Microsoft Security Essentials

[Kees1958]

Hi,

I have a question to the AV-insiders.

MSE - Morro should contain

a) Live kernel behavioral Monitoring (acquisition of Komoku should kick start this)
b) What agents of Windows Defender operate under the hood of MSE, any more
c) Pre-execution emulation and heuristics (Vinny Gullotto old McFee veteran will guide them)

Any info on when or in which release they will have implented this, or what maturity the upcoming final will have.


Regards Kees

[funkydude]

Microsoft is currently very quiet about MSE development, you probably won't hear anything until the next beta phase.

[cqpreson]

I don't have any information about MSE,but I like your image.

When I used Morro,I only have a idea:MSE is so slow.Under the same enviroment,MSE has a full scan,it costs several hours.But another AV,just half an hour.If MSE improved on this hand,I'm glad to see that.

[lordpake]

-{ Quote: "MSE is so slow.Under the same enviroment,MSE has a full scan,it costs several hours.But another AV,just half an hour." }-
I have the exact opposite experience. In my case, installation of MSE actually speeded things up, compared to previous solution. This includes the full scan.

And to be frank, I don't think scan speed of full scan is proper way to compare apps. After all, why would someone need to run full scan nowadays? On-access protection is capable of picking up malware before it executes.

I can't remember when I last did full scan on any of my systems (testing scenarios excluded).

[Brocke]

I would like to know when the next beta will be and what it has instore because im using MSE right now its pretty good so far. but i cant wait to see the changes they have made to improve it .

this might be close to be one of the best. we will have to wait and see.

[Kees1958]

Yes, MSE, but does any of you know something of the mentioned features? The best AV's are working on pre-execution code emulation and kernel heuristics, so that would be good features of a freebie. Also its x64 performance seems to be great.

[Brocke]

-{ Quote: "Yes, MSE, but does any of you know something of the mentioned features? The best AV's are working on pre-execution code emulation and kernel heuristics, so that would be good features of a freebie. Also its x64 performance seems to be great." }-


yes i am running it with windows 7 x64 and it is doing great here.

you will here poeple put it down because its well microsoft product. i dont care.

[Kees1958]

Yes but non of you have any info on
- what IDS agents it has beneath the hood
- how kernel monitoring is implemented
- pre-execution code emulation/unpacking is implemented

Regards

[cqpreson]

-{ Quote: "I have the exact opposite experience. In my case, installation of MSE actually speeded things up, compared to previous solution. This includes the full scan.

And to be frank, I don't think scan speed of full scan is proper way to compare apps. After all, why would someone need to run full scan nowadays? On-access protection is capable of picking up malware before it executes.

I can't remember when I last did full scan on any of my systems (testing scenarios excluded)." }-

Ok,maybe full scan isn't a good way.But how can we test AV's speed?

And sometimes we will meet some viruses which my present AV's real-time protection can't detect.At that time,we need another AV to check our computer with full scan.I choose MSE to finish this job.But the process lets me down,it is so slow.I look forward to its improvement.

[firzen771]

since MSE is developed by microsoft and since Windows is their own OS. if MSE has an x64 version wuld it be able to get passed the limitations that some vendors say they have? since it is their own OS they shuld know all the ins and outs right?

[Kees1958]

Well they would also be limited by the patch guard problably, just wondering whether they have an advantage with he kernel monitoring.

On x64 MSE uses a lot of total CPU time (with no spikes), but disk I/O is lower than on XP machine (?) and it feels faster than any other freeware AV we have tried (and bitdefender trial, because people said it worked so fast on x64 and A2 paid lisence - now stopped).

Nobody seems to know info relating to my questions :what:

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "Well they would also be limited by the patch guard problably, just wondering whether they have an advantage with he kernel monitoring.

On x64 MSE uses a lot of total CPU time (with no spikes), but disk I/O is lower than on XP machine (?) and it feels faster than any other freeware AV we have tried (and bitdefender trial, because people said it worked so fast on x64 and A2 paid lisence - now stopped).

Nobody seems to know info relating to my questions :what:" }-

ye im just curious what advantages microsoft wuld have over the competition considering its their own OS.

[simisg]

at the time mse has one of the lowest impact on the system and the lowest false positives with great detection prevention and healing well done micosoft!!

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "Well they would also be limited by the patch guard problably, just wondering whether they have an advantage with he kernel monitoring.

On x64 MSE uses a lot of total CPU time (with no spikes), but disk I/O is lower than on XP machine (?) and it feels faster than any other freeware AV we have tried (and bitdefender trial, because people said it worked so fast on x64 and A2 paid lisence - now stopped).

Nobody seems to know info relating to my questions :what:" }-
knowing Microsoft, they will not say, but who cares. For free it is better then anything I ever paid for.:-\

[dw426]

Unfortunately I can't say the same for it. The first time I ran it, it ran great, scans were fast, memory usage low, boot-up/file access pretty fast. Whatever they did to it since then, good god almighty, reverse whatever change you made Microsoft, please. I put this thing back on and literally waited a full minute+ for the thing to boot and the desktop to fully load. Memory usage shot up, and opening folders/viewing files is an exercise in patience. I'm frankly getting tired of the new attitude software developers are seemingly starting to have, the attitude of "Well, people have loads of memory now and dual/quad processors so we can just load up our programs with bloat"...err, oops, this was an MSE thread, sorry.

