The Name of the article should be changed from “Windows Fails Second Virus test” to “OneCare Fails Second Virus test” to “Microsoft Fails Second Virus test” so that it will appear in the rss 3 times instead of 2.
It took them 5 years to get XP to be an 80% complete product. One Care has been out for what, a year only?
See what MS is capable of when they don’t own the market?
Windows OneCare had been certified by ICSA Labs and the West Point Checkpoint system.
I trust in ICSA Labs.
Edited 2007-03-07 09:44
It is not allowed to publish benchmarks of SQL Server, etc., so I am surprised if it is allowed under Microsoft EULA to publish any comparison results of OneCare with competitive products.