 |
[ login or create an account ]
|
|
[ login or create an account ]
|
Keeping your Windows PC secure from viruses and spyware can be both difficult and expensive and some of the popular security software slows down computers. Microsoft Security Essentials is a new free and effective anti-virus and anti-malware program.
There are dozens of free anti-virus software programs available on the web but they are often designed to convince you to purchase the professional edition and thus nag users with prompts to purchase the commercial version. Even worse, more than a few are actually spyware themselves. On the other and most surprising hand, Microsoft Security Essentials is a capable application that has been streamlined to run efficiently even on netbooks or older computers with low resources. Even on a modern computer with multiple cores and several gigs of ram a lightweight anti-virus solution will definitely make your computer a bit speedier.
Microsoft Security Essentials is not just lightweight but easy to use as well. Installation takes less than a minute and it will immediately start protecting your computer from virus attacks. When Security Essentials is scanning your computer for problems, you can still work as normal as the software has been designed to use a limited amount of system resources if a user is using the computer while a scan is in progress. This is one of the biggest limitations with Symantec, McAfee and other commercial applications - they take over all your PC resources and, as fate will have it, the takeover always occurs when you are rushing to get something done.
The software will automatically download new definition from the Internet through Windows Update, and these will be installed on the computer without requiring user involvement. Additionally, Security Essentials is the first product to make use of Microsoft’s new Dynamic Signature Service which enables the download of the latest definitions as soon as their computer suspects a threat. This is similar to Immunet in that is tries to respond in near real time to threats.
The software has received favorable reviews and one of the testers noted that Security Essentials detected all of their sample threats correctly without giving any false positive reports. Microsoft detractors will claim that weaknesses in the Microsoft operating system led to the world of viruses and spyware. Whether that is true or not, the release of Microsoft Security Essentials is a huge and free leap towards better management of these software issues.
Popular competitions and giveaways from Gimme.co.nz: NZ's People Powered Guide to Free Stuff. Links will open on Gimme.
Health Tips, Recommended Movies, Recommended Books, Recommended Places.
Links will open on recommended.co.nz.
All articles and comments on Voxy.co.nz have been submitted by our community of users. Please notify us through our contact form if you believe an item on this site breaches our community guidelines.
Voxy: Your Voice - Uncensored
Got Something to Say But No One’s Listening?
Message to Spread? – Distribute News
Product to Promote? – Run a Promotion
We Can Help You Spread The Word.
Comments
The title of this article is
The title of this article is absolutely misleading as there is nothing in here that would serve to backup the claim that this piece of software is worth anything.
Tests have shown that it's actually a *lot* worse than other antivirus solutions on the market. When run against a folder with 10 pieces of malware more than a year old it detected NOTHING.
So much for paid articles, this is shameful to say the least.
I don't see anything in your
I don't see anything in your comment to backup the cliam that these "Tests" have shown its "a *lot* worse" than other solutions.
I would love to see you post a link to the results from these "Tests" or to name even one of these pieces of malware you claim it does not catch.
And which other solution provider do you work for? =}
The title of this article is
The title of this article is absolutely misleading as there is nothing in here that would serve to backup the claim that this piece of software is worth anything.
Tests have shown that it's actually a *lot* worse than other antivirus solutions on the market. When run against a folder with 10 pieces of malware more than a year old it detected NOTHING.
So much for paid articles, this is shameful to say the least.
Thanks for your input! If
Thanks for your input!
If you are implying that Microsoft is paying for this article than you are way off. I would someday like to catch Microsoft's attention with my blogging - but so far they have only offered to take my money, not provide me with any.
I too have seen tests run by the various spyware, malware, anti-virus vendors. As you might imagine, in the tests run by the vendors their own products always come out ahead (surprise, surprise). In Independent tests results vary.
In my personal use Microsoft has been as good as every other product I have used - at a better price, with easier updating and lower memory use. Will Microsoft catch every piece of malware - No. Is there any product on the market that will catch every piece - No.
I gave up AVG 8.5 free to
I gave up AVG 8.5 free to switch to MSE. The big attraction was the promise to deal with rootkits--which AVG free won't touch. The other implied advantage was to use the anti-virus/anti-spyware product developed by the OS vendor, rather than by a third party. (An MVP had convinced me to dump the bi-directional ZA firewall I had been using, asserting that a) outgoing traffic didn't need it, and b) no other vendor's firewall could be better integrated than MS's own product. Besides, I was fed-up and frustrated with the plethora of ZA messages I couldn't decipher, and were never explained--I was using the free version.)
Now, here are some things I don't like about MSE:
1) There is no log file whatsoever. It's been running now for more than a week, and there's nothing in any of the three categories. Hard to believe, and not very reassuring. And there's no record of how many items were scanned, what they were, and the scan duration. And what about cookies? Shouldn't I at least be seeing some deletions? The only time I can see any status at all is while the scan is running. It even closes the interface at the scan conclusion.