[ronjor]

Report bugs here. (http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/msestart/thread/43e1d010-9900-49af-9feb-6fbdcb86703b)

[dw426]

-{ Quote: "Report bugs here. (http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/msestart/thread/43e1d010-9900-49af-9feb-6fbdcb86703b)" }-

Thanks :)

[simisg]

i have xp sp3 with pentium m 1.73 and only in the startup mse leaks cpu and is heavy then with mse my pc is faster than any oher antivirus i have try

[IceCube1010]

-{ Quote: "i have xp sp3 with pentium m 1.73 and only in the startup mse leaks cpu and is heavy then with mse my pc is faster than any oher antivirus i have try" }-

I have the same setup with the same result on one pc. I also have it running a on Vista Home (sp2), dual core 3G machine and I don't notice any slowdown at startup. Overall, I think this is a very good piece of security. The only problem I have with it, is it's updating schedule. I mostly have to manually update to get the latest and greatest definitions. I know it doesn't rely solely on the signatures but I wish it updated more frequently.

Ice

[Brocke]

if MSE detection something and the user doesnt do anything it takes over and removes the threats.

[xpsunny]

-{ Quote: "if MSE detection something and the user doesnt do anything it takes over and removes the threats." }-


Yes, it suspends the threats. Moreover, you can also assign default actions to be performed automatically upon detection of threats.

[acr1965]

Under "excluded processes" in included prevx, SuperAntiSpyware and MBAM (even though on demand only for now) and my backup program (Karen's Replicator).

Should I include Ad Muncher or my firewall (PC Tools 6) or would there be some security reason not to exclude those?

Also, anything else I should exclude?

[Fuzzydice45]

You might want to exclude any games for performance reasons, I usually do that with whatever AV i'm using at the time.
Oh and any defraggers that you use. ;)

Stupid question, but does MSE have http scanning?

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "
Stupid question, but does MSE have http scanning?" }-

Yes it does.

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "Nobody seems to know info relating to my questions :what:" }-This is probably because Microsoft are keeping quiet on developments and will only release details when appropriate.

[mevcit]

-{ Quote: "Yes it does." }-
Is it written somewhere, that is, how can we ensure that info? Because MSE seems to me like Avira Free which lacks web protection.

[trjam]

it has it and a whole lot more.

[Mem]

-{ Quote: "... does MSE have http scanning?" }-
No, it doesn't as far as I have seen or read. It scans memory and the PC file system for write and/or access of files.
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/msescan/thread/3958fddb-0b8e-4883-be73-bc350024541a

http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/msescan/thread/52cd5711-6fb1-4bcd-9d07-000f1f65fe21

[funkydude]

MSE has HTTP scanning, I can't understand why I need to prove these things over and over again? Search the original main thread and you will see the HTML/Exploit detections that shows it scans HTTP traffic.

As to your 2nd link about emails, MSE doesn't have marketing gimmicks, people fooled into thinking these are needed amuse me. MSE is more than capable of standing it's ground without these and that's what makes it so light. It doesn't need to compete with other AV's and so the dev's don't feel the need to "sell" it with more and more useless features.

[Mem]

Exploit detections can be achieved by heuritics and memory or write scanning of MSE. I have yet to see someone 'prove' (as you put it) that the http stream itself is intercepted and parsed to detect these. Showing detection is not the same as http stream scanning. :)

Edit: I'm a little surprised by your defensive nature. The second link I included was to show the email stream was not being scanned. Not a problem to me at all but it also explains why http scanning may not be included - it is redunant and not necessary by the same logic if heuristics is capable of handling js/drive-by download problems.

[acr1965]

Does this video help? I am not sure- but it looks like MSE stops I-frames.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qD1WfImw97E

[cp4eva]

I turned on the PC yesterday and MSE was eating up my CPU. Anyone else experiencing this? I did report it.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "
Edit: I'm a little surprised by your defensive nature. The second link I included was to show the email stream was not being scanned. Not a problem to me at all but it also explains why http scanning may not be included - it is redunant and not necessary by the same logic if heuristics is capable of handling js/drive-by download problems." }-

I'm annoyed I have to take a defensive stance when I shouldn't because people should stop asking the same questions! Just one of my pet peeves.

[Kees1958]

On x64 it is the fastest freeware AV, as fast as Bitdefender x64 paid :thumb:

When you are a gamer and are on x64 and have an AV, check this out before your lisence expires (renewals are cheaper than new ones) and decide to go freeware or pay for a top performer on the CPU/Security aixle.

[cqpreson]

On Win 32,it is very slow.Scanning,updating and cleaning all are slow.

[Kees1958]

I am sure that on the x64 platform the developers had much more insight information than the competing AV's, have no idea why performance is reported so differently (x64 vs x32)

[robinb]

-{ Quote: "On Win 32,it is very slow.Scanning,updating and cleaning all are slow." }-

On xp pro i find it to be a cpu hog, on vista it works fine and on Windows 7 it works very well too.

I just do not like it for xp, but with microsoft pushing windows 7 I would bet it was made for windows 7 and vista and not really for xp since in Microsoft's opinion xp will be date once windows 7 comes out except for those who purchase the pro or ultimate versions and need xp for older apps.

robin

[firzen771]

wer can i download MSE?

[Boost]

-{ Quote: "wer can i download MSE?" }-

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "http://www.softpedia.com/get/Antivirus/Microsoft-Security-Essentials.shtml" }-

thx for the link

[cp4eva]

-{ Quote: "

I just do not like it for xp, but with microsoft pushing windows 7 I would bet it was made for windows 7 and vista and not really for xp since in Microsoft's opinion xp will be date once windows 7 comes out except for those who purchase the pro or ultimate versions and need xp for older apps.

robin" }-

It worked fine on my XP machine for a few weeks and then, one day- 100% CPU usage.

[Habakuck]

It is beta... ;)

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "It is beta... ;)" }-

As far as I know, this is the final beta before release, ofcourse nothing will be fixed when people just say "100% CPU usage uninstalling" and don't file bug reports.

[IceCube1010]

Strange. I never had those 100% cpu usage problems. I have the latest beta running on WinXP (sp3) and Vista Home(sp1) machine. No problems at all. The only issue I had was the signature updates. It took about 3 days before the software started updating on a daily basis. Not sure why, but it's updating regularly now. Very good job M$.

