Microsoft Security Essentials released! And it's still good!
97 replies, posted
Microsoft Security Essentials is a renewed effort by MS on the anti virus front, which includes real time scanning of viruses, spyware, trojans and rootkits. It's free with no registration, the only caviet being you must pass WGA to update it, and it is also unobtrusive and fairly lean. It comes available in XP, and Vista/7 x86 and x64 versionsand the AV installer is only 3-8MB depending on what version you get, and installed it takes up 13MB of your hard drive (By comparison, my NOD32 folder is just under 50MB in size). Ars tested it and they liked it. It caught threats either before they were downloaded, or just as the download finished. The interface itself seems pretty simple, but apprently the program does have a lot of tweaking available to do for power users which is nice, and overall Ars seriously reccomend looking into MSE, whether or not you already use a free AV or not.
[url]http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/first-look-microsoft-security-essentials-impresses.ars[/url]
Fait is fair, MS has gotten a bad rap for this sorta thing before, but this seems genuinely good. You won't be seeing this on Windows Update but, so you'll need to get it yourself
[b]XP:[/b] [url]http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/3/8/A38FFBF2-1122-48B4-AF60-E44F6DC28BD8/mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-xp.exe[/url]
[b]Vista/7 x86: [/b][url]http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/3/8/A38FFBF2-1122-48B4-AF60-E44F6DC28BD8/mssefullinstall-x86fre-en-us-vista-win7.exe[/url]
[b]Vista/7 x64[/b]: [url]http://download.microsoft.com/download/A/3/8/A38FFBF2-1122-48B4-AF60-E44F6DC28BD8/mssefullinstall-amd64fre-en-us-vista-win7.exe[/url]
Also, I saw this comment on /.
[quote=people lol plagarism]rosoft purchased Komoku, a developer of RootKit Detection software with clients like the usual government and military suspects, banks, that kind of thing. Komoku's technology has been rolled into Microsoft Security Essentials.
I would think that right there is a good reason to check it out, and possibly implement it in your XP/Win7 system, especially since MS probably had a chance to do some tweaking on the RootKit detection engine using their proprietary knowledge of some of the more obscure aspects of Windows file systems, the still unpublished NTFS specification, etc.[/quote]
Sounds good to me. I'm currently installing it now and I'll report back later with my findings.
Had the beta up until two weeks ago, (reformatted)
Good, lightweight scanner is everything i can say about it
Also to those running Win 7. I've being re arming to avoid activation, and I still passed WGA and was allowed to install this. Should work for you too.
Nice, if it gets good results from third party testing I think I'll put it on my family's computers. Might even try it out myself if it does exceptionally well.
It's only using 472kb of memory on Vista. Awesome!
[QUOTE=Foda;17585628]It's only using 472kb of memory on Vista. Awesome![/QUOTE]
Thats still 472k too much.
Also, AV scanners thrash the hell out of hard drives which is far worse than their memory usage.
I got some corporate Symantec scanner at work which thrashes my drive until I can't get anything done.
[editline]09:59PM[/editline]
Thats when I turn my Mac Mini on; and fire up my Fedora VM. :v:
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;17594610]Thats still 472k too much.
Also, AV scanners thrash the hell out of hard drives which is far worse than their memory usage.
I got some corporate Symantec scanner at work which thrashes my drive until I can't get anything done.
[editline]09:59PM[/editline]
Thats when I turn my Mac Mini on; and fire up my Fedora VM. :v:[/QUOTE]
Thank you for thread shitting like always, I see you're enjoying yourself.
[QUOTE=Plastical;17594886]Thank you for thread shitting like always, I see you're enjoying yourself.[/QUOTE]
Excuse me for not worshipping the almighty Antivirus.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;17594610]Thats still 472k too much.[/QUOTE]
"That's still one backup too many." "That's still one password too many."
Excuse us for taking a basic precaution with our computers.
I'm loving this.
And at the same time I'm seeing people being put off from this thanks to OneCare.