2) I traded heuristics (AVG) for rootkits? Why can't it do both?
The big advantage as you cited is the minimal intrusion while it's scanning. Just wish it was a bit more informative.
I've also loaded Spybot since installing MSE, but only did the initial scan. Curious if you think I should leave it installed, and if I should also run scans periodically.
If your computer memory can
If your computer memory can handle it, I think that more than one anti-virus, spyware is worth it. So I would keep Spybot and MSE. I've never seen any one program catch everything - so two increases your chances.
That said, if you block attachments in email and only visit a few web sites - two is probably overkill. Only you can weigh how "risky" your Internet behavior is versus the memory commitment and frequent update requirements of two programs.
I would agree that no log file with MSE is a negative, but at the same time most folks don't ever look at their log files.
Like you I dropped Zone Alarm (long ago in my case) as the volume of messages was quite high.
AVG is a good product - but the free version is limited. For the price (Free) I think Microsoft Essentials (MSE) can be a good solution.
Quote"Like you I dropped
Quote"Like you I dropped Zone Alarm (long ago in my case) as the volume of messages was quite high"
It is so easy to turn the messages off that if you couldn't figure it out you shouldn't be writing about IT matters.
Quote"think that more than one anti-virus, spyware is worth it."
You should never run more than one Anti-virus programs as there will be conflicts but I agree with using more than one anti-spyware program
Quote"Like you I dropped
Quote"Like you I dropped Zone Alarm (long ago in my case) as the volume of messages was quite high"
It is so easy to turn the messages off that if you couldn't figure it out you shouldn't be writing about IT matters.
Mike - What's the point of installing a third-party's firewall if you skip over its alerts because you're not provided enough information to act upon?
Quote"think that more than one anti-virus, spyware is worth it."
You should never run more than one Anti-virus programs as there will be conflicts but I agree with using more than one anti-spyware program
Was wondering when someone else would catch that. I just asked him about Spybot, which is strictly anti-spyware. (If you're still watching, any thoughts Frank?) ;)
Quote"Mike - What's the
Quote"Mike - What's the point of installing a third-party's firewall if you skip over its alerts because you're not provided enough information to act upon?"
ZA firewall still does it's thing just doesn't nag you about what is happening all the time. Set up properly it will only nag you if a new or upgraded program is trying to access the net.
Problem is, now virus
Problem is, now virus writers will concentrate on bypassing MSE detection algorithms. Like they bypassed UAC, Windows Firewall and Windows Defender's protection - this will be just another obstacle for them to get over. The more popular it becomes the greater the chance that it will be targeted by all viruses thus making it useless...
Virus writers have had
Virus writers have had months, years, considering windows live onecare and the performance of their antivirus has not gotten worse, it has improved and continues to improve. The trend has been for microsoft to improve their antivirus. live onecare improved and this will improve as well. They are doing their customers a favor by keeping Symantec and McAfee's junk off their machines.
True, but don't forget -
True, but don't forget - they'd need only one to succeed.
If we have one A/V only this would result in "one vulnerability fits all" problem and a world wide spread in no time when someone does discover it.
And we all know how "fast" M$ patches their software sometimes...
I love security essentials,
I love security essentials, it is FREE, can you go wrong. I also, love that as I am typing right now it is scanning and I am seeing no delays in processing. WOW in my book! Plus, I don't have to download a special removal tool just to remove the FREE program if it does not work for me.
Remember, Micosoft has a
Remember, Micosoft has a vested interest in keeping virus/rootkit/spyware out of thier OS. Thier primary motive for developing Security Essentials is for protection, not profit. Naturally they will keep it as lightweight as possible as to not slow down the (thier) OS.
Other providers of virus/rootkit/spyware protection are out for profit and don't have the same concerns of bogging down the OS as its not thier problem. This doesn't make them bad - it is what it is.
At the end of the day, its free, its good, and it basically runs itself once installed. It will definitly shake up the virus/rootkit/spyware protection market as time goes on.
It will always be a cat and mouse of those who develop virus/rootkit/spyware and those who develop the applications to keep them out. Beyond that, many a time the problem is between the chair and the keyboard anyways.
Frank - it would have been
Frank - it would have been nice if you had replied directly to my comment. I mentioned MSE and rootkits a couple of times while the author said nothing about this. I also think my post was far more illuminating about the pros and cons of MSE from a user's viewpoint than the author's was. Astoundingly, the author still hasn't replied to my post with answers to the questions I raised. I guess one has to pick the blogs he decides to expend energy on very carefully, so it doesn't become a complete waste of time.
That is one of the great
That is one of the great part of sites like this, users (like yourself) can add commentary to the post. I'll let the readers decide if your commentary was better than my post ; -) More importantly I am always pleased when my posts breed discussion as more ideas come out.
As was said in other posts - you might find other software that (today) beats MSE in terms of rootkit detection. But likewise MSE may beat that product in terms of detecting just released viruses.