Ice

[acr1965]

Been running MSE alongside Prevx and PC Tools firewall without issue for a week or so.

Question- IIRC- Windows Defender had the options of choosing the basic membership or advanced membership w/ Spynet. With the Spynet option WD incorporated a HIPS-like feature. Is that the same case with MSE? I believe MSE incorporates WD so would choosing the Spynet option enable the HIPS-like feature?

[JimIT]

Running Forefront CS here right now on XP 32 bit w/1GB RAM. It is taking about 1750kb of memory. CPU cycles are negligible.

[Kees1958]

-{ Quote: "Been running MSE alongside Prevx and PC Tools firewall without issue for a week or so.

Question- IIRC- Windows Defender had the options of choosing the basic membership or advanced membership w/ Spynet. With the Spynet option WD incorporated a HIPS-like feature. Is that the same case with MSE? I believe MSE incorporates WD so would choosing the Spynet option enable the HIPS-like feature?" }-


No everyone of the post/info I have read, supposes that MSE has/uses the same intrusion detection agents as WindowsDefender, also with lowest spynet membership. Only difference with WD is that you can't configure them individually.

[BuzzStone]

I just started using MSE and quite like it. My computer seems somewhat quicker. My MsMpEng.exe (Antimalware Service Executable) is using 55,300K of private working set memory and msseces.exe is using 3690K as I type this.

[kinwolf]

We've experinced the 100% cpu problem on 5 test machines, so you're not alone.

[xxJackxx]

I've also had the high CPU usage. I found out through using process monitoring tools that it was quietly scanning large zip files on my hard drive. The interface gave no indication that it was doing anything. If I excluded the file the CPU usage went back to normal. I don't like programs that don't tell me what they are doing.

[acr1965]

I had Prevx running and set MSE not to scan Prevx.exe and that helped with resource usage. Do you have any other realtime scanners running (including cleaning programs/defraggers/ etc)?

[samnetx]

Give me information, can I install Microsoft Security Essentials with avast antivirus home and Outpost Firewall in Windows xp sp3 (Updated regularly). I want to know if there are any conflicts between the two AV's when running both at same time. I think that my PC will get slower by installing two AV's.

samnetx

[Fuzzydice45]

99.9% of the time there will be conflicts when running 2 or more definiton AV's.
Even if it appears to be working ok, it'll still slow the machine down a lot and as soon as it detects something, both AV's will go apesh*t on your machine.

If you want to test MSE, disable avast! completely by disabling the startup key in "msconfig" and disable the services in "services.msc"

Fuzzy

[kinwolf]

-{ Quote: "I've also had the high CPU usage. I found out through using process monitoring tools that it was quietly scanning large zip files on my hard drive. The interface gave no indication that it was doing anything. If I excluded the file the CPU usage went back to normal. I don't like programs that don't tell me what they are doing." }-

The cpu problem we noticed here always happened at boot time, but we sent the trace back with tools supplied by MS so I take it it should be fixed.

[lordpake]

-{ Quote: "Give me information, can I install Microsoft Security Essentials with avast antivirus home and Outpost Firewall in Windows xp sp3 (Updated regularly). I want to know if there are any conflicts between the two AV's when running both at same time. I think that my PC will get slower by installing two AV's.

samnetx" }-

o_O

You never install two active AV in the same system! That is a sure way of getting random system and performance issues, crashes etc. not to mention missed or false detections when the two struggle for control.

If you want to try MSE, uninstall avast! first.

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "
Dear Beta User,

Thank you for participating in the Microsoft® Security Essentials Beta. Your participation has been instrumental to ensuring the best possible product release quality.

The final version of Microsoft Security Essentials will be released to the public in the coming weeks. If you are running the older version of the beta (1.0.1407.0), we encourage you to upgrade to a newer version of the beta (1.0.1500.0). To ensure a smoothest possible experience, please follow one of these options:

· Click on the ‘Upgrade Now’ button on the Microsoft Security Essentials Home tab. OR

· Select ‘Upgrade Microsoft Security Essentials’ under the Help drop-down menu

Thank you again for your participation in the Microsoft Security Essentials Beta!

Best regards,

Microsoft Security Essentials Team
" }-

Interesting news... :thumb:

[acr1965]

Mine is version 1.1.5005.0

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Mine is version 1.1.5005.0" }-

No, that's the engine version.

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "No, that's the engine version." }-
Gotcha, thanks

[simisg]

anyone knows if auto update works well in the final edition? and how often update?

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "anyone knows if auto update works well in the final edition? and how often update?" }-

No one has the final version, and I highly doubt they changed it away from once a day. What I'm curious now is testing Microsoft Forefront, apparently the new beta has cloud technology? I haven't tried yet. But I'm interested in launching it on several networks.

[acr1965]

I just installed Defensewall to run alongside MSE. DW popped up a warning that mpsigstub.exe was attempting to access the internet (or something to that effect). I checked the logs of DW and it shows the mpsigstub.exe was running from my external hard drive (J). And that that there was an "Attempt to overwrite file C:\Windows\system32\MpSigStub.exe".

I allowed it but now MSE turns itself off and I have to manually turn i back on.

Why is MSE running an updater from my external hard drive?

[LagerX]

http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3202792&
MSE coming tomorrow :thumb:

[trjam]

leave it to Norton to whine the most. Personally I think it is a great product and what Norton fails to say is, it also has cloud scanning, not just signature based.

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3202792&
MSE coming tomorrow :thumb:" }-

What do think of this comment from same article?

-{ Quote: "However, Symantec is urging PC users not to rely on the software as their only form of protection.

"The security industry has moved on from the product Microsoft is launching. Unique malware and social engineering fly under the radar of the traditional signature based technology employed by free security tools such as Microsoft's," said Con Mallon, EMEA Consumer product marketing director at Symantec.