Also,
[quote]I've been pretty happy with Windows Security Essentials. It was the only av that worked well for me with windows 7, and super low profile...no nags, no popups, nothing. Set and forget, which is how I like my AV.
I run nod32 on my other computers, the only other AV I've tried that is so non-intrusive. Now that this is out of beta, I'll give it a try on my development workstation and see how its performance compares to nod32. It does seem to take a bit more memory than nod, (about 50m on window 7), but it remains very constant.
I have a friend on the core AV team at Microsoft. Apparently, all MS products use the same core detection engine, which (according to him) is very competitive with other products on the market (in terms of both performance and detection rates). They of course constantly benchmark themselves against just about every AV software on the market, and he's not the sort to really have any loyalty to anything, so I believe him.
He also said the reason why onecare was so bad and this is pretty good is that the packaged products are all done by other teams, and the teams working on onecare completely ignored all the advice from the core engine team on how to use the engine, so it was slow and buggy. The Security Essentials team worked closely with the engine team to use the engine the right way.
Another tidbit: MS would love to put bake AV into Windows and be done with it, but can't for anti-trust reasons. They really want everyone to have AV because it reduces support calls, and generally increases the perceived security of the OS. Hence, they are giving it away free. They don't plan on making it a revenue driver, because they view it as just an essential subsystem of windows which they aren't allowed to include with windows. But they are allowed to give away as free software. So we can expect the product to stay free. [/quote]
[url=http://lifehacker.com/5370229/microsoft-security-essentials-free-antivirus-app-leaves-beta]Source[/url]
MSE is pretty decent, but it is [b]not[/b] meant to replace other suites such as Symantec, McAfee, ESET, and Kaspersky; Microsoft stated that themselves.
[editline]11:27PM[/editline]
Also: [url=http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138730/Independent_tester_Security_Essentials_very_good_]Microsoft's free suite nails 98% of samples[/url]
This might actually turn out to be a good free solution.
[QUOTE=Plastical;17596763]MSE is pretty decent, but it is [b]not[/b] meant to replace other suites such as Symantec, McAfee, ESET, and Kaspersky; Microsoft stated that themselves.[/QUOTE]
What you mean to say is, this is totally worthless and will only slow down your computer given it's not up to the task and you're going to need another layer on top of it anyway. Why can't Microsoft just fix the OS and user level security so it doesn't suck so hard.
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;17596901]What you mean to say is, this is totally worthless and will only slow down your computer given it's not up to the task and you're going to need another layer on top of it anyway. Why can't Microsoft just fix the OS and user level security so it doesn't suck so hard.[/QUOTE]
No, what I mean is that many people think Microsoft made this software to eliminate competition, which is false. They didn't make this to replace those products. I wasn't referring to the quality of the AV at all.
Moving on, what kind of "user level security" issues does it have? No Operating System is immune to viruses, UAC in Windows 7 doesn't nag you as much as in Windows Vista and so I don't see how it sucks so hard.
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;17596901]What you mean to say is, this is totally worthless and will only slow down your computer given it's not up to the task and you're going to need another layer on top of it anyway. Why can't Microsoft just fix the OS and user level security so it doesn't suck so hard.[/QUOTE]
Lol.
Is this a worthy replacement for Avast? I'm really digging Avast right now.
[QUOTE=thisispain;17597166]Is this a worthy replacement for Avast? I'm really digging Avast right now.[/QUOTE]
I would say it's worth a shot to try it.
The weakest link in any system is the user, but when the operating system just about relies on the downloading and execution of insecure binaries from third parties, you're going to have problems.
In my opinion, since viruses are so rampant in windows, they really should be providing a high quality solution, for free. Hell it should be built in. There should be no "competition" to eliminate. It seems insane to me that something as high priority as security is palmed off to third parties. Not to mention this on its own is a massive vector for malicious software.
"Your Operating System is Infected With 9000 Viruses, Please Download Our AntiVirusExpressAwesomeEdition for only $20 if you pay with your credit card on our insecure website."
