Vulnerabilities / Threats
8/21/2013
11:08 AM
50%
50%

Microsoft Windows Defender Stumbles In Malware Tests

Microsoft's free anti-virus software came in last among 23 programs at catching known malware in an AV program shootout, says independent testing firm.

9 Android Apps To Improve Security, Privacy
9 Android Apps To Improve Security, Privacy
(click image for larger view)
Microsoft Windows can be secured against new malware threats -- provided users don't rely on the free antivirus software that's included with the operating system.

That's one of the takeaways from an endpoint security study released this week by independent German lab AV-Test.

The researchers evaluated 28 antivirus products against three criteria: protection, repair and usability. Products could earn up to six points in each category for a possible total of 18 points. After tallying the results, AV-Test reported that "Bitdefender, Kaspersky Lab and Symantec lead the field while the protection packages from Avast, F-Secure and GData share fourth place."

Still, all of the products earned top scores of 15.2 points or more -- which stood in sharp contrast to the performance of Microsoft's free offerings. "The test results of these [six] products alone are all nearly five points higher than the overall result obtained by Microsoft's Windows Defender or Security Essentials when used together with the Windows Firewall," reported AV-Test. "This proves that the use of external security solutions can lead to a massive improvement when it comes to system protection."

[ Little Prince George a menace? Read Royal Baby Malware Attacks. ]

Interestingly, the top-ranked applications weren't always the best at stopping malware, as measured by the lab's "protection" tests. "The suites from Bitdefender, F-Secure and Kaspersky all did the best job in this category, achieving detection rates of 100%, while the best free programs, namely those from Avast and AVG, were only able to make it to eighth and twelfth place respectively," said AV-Test. "The Windows Defender provided by Microsoft in its operating system set a very low benchmark value with a detection rate of just 79%."

The protection tests were designed to test each product's real-world detection capabilities, and involved subjecting each product to 400 pieces of brand-new -- aka zero-day -- malware.

The products also were tested using a "reference set" comprising 60,000 pieces of malware. "The malware in the [reference] set is already up to four weeks old," said AV-Test. "Good programs are therefore always able to identify 100% of the malware on this list." Furthermore, AV-Test said products only failed the malware detection test if both their scanner and any additional on-demand detection capabilities couldn't identify the malware. "After all, most of the protection packages not only feature basic detection functions, but also a number of other important tools that they use to identify malware," said the research firm.

Microsoft Windows Defender, however, only detected 97% of the reference set, putting it in last place compared to 23 other products that were also tested three different times in six months. In fact, the only other tested products that failed to achieve a 100% reference-set detection rate were Check Point's ZoneAlarm Free Antivirus and Firewall, and AhnLab's V3 Internet Security, as well as K7's Total Security, although that product was only tested twice between January and June.

Microsoft's free endpoint security software, however, did earn top marks in usability, which only five other tested products managed to equal.

AV-Test also examined the impact of the endpoint security software on system load, and found that malware-stopping power comes at a price: system performance. "Although the best programs in the 'Protection' category also achieved excellent results in this 'System Load' category, none of them were able to score the maximum total of six points," reported AV-Test. "This test category is proof that high security comes at the expense of a certain amount of system performance." On average, the top 10 products earned an average of 4.0 points (out of 6.0) for system load, while the top-ranked product, from Bitdefender, earned 5.2.

Interestingly, AV-Test found variations in the tested programs' effectiveness depending on the version of Windows being used in the test. Overall, the research firm found that on Windows 8, tested antivirus products correctly detected zero-day malware 95% of the time, on average, followed by 93% for Windows XP and 92% for Windows 7.