"We believe the false sense of security provided by this tool is almost as dangerous as having no security at all.The latest generation of internet security is real-time and reputation-based, operating in real-time and not relying on a signature being produced and downloaded before the computer is protected."

Symantec also suggested that commentary from users, reviewers and testers of Microsoft's beta version indicated that "the company needs to do a lot of catching up, to even get close to the latest paid for products on the market"." }-

[LagerX]

I think that most "regular" PC users use their free antivirus (AVG, Avast, Avira etc) as their only protection and don't even know that they might have malware inside their computers.
MSE looks to be good and if it is, then why not use it?

Just my opinion.

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "What do think of this comment from same article?" }-
That is not surprising at all. Symantec has been downplaying MSE ever since it was released. MSE has Microsoft's backing and is free, thus generating a legitimate concern for companies who don't provide free solutions.

Also, to say that signature-based solutions is next to useless is pretty ridiculous; just look at the top scorers at AV-comparatives--Avira, G-Data, Avast, etc--all rely on signatures pretty heavily.

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3202792&
MSE coming tomorrow :thumb:" }-
:thumb: Good news, hope they release localized versions tomorrow as well since the beta was in English only. In my opinion MSE is a very nice application, combined with (for example) ThreatFire you're good to go for free.

[CountryGuy]

Anyone know what the differences are between this and Microsoft Forefront (the current version, not the beta)? Figure since its the same company I won't get nailed for an A vs B thread :)

[andyman35]

-{ Quote: "That is not surprising at all. Symantec has been downplaying MSE ever since it was released. MSE has Microsoft's backing and is free, thus generating a legitimate concern for companies who don't provide free solutions.

Also, to say that signature-based solutions is next to useless is pretty ridiculous; just look at the top scorers at AV-comparatives--Avira, G-Data, Avast, etc--all rely on signatures pretty heavily." }-
That's true,although technically Symantec do provide a free product under the PCTools umbrella.

It's not difficult to see why Symantec in particular are so rattled by MSE,since a lot of their business is generated through their products being bundled as a trial by many OEMs.Given that a lot of users will go on to purchase a full licence when the 90 day trial ends,if MSE becomes the new standard on these systems,as is likely,they could find one of their best income streams come to an end.

[funkydude]

Brilliant news, hopefully us "beta" testers can upgrade through the upgrade function.

[ambient_88]

-{ Quote: "That's true,although technically Symantec do provide a free product under the PCTools umbrella.

It's not difficult to see why Symantec in particular are so rattled by MSE,since a lot of their business is generated through their products being bundled as a trial by many OEMs.Given that a lot of users will go on to purchase a full licence when the 90 day trial ends,if MSE becomes the new standard on these systems,as is likely,they could find one of their best income streams come to an end." }-
If this were to happen, I foresee an antitrust lawsuit coming. While bundling MSE will not doubt help curtail the amount of PCs that get infected (due to unlimited ongoing protection not afforded by trial versions), I don't think other security vendors, particularly the big ones, or the European Union will sit back idly.

[trjam]

MSE with Prevx and/or Sandboxie is all you friggin need. CAST THAT IN STONE.

I did.:)

[Brocke]

i noticed that MSE does popup saying there is a new version of it and ask you to upgrade.

[InfinityAz]

-{ Quote: "If this were to happen, I foresee an antitrust lawsuit coming. While bundling MSE will not doubt help curtail the amount of PCs that get infected (due to unlimited ongoing protection not afforded by trial versions), I don't think other security vendors, particularly the big ones, or the European Union will sit back idly." }-

Microsoft has stated that they will never bundle MSE with any version of Windows (probably for this very reason). They also stated that it will always be available as a free download from their site.

[andyman35]

-{ Quote: "Microsoft has stated that they will never bundle MSE with any version of Windows (probably for this very reason). They also stated that it will always be available as a free download from their site." }-
Microsoft themselves might not bundle MSE directly with Windows but OEMs might see it as a desirable option and 'encourage' it's installation.Whatever the outcome Symantec & others better start dealing with the fact that MSE is a credible product that's here to stay.

[funkydude]

Yeah but I'm sure McAfee/Symantec will pay a reasonable amount to keep their trial software on new PC's.

[Brocke]

-{ Quote: "Yeah but I'm sure McAfee/Symantec will pay a reasonable amount to keep their trial software on new PC's." }-

yes i bet they will,

tho microsoft has lot of places they can tell users about MSE like

msn.com, their toolbar, windows updates-"Microsoft Live Essentials" or maybe even a icon so people can download it on new PC's just like Msn messenger live is.

who know we will have to waite and see. but i wish they would have some release notes for MSE. i like it hope they add more things to it to make it better.

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "Microsoft confirms free security software ships Tuesday

By Gregg Keizer
September 28, 2009 05:46 PM ET

Computerworld - Microsoft today confirmed that it will launch its free security software suite, which has been in development for almost a year, Tuesday morning.

