It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: i am not sure how you conclude it is inferior based on a test that you say no single user can replicate or can have it happen , so in the real world freeware stuff are expected to be baseline security with least hassle which mse is as it comes with the windows you use.
avatar
chean: Eh... that's not what I'm saying. Obviously a single user can do the same KIND of testing, but the results would be insignificant next to those of tests with tens of thousands of samples, like the AV-TEST ones. So what would be the point? And what's the point of using AV software that demonstrably doesn't detect/protect against threats as efficiently as competing software, especially when several of those suites are also freeware.

But, meh, it's not my business what AV software you or anyone else uses -- I mainly take issue with MSE being presented as one of the best AV packages when, since first introduced, it's consistently been ranked among the worst at threat protection (it's not a new phenomenon, I just checked that it was e.g. rated last in protection in both 2011 and 2012 as well).
please check your research better it was rated good when it came out and started losing in the tests since 2012 , yet user experience remains the same , there are no complaints anywhere crying that mse failed to protect the pc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials

what do you make of this review ?
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/software/379954/microsoft-security-essentials
read the review first and read the user comments below , there is a strong difference

I am not going argue here anymore , as a user of windows + windows firewall + mse for years , i have had no threats infecting my pc or false positives on games , you can check the user experience and ask around anyone who uses the same software .
Post edited March 30, 2014 by liquidsnakehpks
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: please check your research better it was rated good when it came out and started losing in the tests since 2012 , yet user experience remains the same , there are no complaints anywhere crying that mse failed to protect the pc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials

what do you make of this review ?
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/software/379954/microsoft-security-essentials
read the review first and read the user comments below , there is a strong difference
Better check your own research, it was rated last for protection in both 2011, 2012, and 2013:

http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/award/2011/
http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/award/2012/
http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/award/2013/

As for the review comments, again, the experience of a handful individual users counts for very little compared to results of tests with tens of thousands of samples.
Post edited March 30, 2014 by chean
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: please check your research better it was rated good when it came out and started losing in the tests since 2012 , yet user experience remains the same , there are no complaints anywhere crying that mse failed to protect the pc
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Security_Essentials

what do you make of this review ?
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/software/379954/microsoft-security-essentials
read the review first and read the user comments below , there is a strong difference
avatar
chean: Better check your own research, it was rated last for protection in both 2011, 2012, and 2013:

http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/award/2011/
http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/award/2012/
http://www.av-test.org/en/test-procedures/award/2013/

As for the review comments, again, the experience of a handful individual users counts for very little compared to results of tests with tens of thousands of samples.
which is what i said ? it was released around 2008 and had good scores, only from late 2011, mostly 2012 the test scores have dropped check the wikipedia link

lol handful ?
from statistics
According to a March 2012 report by anti-malware specialist OPSWAT, MSE was the most popular AV product in North America and the second most popular in the world.
imagine what it is now then ? dont you think there would be worldwide outrage if it was failing to do its job from the users who use it everyday.
Post edited March 30, 2014 by liquidsnakehpks
low rated
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: According to a March 2012 report by anti-malware specialist OPSWAT, MSE was the most popular AV product in North America and the second most popular in the world.
imagine what it is now then ? dont you think there would be worldwide outrage if it was failing to do its job from the users who use it everyday.
Ever heard of zombie botnets? Networks of computers which are infected without the user even noticing and are used for spreading malware, conducting DDoS attacks, sending spam...what do you think where all that crap comes from?

You can have a ridiculously compromised system and not notice it for years. MSE with its low detection rate certainly does nothing to avert that.

But why am I even arguing? You told someone to intentionally try and infect his system to test the AV solution. That alone completely disqualifies anything you say regarding IT security and no one should ever listen to your advice.
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: which is what i said ? it was released around 2008 and had good scores, only from late 2011, mostly 2012 the test scores have dropped check the wikipedia link
Now this will be nitpicking, but if you insist: you said "since 2012"; which is hardly the case when it was rated the worst as early as 2011 - in overall results from the whole year, so not quite "from late 2011". Results for 2009-2010 aren't as practical to check; but sure, it seemed to rate slightly better there, e.g. only rating the third worst in XP protection for Q3/10. Even so, as MSE was released in Sept. 2009 (not 2008, which you'd see if you'd, as you told me to do, checked the wikipedia link), it's still been among the lowest ranked AV software for most of the time it's been around.