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;17597257]The weakest link in any system is the user, but when the operating system just about relies on the downloading and execution of insecure binaries from third parties, you're going to have problems.
In my opinion, since viruses are so rampant in windows, they really should be providing a high quality solution, for free. Hell it should be built in. There should be no "competition" to eliminate. It seems insane to me that something as high priority as security is palmed off to third parties. Not to mention this on its own is a massive vector for malicious software.
"Your Operating System is Infected With 9000 Viruses, Please Download Our AntiVirusExpressAwesomeEdition for only $20 if you pay with your credit card on our insecure website."[/QUOTE]
But if they did build it in, the FCC/EU would have a ball fining them.
I don't see how, it shouldn't be a product. It should be part of the operating system. I don't see any anti-trust cases about Microsoft's dominance in the start menu field.
You seem to be insinuating the FCC/EU are just there to throw around their weight to disadvantage the good guy Microsoft at any chance they can make up. Please correct me if this is incorrect.
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;17597276]I don't see how, it shouldn't be a product. It should be part of the operating system. I don't see any anti-trust cases about Microsoft's dominance in the start menu field.
You seem to be insinuating the FCC/EU are just there to throw around their weight to disadvantage the good guy Microsoft at any chance they can make up. Please correct me if this is incorrect.[/QUOTE]
I agree with the fact it should be apart of the OS. They've been sued for Messenger (K), Media Player (N), and now Internet Explorer (E) for being in Windows.
Messenger is a service windows provides externally to the operating system. Media players are hardly a core concern like security. Internet Explorer provides access to an external system. All these are external to the core operating system. I don't think you can argue that security is something like these at all.
This is awesome.
It's small, lightweight, fast, easy to use, great interface, and according to tests, it's one of the best at catching malware.
Definitely got my recommendations.
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;17597617]Messenger is a service windows provides externally to the operating system. Media players are hardly a core concern like security. Internet Explorer provides access to an external system. All these are external to the core operating system. I don't think you can argue that security is something like these at all.[/QUOTE]
Messenger is in XP preinstalled. Just called Windows Messenger. I agree with what you're saying, the FCC/EU won't though because it kills competition. The big names (ex. McAfee and Norton(both suck I know)) would go after MS.
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;17597617]Messenger is a service windows provides externally to the operating system. Media players are hardly a core concern like security. Internet Explorer provides access to an external system. All these are external to the core operating system. I don't think you can argue that security is something like these at all.[/QUOTE]
That's true if a virus exploits a bug and runs without user intervention, but if a user downloads a virus themselves (like teen-xxx-codecs.exe), and they jump through the downloaded exe hoops and UAC and that, then the security program is like that. It's like FPSBanana. You could/can get malware form that site simply by visiting it. That isn't an exploit but just the web browser doing what it should. I'm not saying MSE will stop you being infected form that, but you can have all the security in the world and as you said, it's the user that is the weakest link.
It's not killing competition though, it would encourage competition and innovation. The anti-virus providers would have to do something other than provide the same crap over and over with a different name.
[B]Edit:[/B]
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17597762]That's true if a virus exploits a bug and runs without user intervention, but if a user downloads a virus themselves (like teen-xxx-codecs.exe), and they jump through the downloaded exe hoops and UAC and that, then the security program is like that. It's like FPSBanana. You could/can get malware form that site simply by visiting it. That isn't an exploit but just the web browser doing what it should. I'm not saying MSE will stop you being infected form that, but you can have all the security in the world and as you said, it's the user that is the weakest link.[/QUOTE]
Like I said, this can be addressed at the operating system level too. But it's not going to make Microsoft any money so it's not going to happen.
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;17597779]Like I said, this can be addressed at the operating system level too. But it's not going to make Microsoft any money so it's not going to happen.[/QUOTE]
If MS put AV in Windows, the EU would fucking rape them. And if MS cared about the money, why would they be giving this (highly competent) AV for free? They already charged for OneCare and it was a bag of wank. They could easily charge for this.