"Microsoft Security Essentials, the highly anticipated no-cost consumer security offering, will be released to the public tomorrow, September 29," a company spokeswoman said in an e-mail reply to questions." }-Story (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9138633/Microsoft_confirms_free_security_software_ships_Tuesday)

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "Thanks to the 450 million people who automatically download security updates every month from Microsoft Update, the software giant has a unique and gigantic feedback loop from which they can quickly identify new attacks and react aggressively. On the client itself, the MSE real time protection mechanism operates at the kernel level to examine the behavior of unknown binaries and then sandbox potential malware before it can do any harm. And thanks to a new Dynamic Signature Service, MSE can immediately query online to see if there is anything that matches what its seeing on the PC. Because of its kernel mode hooks, MSE can also detect kernel mode rootkits and, in many cases, even clean them out after they've rooted their way into the system." }-Paul Thurrott (http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/mse.asp)

[trjam]

And now, I can go to sleep in peace. Thank you.;)

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "And now, I can go to sleep in peace. Thank you.;)" }-

i dont think that will ever happen for u lol ;D

[Miyagi]

-{ Quote: "Microsoft Security Essentials, Microsoft Corp.’s new no-cost, core anti-malware service that helps protect consumers against viruses, spyware and other malicious software, will be available tomorrow, Tuesday, Sept. 29. Microsoft Security Essentials, independently certified by West Coast Labs, is backed by the company’s global security response team and is built on the same award-winning core security technology found in the company’s security solutions for businesses." }-

Official Microsoft PressPass (http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2009/sep09/09-28SecurityEssentialsPR.mspx)

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "I just installed Defensewall to run alongside MSE. DW popped up a warning that mpsigstub.exe was attempting to access the internet (or something to that effect). I checked the logs of DW and it shows the mpsigstub.exe was running from my external hard drive (J). And that that there was an "Attempt to overwrite file C:\Windows\system32\MpSigStub.exe".

I allowed it but now MSE turns itself off and I have to manually turn i back on.

Why is MSE running an updater from my external hard drive?" }-

I googled this issue and saw other reports of MSE running some sort of updater from a drive separate from the drive MSE is supposed to be installed on. Has anyone here came across this? Any explanation for it?

[RejZoR]

Why is this thing so darn slow? If i scan my drive with avast! or AVIRA, the scanned files numbers are jumping by 10 scanned files and sometimes even by 3 or 4 digit values.
But when i scan with MSE, the value is increasing by 1 scanned file. And even that is happening at incredibly slow rate. It's taking forever to scan stuff where avast! would have finished long ago. Weird. Only thing that have installed is ThreatFire. Don't tell me it's conflicting with it too?

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Only thing that have installed is ThreatFire. Don't tell me it's conflicting with it too?" }-


No idea, it's always been fast for me, and you could say maybe it's just my machine and I would probably agree, but the fast scan speed on the AV-C test results tends to agree with it too. I'm going to guess your engine version is definitely v1.1.5101.0?

[stapp]

First scan I did with MSE took a long time. After that any scan done completes for me in a minute or so.

This is on an old xp machine I have upstairs, it's definitely not a high spec one at all :)

[scott1256ca]

The stories mentioned have some negatives about MSE, of the form "They won't put xxxx out of business" or indicating it is not comprehensive.

To me that just means it isn't a suite. So if I were to install a firewall, hips, and MSE, how would that differ from an all-in-one suite? In case you are wondering, I'm thinking CIS with AV turned off and MSE in place of CIS AV component.

Or in other words, how would MSE compare to, say, Avira free (which has no HIPS component AFAIK)?

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "No idea, it's always been fast for me, and you could say maybe it's just my machine and I would probably agree, but the fast scan speed on the AV-C test results tends to agree with it too. I'm going to guess your engine version is definitely v1.1.5101.0?" }-
Same here, we encounter no scan performance problems on both 32 and 64 bit systems. The first beta did have such problems though (on some machines).

[IceCube1010]

-{ Quote: "First scan I did with MSE took a long time. After that any scan done completes for me in a minute or so.

This is on an old xp machine I have upstairs, it's definitely not a high spec one at all :)" }-

This is what happened to me on both pc's, my vista home and xp pro. I am also happy to say the updating is working perfectly now. This was the only issue I had with it but now it's updating each day.

Ice

[Dark Star 72]

I tried MSE a little while ago and liked it a lot but found that although it ran OK and scanned fast there was a problem(?) in that after starting the computer or when rebooting it when it got to the desktop there was along delay for the desktop icons to properly load and then the quick launch and task bars were slow to load. I noticed in Process Explorer that MSE loaded very early so I assume it was doing a quick system scan before allowing the other things to load.
Is this normal behavior or a problem caused by my ancient XP Home SP3 machine, now six and a half years old.

[firzen771]

the tray icon is just so ugly for MSE ;D

[rolarocka]

-{ Quote: "I tried MSE a little while ago and liked it a lot but found that although it ran OK and scanned fast there was a problem(?) in that after starting the computer or when rebooting it when it got to the desktop there was along delay for the desktop icons to properly load and then the quick launch and task bars were slow to load. I noticed in Process Explorer that MSE loaded very early so I assume it was doing a quick system scan before allowing the other things to load.
Is this normal behavior or a problem caused by my ancient XP Home SP3 machine, now six and a half years old." }-
Exactly the same happened to me but on Win7. Very high CPU after reboot. Very slow start menu with high CPU again. Also starting programs you get a higher CPU hit compared to other products even other free AV's. Lets hope the final fixes this.

[jmc777]

-> http://www.microsoft.com/SECURITY_ESSENTIALS/

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Beta users: Upgrade to latest version of Microsoft Security Essentials" }-

I've selected the upgrade option, but it says I have the latest. :( Guess I have to wait longer for update servers to kick in.

[funkydude]

Ok, Beta users, download the new MSE installer from the link above.

[Do not uninstall MSE]

Run the installer, it will give you an "upgrade" option, select it.

Warning: If you turned off scheduled scans and selected Advanced SpyNet, both of these options have been reset.

[simisg]

is this final?

[rolarocka]

Yes it is:

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/09/29/microsoft-releases-security-essentials-today

[clocks]

Any changes in this versus the last beta, or is it pretty much the same?

[maymoons]

Where is the scan log? i cant find.
Can Anybody help me?

[ALookingInView]

-{ Quote: "Where is the scan log? i cant find.
Can Anybody help me?" }-

I don't believe there is one, not unless they added it to the Final.

[De Hollander]

What happens if MSE turns out to be great success? Is there a potential problem for a large group to be to knock out by a specific virus or something else???