Worldwide outrage? Heh. People have put up with shoddy Microsoft products for decades; and as Randalator says, people may not realize an infection until much later, if ever. As some threats target a computer primarily in order to target other computers (for botnets and whatnot), evading detection on the host will be paramount, and thus symptoms may be minimal. Also, 'handful' in the given context referred to the no. of positive comments on the review you linked to, nothing more; neither you nor I can know the experience and opinion of every MSE user. That it's a "popular" AV product means little... after all, Internet Explorer was the most popular internet browser by far for many years, despite being slow, buggy and full of security holes. There are likely many who use/view MSE as the obvious security complement to Windows, being a Microsoft product and all, similar to how IE used to be the obvious browser.

Anyway, I don't want to derail LovingLife139's thread any further, so I'll leave it at this.
Post edited March 30, 2014 by chean
alright lets stop the nonsense talk and derailing thread, no one is forced to take my suggestion, i just told what was my experience , its upto the user to decide but why are people low rated in this thread? anyone notice the top posts?
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: According to a March 2012 report by anti-malware specialist OPSWAT, MSE was the most popular AV product in North America and the second most popular in the world.
imagine what it is now then ? dont you think there would be worldwide outrage if it was failing to do its job from the users who use it everyday.
avatar
Randalator: Ever heard of zombie botnets? Networks of computers which are infected without the user even noticing and are used for spreading malware, conducting DDoS attacks, sending spam...what do you think where all that crap comes from?

You can have a ridiculously compromised system and not notice it for years. MSE with its low detection rate certainly does nothing to avert that.

But why am I even arguing? You told someone to intentionally try and infect his system to test the AV solution. That alone completely disqualifies anything you say regarding IT security and no one should ever listen to your advice.
how about suggesting some software instead of throwing abuse at me at every post ? i suggested something , gave my reasons for it , you have done nothing but attack , what's the deal ? either suggest something or leave me out of it.

there is nothing wrong in checking how good the software is , you would have to be dumb to accept every test and post out there without a practical test of how good the software is yourself on your system.

so i was mentioning mse as a basic free protection and our two experts here go to the level of botnets brilliant . start taking up virus university classes as well.

http://www.gamerheadlines.com/2014/03/microsoft-security-essentials-avg-or-avast-the-best-free-antivirus-download/
most practical review i have read so far, this should explain what i have been trying to tell, for gamers
Post edited March 30, 2014 by liquidsnakehpks
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: how about suggesting some software instead of throwing abuse at me at every post ? i suggested something , gave my reasons for it , you have done nothing but attack , what's the deal ? either suggest something or leave me out of it.
I linked to the av-test site, a neat little overview of dozens of av-suites both free and not free. Personally, I use Avast but that's just one of many choices.

there is nothing wrong in checking how good the software is , you would have to be dumb to accept every test and post out there without a practical test of how good the software is yourself on your system.
Wow, that has to be the most stupid thing I've read in a long while.

It's fine to test software on your system, as long as a negative test result doesn't completely fuck up your system. Which is exactly what happens when an av-suite fails.

Once your system is compromised, you cannot reliably say what kind of stuff piggy-backed its way in and which additional openings the original infection created. No av-suite in the world has a 100% detection rate and when it comes to backdoors malware might create in your system, all bets are off. In other words, the only way to reliably clean a compromised system is to format and re-install everything from scratch. Or in other other words you just told people to go crash their cars to see how save they are instead of relying on independently conducted crash tests.

so i was mentioning mse as a basic free protection and our two experts here go to the level of botnets brilliant . start taking up virus university classes as well.
Yeah, how dare we talk sense?
Post edited March 30, 2014 by Randalator
avatar
liquidsnakehpks: how about suggesting some software instead of throwing abuse at me at every post ? i suggested something , gave my reasons for it , you have done nothing but attack , what's the deal ? either suggest something or leave me out of it.
avatar
Randalator: I linked to the av-test site, a neat little overview of dozens of av-suites both free and not free. Personally, I use Avast but that's just one of many choices.

there is nothing wrong in checking how good the software is , you would have to be dumb to accept every test and post out there without a practical test of how good the software is yourself on your system.
avatar
Randalator: Wow, that has to be the most stupid thing I've read in a long while.