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
DDURBIN1
50%
50%
DDURBIN1,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/21/2013 | 5:33:10 PM
re: Microsoft Windows Defender Stumbles In Malware Tests
Is there anything Microsoft does well anymore? When people have a choice, more and more will choose not to use Microsoft.
vdugasp3c
50%
50%
vdugasp3c,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/21/2013 | 7:48:50 PM
re: Microsoft Windows Defender Stumbles In Malware Tests
This test is flawed. We run several computer companies with over 30 years experience. One of our companies just does repairs and virus cleaning. When you have around 500 repeat customers coming in once per month for virus cleaning and are all using the same products, but once the products are changed and they begin requiring a virus cleaning once every six months and the worst on our list was Symantec/Norton, Bit Defender and McAfee...someone is paying for high rankings.
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/21/2013 | 7:53:55 PM
re: Microsoft Windows Defender Stumbles In Malware Tests
I'd like to see some of these tests differentiate the products' success with different categories of malware. There's a ton of malware out there, but some of it is regularly employed in more sophisticated attacks, and some of it is regularly employed in "wide net" attacks that target uninformed users. If a company has done a good job training staff and generally has employees who know not to click suspicious links or open questionable attachments, does it change the way that company would assess one of these products verses another?
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Ninja
8/22/2013 | 8:14:12 PM
re: Microsoft Windows Defender Stumbles In Malware Tests
Indeed, the trouble with studies like this is that they present a "your-mileage-may-vary" situation. If the malware isn't detected but it runs on a system configuration that isn't vulnerable, does it matter?
Mordock
50%
50%
Mordock,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/21/2013 | 8:16:50 PM
re: Microsoft Windows Defender Stumbles In Malware Tests
Let's not bash MS just because they are MS. But I can tell you that if I were the top guy at Microsoft, I would be demanding a report on my desk within the next 24 hours as to how they missed those items on the reference list and what they were going to do to make sure that never happens again. There is absolutely no excuse for that. Then the report for next Friday will be how are they going to fix the rest of the program. I should hope that they will take this as a major embarrassment.
rradina
50%
50%
rradina,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/22/2013 | 12:49:21 AM
re: Microsoft Windows Defender Stumbles In Malware Tests
In the past MS Defender ranked much more favorably. In fact, it used to be favorable enough that there was little reason to spend money on alternatives for very marginal improvement, if that.

One or more of the following are possibilities:

1) The environment has become much more dangerous
2) MS has let Defender rot
3) Alternatives have made vast improvements
4) The initial test was flawed
5) This latest test is flawed

Still, 97% of four-week old virus isn't bad. If combined with running as a normal user vs. an administrator, Defender still seems to be a reasonable alternative.
David F. Carr
50%
50%
David F. Carr,
User Rank: Apprentice
8/22/2013 | 1:14:00 PM
re: Microsoft Windows Defender Stumbles In Malware Tests
Ack. I confess I've been trying to save money by telling my kids to ignore the norton free trial on their laptops and use Windows Defender instead.
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Cartoon
Latest Comment: nice post
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2014-1750
Published: 2015-07-01
Open redirect vulnerability in nokia-mapsplaces.php in the Nokia Maps & Places plugin 1.6.6 for WordPress allows remote attackers to redirect users to arbitrary web sites and conduct phishing attacks via a URL in the href parameter to page/place.html. NOTE: this was originally reported as cross-sit...

CVE-2014-1836
Published: 2015-07-01
Absolute path traversal vulnerability in htdocs/libraries/image-editor/image-edit.php in ImpressCMS before 1.3.6 allows remote attackers to delete arbitrary files via a full pathname in the image_path parameter in a cancel action.

CVE-2015-0848
Published: 2015-07-01
Heap-based buffer overflow in libwmf 0.2.8.4 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via a crafted BMP image.

CVE-2015-1330
Published: 2015-07-01
unattended-upgrades before 0.86.1 does not properly authenticate packages when the (1) force-confold or (2) force-confnew dpkg options are enabled in the DPkg::Options::* apt configuration, which allows remote man-in-the-middle attackers to upload and execute arbitrary packages via unspecified vecto...

CVE-2015-1950
Published: 2015-07-01
IBM PowerVC Standard Edition 1.2.2.1 through 1.2.2.2 does not require authentication for access to the Python interpreter with nova credentials, which allows KVM guest OS users to discover certain PowerVC credentials and bypass intended access restrictions via unspecified Python code.

Dark Reading Radio
Archived Dark Reading Radio
Marc Spitler, co-author of the Verizon DBIR will share some of the lesser-known but most intriguing tidbits from the massive report