[LagerX]

I don't really like it because it turns on automatic updates + downloads it's own updates via it?
Correct me if I am wrong.

[Sputnik]

@De Hollander
There's always such a risk with any AV. Though Microsoft anticipated on this with their dynamic signatures witch are quite flexible. Of course you can always combine MSE with ThreatFire or a similar program.

@LagerX
You're right. However I think it's a strong point of this program. Many people ignore automatic updates or simply turn them off because find them annoying or think they don't need them.
Advanced users might not like this behavior, however I think now-a-days updates are just stable (I recall problematic updates in Windows 2000 and early Windows XP days) and automatic updating in Windows is a must have for anyone to stay secure.

[funkydude]

You can turn off automatic windows updates and still get MSE auto updates.

[jmc777]

-{ Quote: "I don't really like it because it turns on automatic updates + downloads it's own updates via it?
Correct me if I am wrong." }-


It uses the Windows Update service to download sigs, but you can set Windows Update to 'Check for updates but let me choose...' if you don't want to automatically download/install Windows Updates.

Edit: Or, if, for some reason, you want to disable the Windows Update service entirely, you can manually download definitions (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/971606).

[Sputnik]

@jmc777
Correct, I forgot to mention this in my post above. Thanks!

@funkydude
I'm not sure, I believe that during the beta test my turned off automatic updates just got re-enabled automatic updates over time by MSE.

[funkydude]

I will say it again, you can completely turn off Window Updates and it will still auto download definitions... I believe you just need the service enabled.

[De Hollander]

-{ Quote: "@De Hollander
There's always such a risk with any AV. Though Microsoft anticipated on this with their dynamic signatures witch are quite flexible. Of course you can always combine MSE with ThreatFire or a similar program" }-

Good point. And I'm also curious what it will mean for other AV manufactures when MSE turns out to be a strong and free competitor.

[blacknight]

-{ Quote: "Good point. And I'm also curious what it will mean for other AV manufactures when MSE turns out to be a strong and free competitor." }-

The question is: can MSE become a strong competitor ?

[Sputnik]

@De Hollander
We anticipate that the general public will be skeptical at first, but over time MSE will get a reasonable user base for sure. Initially people who used another freeware AV will switch, later on also users of commercial AV's will make the switch. Like Microsoft intended we'll most probably see 'emerging markets' switch faster then most western countries (Western Europe and North America).

Like I wrote some weeks ago, Microsoft scores really well in in our testing and will provides very well 'real world' protection. Personally I don't see much reasons not to use MSE when it runs fine on your system.

I'm not a Microsoft advocate in any sense, but they did the right thing with MSE in my believe.


@blacknight
Yes it will, no doubt about that. Like said 'emerging markets' will pick up MSE quickly since it's free, effective and (not least important) professionally localized.

[NoIos]

-{ Quote: "The question is: can MSE become a strong competitor ?" }-

I don't think it's their intention. Actually the name says it all Microsoft Security Essentials. Note: "Essentials".

My opinion is that Microsoft decided to set a higher quality level. And that actually called it Essentials. So the others have to do better. Microsoft wants a safer windows environment and it seems that they are not happy at all with the security products from other companies.

A combined effort: more secure windows OS + better security products = safer windows environment

[Graystoke]

-{ Quote: "Where is the scan log? i cant find.
Can Anybody help me?" }-


There isn't any. Not if you're running XP/SP3, as in my case. That was my complaint with the beta. If you ran a on-demand scan, the results of the scan were located at the top of the main GUI. If you ran a scheduled scan, no results or notification anywhere, that a scan was performed . I don't know if things have changed with the final. It may be picky on my part, and I don't believe it is, but I want to know that my scheduled scan was run, and what if anything was found.

[Sputnik]

@NoIos
Question is if (especially the paid competition) will do much better. Even when it's called 'Essentials' I don't see what's missing in MSE for the normal user. Windows Vista and especially 7 already include a nice firewall and phishing protection is a feature of any popular browser now-a-days.

@Graystoke
If anything was found it's reported in the 'History' tab.

[s23]

MSE is a standalone app or is designed to be used along side with another AV? How it scan? at write and execute?

[Sputnik]

@s23
I know it can be ran combined with upcoming avast! 5, however this seems overkill to me. To answer your question, you can see MSE as a fully standalone AV, however with the option to run it combined with certain others.

[s23]

Thx sputnik - i will take a look at it - maybe add it like a ondemand scanner - i hope MSE gets better and better and "force" the paid ones to do better, release better free versions and charge less $$$$ the user.

[NoIos]

@Sputnik
Well, I agree with you. I only wanted to say that Microsoft by releasing such a valid product wanted actually to push all the commercial and free products from other companies to a higher qualitative level. Microsoft and the windows platform can only benefit from this.

I believe that some security vendors will go on and create better products. Actually I'm convinced that in the next six months we'll see more complete products...more options and services. I'm sure they'll learn well their lesson from Microsoft. When mama is coding the others can only copy and learn.

[Graystoke]

-{ Quote: "
@Graystoke
If anything was found it's reported in the 'History' tab." }-


True, but I still like to see something that says a scan was run at a certain time, and the number of files scanned. But that's just me. :) I'm sure it's probably not that big a deal to others. :)

[RejZoR]

Is Windows Defender even needed with MSE or does MSE replace Windows Defender too?

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "Is Windows Defender even needed with MSE or does MSE replace Windows Defender too?" }-
It turns Defender off and replaces it.....

[RejZoR]

Ok, so it's not needed... thx

[SteveBlanchard]

What a difference of opinions...

running a second quick scan msmpeng is running at 80-99% cpu amd opening applications there is a noticable delay whilst scan is running.
mot as bad as with Avira or AVast, but all the same, As far as I can see email is not protected.
eicar test 1 passed
eicar test 2 failed
eicar test 3 passed
eicar test 4 passed

So looks good so far.