It's fine to test software on your system, as long as a negative test result doesn't completely fuck up your system. Which is exactly what happens when an av-suite fails.

Once your system is compromised, you cannot reliably say what kind of stuff piggy-backed its way in and which additional openings the original infection created. In other words, the only way to reliably clean a compromised system is to format and re-install everything from scratch. Or in other other words you just told people to go crash their cars to see how save they are instead of relying on independently conducted crash tests.

so i was mentioning mse as a basic free protection and our two experts here go to the level of botnets brilliant . start taking up virus university classes as well.
avatar
Randalator: Yeah, how dare we talk sense?
good you prefer avast? could have said earlier instead of your bs posts and smug crap now i am done with talking with a paranoid who compares , in a simple false detection thread to botnets and a simple software check to real life cars , ignoring any post from you now.
have a nice day
Post edited March 30, 2014 by liquidsnakehpks
I would never have imagined that a simple question (that was competently answered btw) would give rise to this.

The GoG forums seen chock-full of computer security experts and malware analysts and I did not even know it... small world.
It's most likely a false postive but check the file with Virus Total and I also would recommend downloading Malwarebytes and doing a scan with it.
avatar
KingOfDust: Personally, I'd never use MSE alone, without anything to cover up for its flaws. "Anything" being a strong firewall with good HIPS features, and some free on-demand scanners for suspicious files. And very good security habits.

Which is unrealistic for inexperienced users. When I recommend free AVs, my first recommendation is usually Avast. The registration is annoying, but it's got a good range of features for the average user, and isn't as annoying as Avira. The sounds are pretty easy to disable too.
I wouldn't say that the registration is that annoying, I mean all you gotta do its type your email and password once every year and still don't get why people complain over that, I think its fine.
Post edited March 30, 2014 by RevolutionSphere
One only need consider all of the possibilities and then it is probably the one that is the most likely that is the case. It's possible for anything anywhere to contain malware either on purpose or inadvertently for example. So is it even remotely possible that GOG has been shipping malware infected games to people? Certainly it's remotely possible. How? Well, they could be doing it on purpose and making money on the side from underground crime. Does that sound like a plausible thing for a publicly traded company to be doing, and would knowingly doing such a thing be more likely to be good for making money in the short term and/or long term? No, it doesn't sound like a good idea at all. Sounds like a terrible idea that would not really be good for making money in any timeframe compared to just selling a legitimate product that people want to buy outright the good old fashioned way of an honest business. Doing such a thing would only be a matter of time until it is discovered by someone, analyzed and able to conclude that shady business was happening, so anyone who would do such a thing would be pretty foolish as they ultimately get caught, and in the case of a company like GOG, the business and legal consequences would be enormous. So, is GOG knowingly distributing malware with their software? We could never know for sure but it is extremely unlikely when you deconstruct it as I have above.

So then... is GOG distributing malware unknowingly? Have hackers broken into their servers and infected the executables with malware? That's certainly possible also. Is it likely though? Probably not, because sooner rather than later all sorts of customers would be getting infected and quickly tracing it back to GOG. GOG would find out about it, look into it themselves and if their servers were breached or otherwise tampered with - such as a rogue employee or something, it would be discovered quickly. In order to protect customers, they would almost certainly not only fix the problem right away, but they would make a press release to disclose the fact that their company's servers were breached and inform people of what to do to protect themselves. They are likely required by law in some countries to do such a disclosure even, so if something like this were to happen for real - we'd find out about it rather quickly in the media and it'd be confirmed one way or another by the company themselves. The company would be doing everything they could to fix the problem and to protect their customer's trust and/or earn back the trust from anyone they lost it from. Is this scenario likely the case right now? Very unlikely as there is no mass reporting of infections or any suspicious behaviour that would lead one to suspect it is the case when there are much more likely scenarios at play.

