Microsoft’s Security Essentials last in real-world safe browsing test

We’ve just posted the following news: Microsoft’s Security Essentials last in real-world safe browsing test[newsimage][/newsimage]

Microsoft Security Essentials scored the lowest protection rate in a monthly antivirus test from well known antivirus test lab AV-Comparatives. The antivirus software is one of the most popular free antivirus solutions but takes the last place in a test that should indicate how well antivirus products protect users against malicious links.

            Read the full article here: [](

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

First of all, I’ll give 2 cents worth to any AV comparison, it all depends on the samples used…

Given that F-Secure and Trend Micro also scores in the top three on the scale for false positives, I think the security picture gets somewhat fuzzy - can you recommend an antivirus which reports so many false positives? Personally I don’t think so as it can not be trusted when it throws an infection at you.

The best first line of defense against any threat is cautiousness and sceptisism, trusting a security program to take care of it all will not work if you go happy-clicking links and opening attachments unconditionally from any and all.

Hardly a surprise it’s scored so low, the same thing has happened for years almost every time it’s been tested.

For average users that are unlikely to go anywhere dodgy it still does an adequate job. But for those going anywhere more risky they need something more substantial. It’s been this way since 2013 when MS themselves said MSSE was designed to finish bottom of tests like this.

Why am I not surprised by a biased test. I know the tester already has bias against. You have to wonder whom is paying them since they are Org someone has to give them money to do their test??? This company and those from Euro has been prove time and time again has some axe to grind with Microsoft A/V. Also since they don’t give how or what setup was tested and their own sites refuses to list all their donor nor state what affiliated University is located at. Further leading one to suspect they don’t have credentials for anyone to verify that they can be open and transparent. So this leads me to put them own test on the bottom of the trash can.

AV-Comparatives also relies on volunteers and interns, who support our work as part of their studies
Here’s more evidence those testing will be biased and not objective but was already decided before the test was made. And since we get no listing whom is testing that is suspicious as well.