[Frencho]

212638



Isn't 1GB RAM too much for XP? Many people using Windows XP have got old computers with only 512 MB RAM.

[Sputnik]

@Graystoke
You can find such information in the Windows Event Viewer, like shown on the screenshot.

@Frencho
I would say Windows XP needs (at least) 1GB to run smooth with today's applications.

[Frencho]

Other free antivirus like avg, avira, pctools, etc., don't need that much RAM.

[Zimzi]

First impressions about MSE final release:

- poor detection rate after testing on small number (20 samples) of more recent malware samples (detected only 70-75% of malware samples compare to two well-known free antimalware). MSE evan did not add a few malware samples I sent to them a weeks ago.

- relatively slow on-demand scanning

I could not recommend it for now.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Other free antivirus like avg, avira, pctools, etc., don't need that much RAM." }-

http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2009/sep09/09-28SecurityEssentialsPR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases

-{ Quote: "Microsoft Security Essentials is designed to run quietly in the background alerting users only when there is an action for them to take. It also limits CPU and memory usage, resulting in less impact on the tasks consumers perform every day such as opening documents or browser windows or loading search results, even on older or less powerful PCs. Microsoft Security Essentials uses real-time protection to help prevent PCs from becoming infected, and it is the first Microsoft security product to make use of the company’s new Dynamic Signature Service, a technology that helps ensure users stay protected by the most current virus definitions available without having to wait for the next scheduled download." }-

[Hugger]

I tried MSE a few months ago but didn't get any warm fuzzy feelings so I tossed it. It didn't play well with DW and MS did say that it was supposedly designed to be used by itself.
Just tried it again and this time made sure I specifically allowed DW and any other programs that I trusted and wanted to run unmolested.
And of course that just did not happen.
It's probably great software, but not for me.
I'll stick with DW and Prevx.
Hugger

[hawkeen]

-{ Quote: "First impressions about MSE final release:

- poor detection rate after testing on small number (20 samples) of more recent malware samples (detected only 70-75% of malware samples compare to two well-known free antimalware). MSE evan did not add a few malware samples I sent to them a weeks ago.

- relatively slow on-demand scanning

I could not recommend it for now." }-


Interesting as I just took it for a stroll along malware domain list sites and it caught all the exe's I downloaded into my virtual machine.

Also, on the malware domain list exe's, it did not detect all of them passively. Some were caught while trying to run the first time.

Did you run any of your samples?


Hawk

[ambient_88]

I'm having problems with MSE as well. The CPU goes haywire whenever I open a folder with lots of executable files. I wish they'd add an option to scan when writing only. Like Hugger said, this is probably great software, but it is not for me.

[Threedog]

-{ Quote: "I tried MSE a few months ago but didn't get any warm fuzzy feelings so I tossed it. It didn't play well with DW and MS did say that it was supposedly designed to be used by itself.
Just tried it again and this time made sure I specifically allowed DW and any other programs that I trusted and wanted to run unmolested.
And of course that just did not happen.
It's probably great software, but not for me.
I'll stick with DW and Prevx.
Hugger" }-

I tried it out too with my Prevx, Defensewall combo. Things did not go well. Constant lock ups and crashes. Finally had to restore to a clean image. Don't know if Defensewall or Prevx didn't play with it or what the problem was. Back to my tried and true.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Interesting as I just took it for a stroll along malware domain list sites and it caught all the exe's I downloaded into my virtual machine.

Also, on the malware domain list exe's, it did not detect all of them passively. Some were caught while trying to run the first time.

Did you run any of your samples?


Hawk" }-

This tends to be my experience also when I test it out once a month or so, one of the strongest reasons I'm still with MSE, when it comes to adapting to 0-day MS seem to know the score. :)

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "I tried it out too with my Prevx, Defensewall combo. Things did not go well. Constant lock ups and crashes. Finally had to restore to a clean image. Don't know if Defensewall or Prevx didn't play with it or what the problem was. Back to my tried and true." }-

Sad to hear, I used to use both Prevx and MSE together with no problems, but I never have (apart from testing) nor ever will use a HIPS product.

[Threedog]

-{ Quote: "Sad to hear, I used to use both Prevx and MSE together with no problems, but I never have (apart from testing) nor ever will use a HIPS product." }-

I might give it a try on the weekend when I got more time to fool with it. Maybe install it alone on a clean image. I am too obsessive compulsive to stay with the same setup for too long...like someone else I know. :P

[JohnnyDollar]

If you look at it from MS point of view, it makes good sense for several reasons. It is also nice to have a free antimalware product without nags, toolbars, ads, goading to purchase paid version etc...
I have read several complaints about spynet collecting info for the cloud (without giving user a choice). Don't all av's collect info in some form or another (Granted you usually have a choice)? Doesn't that help improve the detection of the product? If it does help, which I am sure it does, then what is the big deal. MS has been collecting info for a long time, as well as have other vendors. As long as they are not engaged in any shady/criminal activity, then I don't see a problem with it.

[Zimzi]

-{ Quote: "Did you run any of your samples?" }-

Yes I did. I ran all of the samples. That is the way that I test antimalware software. As I said, MSE did not detect even the malware that I sent to them on 08/11/2009.