Scenario 1: The virus scanner is triggering a false positive either due to a coincidental signature match which the AV company will have to tweak to make an exception for the given file(s) in the future and/or tweak their algorithms, or their heurestics engine are detecting some kind of behavior which is common to viruses but might also be common to video games. Self modifying (polymorphic) code for example is a technique used by malware but also by video games (for optimization), even though it isn't likely very common today it was highly common in the 90s.

Scenario 2: The person's computer itself is infected with a virus or malware that spreads virally, and that virus has attached itself to the GOG executable files that were downloaded - after the fact. Sadly, malware/viruses are rather successful at infecting the average person's computer because one or more people using a given computer are curious and trusting folk who are more likely to click on things and try them without worrying about security problems that might be present in doing so. So it is more normal of a thing for a person's PC to be infected than not, and an infected PC can easily spread malware to any executables or other files located on the system or even over the network via file shares. If the directory in which the GOG downloaded files exist is shared over a network, it is even possible that the computer itself might not be infected, but some other computer on the LAN is infected and could have infected the GOG files over the LAN.

So the real question is whether or not the files are actually infected or not, and if they are - to simply look at what the most likely reason would be overall for that to be the case. Is it more likely that a given person's computer is infected with a virus from lax computer security practices, or more likely that a major online game retailler has had their computer systems hacked into and malware being spread through them without anyone noticing and doing something about it, or more likely there is a false positive being detected by overly paranoid antivirus software?

From personal experience built over many years, if I had to stake $10000 of my own money on such a situation placing a bet on which of the possibilities I think is the case for a given system triggering an AV warning like this, my first bet completely blind without knowing the details is going to be that the PC hosting the files or some other machine that has come in contact with it over the network (LAN or wireless), or from a public wifi or something has infected it with something and that the files were not infected on the server they were downloaded from. My second guess would be a misdiagnosis/false positive from the A/V software.

The last possible thing I would expect would be that the files were distributed to me in an infected state from the retailer. It can happen, and probably has happened in the past somewhere out there, but it is the least likely thing one should expect to be the case for a given file being flagged as being potentially malicious.

Always look at all scenarios that are possible and while any of them very well could be the case, it is safest to assume the most likely scenario to be the case (an infected PC in this case) rather than the least likely (a malicious vendor or hacked vendor distributing malicious files knowingly or unknowingly) just by pure mathematics alone. ;o)

Having said that, if someone can confirm the files are infected on GOG.com please notify them so they can investigate the matter and work out that press release I eluded to above. I'm not expecting that to happen mind you. ;oP


avatar
silviucc: I would never have imagined that a simple question (that was competently answered btw) would give rise to this.

The GoG forums seen chock-full of computer security experts and malware analysts and I did not even know it... small world.
Everyone plays video games, including computer security experts and malware analysts. ;o)
Post edited March 30, 2014 by skeletonbow
avatar
silviucc: I would never have imagined that a simple question (that was competently answered btw) would give rise to this.

The GoG forums seen chock-full of computer security experts and malware analysts and I did not even know it... small world.
avatar
skeletonbow: Everyone plays video games, including computer security experts and malware analysts. ;o)
Dude there's regular convention of them people going on right on the GoG forums :P
Post edited March 30, 2014 by silviucc
Hey guys, so if I download Dracula trilogy, which I did, and it puts a burr up my beloved WEbroot's bum saying that TROJAN family 32 whatsit whatever is in the .exe file of the , I think it was the first Dracula, what does that mean?
avatar
nurTARDIS: Hey guys, so if I download Dracula trilogy, which I did, and it puts a burr up my beloved WEbroot's bum saying that TROJAN family 32 whatsit whatever is in the .exe file of the , I think it was the first Dracula, what does that mean?
It's a false positive, I assure you :)

Please submit the file to your antivirus program's developer so that they can add it as a trusted file :)
thanks judas! ;)