Did you just ignore the previous conversation, or are you just here to defend Microsoft like you're being paid? But I suppose in the interest of intelligent conversation.
"the EU would fucking rape them"
No, the EU raped them for anti-competitive behavior, promoting their services and products by bundling them with the operating system. One may argue that a web browser is an intrinsic part of computing today, but by no means can you argue that it's a concern of the operating system. Also, these came about also because Internet Explorer was built to be part of the operating system, so you could not remove or completely replace it.
"And if MS cared about the money, why would they be giving this (highly competent) AV for free?"
Right, Microsoft, a company, don't care about the money. OK, provided they turned into a magical philanthropic company overnight let's see what else is wrong with this. They're marketing it as a.
Ok, let's stop right there. Microsoft are selling this as a replacement for other anti-virus suites. They recommend uninstalling all other av software before installing WLE.
You lied to me Plastical! "MSE is pretty decent, but it is not meant to replace other suites such as Symantec, McAfee, ESET, and Kaspersky; Microsoft stated that themselves."
With this groundbreaking knowledge, I can say that this is a positive move from Microsoft, although I'd prefer a larger focus on security at the OS level, removing to a large extent the need for this kind of stuff.
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;17597617]Messenger is a service windows provides externally to the operating system. Media players are hardly a core concern like security. Internet Explorer provides access to an external system. All these are external to the core operating system. I don't think you can argue that security is something like these at all.[/QUOTE]
I think we all agree that it would be great if Microsoft was allowed to bundle a competent security suite with Windows, but legally it's just not going to happen. Regardless of what arguments can be made that it's not anti-trust, the fact is that the Windows security market has become huge and the companies involved would not look too kindly on MS trying to take it away from them.
[editline]08:33AM[/editline]
[QUOTE=blankthemuffin;17598002]although I'd prefer a larger focus on security at the OS level, removing to a large extent the need for this kind of stuff.[/QUOTE]
Happily they've made great strides in this area with Windows 7, I'm sure we'll see similar improvements in their future OSes.
[QUOTE=Dr Egg;17597927]If MS put AV in Windows, the EU would fucking rape them. And if MS cared about the money, why would they be giving this (highly competent) AV for free? They already charged for OneCare and it was a bag of wank. They could easily charge for this.[/QUOTE]
Muffin isn't saying to build AV into the system, he's saying that there shouldn't be huge security holes in Windows to begin with.
Windows is the only OS that even recommends that you use Antivirus. It's not just because they have the largest market either. Linux has a huge portion of the server market, which is even more attractive to would-be hackers, and cell phones don't have that problem either. AFAIK, there are no viruses/trojans/botnets/etc on even the Motorola Razr, Iphone, or Blackberry.
[editline]09:45AM[/editline]
Also, there are no viruses that I'm aware of for any Unix based OS like Mac OS X, BSD, Solaris, HP UX, or IBM AIX.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;17599692]Muffin isn't saying to build AV into the system, he's saying that there shouldn't be huge security holes in Windows to begin with.[/QUOTE]
He's saying both.
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;17599692]Windows is the only OS that even recommends that you use Antivirus. It's not just because they have the largest market either. Linux has a huge portion of the server market, which is even more attractive to would-be hackers, and cell phones don't have that problem either. AFAIK, there are no viruses/trojans/botnets/etc on even the Motorola Razr, Iphone, or Blackberry.[/QUOTE]
Numbers of linux viruses are [url=http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3601946]increasing[/url], and cellphone viruses are [url=http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16724-zombie-cellphone-networks-coming-soon.html]starting to appear[/url].
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;17599692]Also, there are no viruses that I'm aware of for any Unix based OS like Mac OS X, BSD, Solaris, HP UX, or IBM AIX.[/QUOTE]
OS X viruses [url=http://antivirus.about.com/od/macintoshresource/Macintosh_Viruses_and_Mac_Virus_Resources.htm]most definitely exist[/url], and there are even a few for [url=http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_99539.htm]BSD[/url].
[editline]10:51AM[/editline]
Stop trying to derail the thread.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.