If folks, perhaps like yourself, are willing to invest time to learn the pros and cons they can try and find the ideal combination of anti-malware tools. However, for the average user who all too often can't be bothered with anything that inconveniences them - MSE is a strong option.
TJ – My post was not meant
TJ – My post was not meant to be a response to your post otherwise I would have. That being said, after re-reading your post I could see why you would have thought that.
I was actually attempting to highlight a business reason as to why MSE may end up being a superior product than the rest as oppose to a pure technology oriented perspective.
I only included rootkits in my post as I’ve had to manually remove one off of an XP machine a while back leveraging the RootkitRevealer and RegDelNull from SysInternals[1]. I don’t remember the exact name of the rootkit but ironically it was attaching itself to one of Symantec’s executables and sending out spam (yes seriously, I didn’t believe it at first either).
It’s kind of a moot point to argue anyways as “there will never be a universal rootkit scanner”[2] as is explained by Microsoft themselves. My general advice is to surf the porn sites from a virtual machine so that when you do become infected it will be sandboxed to the virtual machine of which a new, fresh, instance can easily be spun up! And yes, I am implicating that many a compromised machine is the result of shady porn sites =]
At the end of the day I don’t really care what option people choose. These threads are way too in depth for an average user to make an objective decision anyways. I would however recommend MSE to my friends and family. Primarily because it is free, requires no upkeep, and does not have to be renewed every year for $30 or $40 or whatever it is. I’ve seen many machines with various solutions … that have not had virus definitions and such updated for well over 100 days sometimes even a year because people didn’t want to pay for it again as they thought it would be ‘good enough as it is’ or it wasn’t set up to automatically update itself (circling back to my point from before about the problem being between the chair and the keyboard).
The fact that it is free and automated keeps myself from spending countless hours ‘fixing’ friends and family computers (as I sit here also rebuilding the partition tables using Partition Table Doctor[3] on a family friends Dell Inspirion as the result of a failed HDD Diagnostic Test which took a while to get the bottom of – how do you even go about screwing that up?!)
I’m advocating MSE from the business perspective mentioned in the prior post, the usability perspective mentioned above, and the technology perspective of Microsoft’s vested interest in keeping PC’s clean.
And it’s time for a beer.
[1] - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx
[2] - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/bb897445.aspx
[3] - http://www.ptdd.com/
who so ever said that MSE
who so ever said that MSE was light on system resources is completely wrong, i tested the same on my win xp machine (fairly old) and it literally slowed down my system...on the other hand m running Antivir PE on the same machine and it runs like a beauty...no system lagging, no problems whatsoever...and in my opinion it's the best free antivirus available...why do people keep forgetting about this piece of beauty... :)
Does it deal with rootkits
Does it deal with rootkits and analyze using heuristics? XP is pretty far removed from Vista 64 and Win 7. How well integrated would this product be with these more advanced OS? Why don't you give us the URL for the website so we can look at some screenshots, the product description, and maybe some other reviews?
Prior to installing MSE I
Prior to installing MSE I actually ran Antivir PE[1] and must agree that is was very lightweight, is free, and does update itself. To TJ’s point, I would also have to *question* the level of protection as the Premium (paid) version of Antivir PE[1] does have *additional* features. I have no idea if either guards against rootkits.
Stanley – as for your point of MSE being a resource hog, after you installed it did you give it enough time to run its initial definition update and deep scan of your system? During that one time process it certainly will bog down any machine. After that it did seem pretty lightweight based on some basic monitoring I did with SysInternals. But to be fair, I am running a Core 2 Duo 2.33 Ghz processor with 4 Gigs of RAM … so I might have a few more free resources available than an old XP machine (and yes I know XP can’t even utilize all of the 4 Gigs of RAM, but Windows 7 will).
And as TJ said, I’m sure MSE was designed with a future oriented mindset toward protecting Windows 7, Vista, and newer XP machines with adequate resources, not necessarily years old XP machines.
Also, from a software perspective, any application designed to provide the capabilities of virus/spyware/rootkit protection will tax a system given the nature of the job its designed to do. It’s the nature of the beast. I could whip up and market a pretty UI for a ‘virus/spyware/rootkit’ solution give it out for free and it would not tax anyone’s system at all. That’s because it wouldn’t actually be doing anything but looking pretty and most people would never know the difference =}
[1] http://www.free-av.com/en/products/index.html
Also, I would recommend that
Also, I would recommend that any advanced users out there familiarize themselves with monitoring their own system using SysInternals[1]. It really is a powerful suite of utilities that have proved invaluable to me over the years.
No one has yes yet to mention simply keeping your firewall[2] on and running DEP[3] (Data Execution Prevention) at a hardware and or software level as well. Two things I *believe* MSE will take care of for you, but I have not independently verified that yet. If a program (a virus etc. perhaps) simply can’t write to memory from a hardware level interrupt, it’s kind of tough for it to run =}
[1] - http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/default.aspx
[2] - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/283673
[3] - http://support.microsoft.com/kb/875352