[Victek123]

-{ Quote: "If you look at it from MS point of view, it makes good sense for several reasons. It is also nice to have a free antimalware product without nags, toolbars, ads, goading to purchase paid version etc...
I have read several complaints about spynet collecting info for the cloud (without giving user a choice). Don't all av's collect info in some form or another (Granted you usually have a choice)? Doesn't that help improve the detection of the product? If it does help, which I am sure it does, then what is the big deal. MS has been collecting info for a long time, as well as have other vendors. As long as they are not engaged in any shady/criminal activity, then I don't see a problem with it." }-
.
When you think about it, "cloud" protection in part depends on there being a pool of data submitted in real time by all the users. If you don't trust your Anti-malware vendor, who can you trust? :dry:

[softtouch]

-{ Quote: "I tried it out too with my Prevx, Defensewall combo. Things did not go well. Constant lock ups and crashes. Finally had to restore to a clean image. Don't know if Defensewall or Prevx didn't play with it or what the problem was. Back to my tried and true." }-

This is exactly what I experienced. I had defensewall and prevx installed and had issued with MSE. Every time I opened a folder with lots of files, the pc freezes for seconds. I now installed it without prevx/defensewall under Windows 7, and all is fine so far, no slowdown anymore. Do definitely, prevx or defensewall does not play well with it.

[acr1965]

I had MSE and Prevx free running together for the last 2-3 weeks and things went very well. I added DW and experienced lots of programs hanging. So I just went back to MSE and Prevx and all is well.

BTW- When I tried to upgrade from beta to final I got a message that "MSE is already installed".

MSE Version: 1.0.1611.0
Antimalware Client Version: 2.0.6212.0
Engine Version: 1.1.5101.0
Antivirus definitions: 1.67.188.0
Antispyware definitions: 1.67.188.0

Does the above look like the final release?

[Hugger]

-{ Quote: "I tried it out too with my Prevx, Defensewall combo. Things did not go well. Constant lock ups and crashes. Finally had to restore to a clean image. Don't know if Defensewall or Prevx didn't play with it or what the problem was. Back to my tried and true." }-

I had removed Prevx before installing MSE.
Had the same problems as you had but I was able to correct them just by uninstalling MSE.
Hugger

[softtouch]

-{ Quote: "I had MSE and Prevx free running together for the last 2-3 weeks and things went very well. I added DW and experienced lots of programs hanging. So I just went back to MSE and Prevx and all is well.

BTW- When I tried to upgrade from beta to final I got a message that "MSE is already installed".

MSE Version: 1.0.1611.0
Antimalware Client Version: 2.0.6212.0
Engine Version: 1.1.5101.0
Antivirus definitions: 1.67.188.0
Antispyware definitions: 1.67.188.0

Does the above look like the final release?" }-

Yes, the 1.0.1611.0 is the final. The beta can be updated to this via the help menu. I did that, and its 1.0.1611.0, I then downloaded the final, and its the same version.

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "Yes, the 1.0.1611.0 is the final. The beta can be updated to this via the help menu. I did that, and its 1.0.1611.0, I then downloaded the final, and its the same version." }-
Thanks!

[apm]

-{ Quote: "First impressions about MSE final release:

- poor detection rate after testing on small number (20 samples) of more recent malware samples (detected only 70-75% of malware samples compare to two well-known free antimalware). MSE evan did not add a few malware samples I sent to them a weeks ago.

- relatively slow on-demand scanning

I could not recommend it for now." }-
"MSE evan did not add a few malware samples I sent to them a weeks ago.
" yes they seem not fast at adding sent samples, the quickest from experiences should be Eset/Drweb/KAV.

[apm]

-{ Quote: "Interesting as I just took it for a stroll along malware domain list sites and it caught all the exe's I downloaded into my virtual machine.

Also, on the malware domain list exe's, it did not detect all of them passively. Some were caught while trying to run the first time.

Did you run any of your samples?


Hawk" }-
MSE seems like have better generic/heuristics, when tested with same family fakealert of the same exe file with different exe size/version (downloaded by the downloader at different day), it can detect with correct name at run and pop-up say no signature yet and request to send the sample, while tested with other major AV no one detect.

[SteveBlanchard]

Interesting issue - when does the automatic update update the definitions?

Installed MSE last night, I was on line until 22:15 GMT. I log on this morning and check the definitions, still 29/8 6:31. So do a manual update to get the definitions from 29/9 21:13. (done local timw 07:06)

Now this could be an bug and that the definition time is local to Microsoft? rather than GMT.

Or could it be that automatic updates have not got through to me yet? my previous AV's always updated immediately. So can someone explain why MSE doesn't?

Being it is free, MSE really needs to update as soon as, rather than waiting. It just reminds me that this is very like AVIRA's free offering when it will update every 24hrs from the time it installed on the PC. Otherwise a substancial attack on a popular network could quiet easily screw up many peoples computers if MSE wins the popularity stakes.

[erikloman]

I took the final of Microsoft Security Essentials for a spin on a laptop of a friend of mine (Windows XP, 1 GB memory, Centrino 1800 CPU).

I have let the initial 'fast scan' scan the whole night and this morning it wasn't even on 10% of the scan! And the CPU was at 100%. I don't know why MSE is so slow on this laptop. I guess MSE is not for every PC?

The initial scan on my Windows 7 RC1 Vaio SZ4 laptop took 10 minutes and after this scan MSE constantly consumed 60MB of memory and the overall slowdown of the PC is about 33%. These are normal figures for an active on-access scanner, I guess.

I measured the 33% slowdown with Hitman Pro scan times:

Without MSE: 2m 7s
With MSE: 3m 10s

These values are just something I observed while checking out MSE.

[cqpreson]

-{ Quote: "I took the final of Microsoft Security Essentials for a spin on a laptop of a friend of mine (Windows XP, 1 GB memory, Centrino 1800 CPU).

I have let the initial 'fast scan' scan the whole night and this morning it wasn't even on 10% of the scan! And the CPU was at 100%. I don't know why MSE is so slow on this laptop. I guess MSE is not for every PC?

The initial scan on my Windows 7 RC1 Vaio SZ4 laptop took 10 minutes and after this scan MSE constantly consumed 60MB of memory and the overall slowdown of the PC is about 33%. These are normal figures for an active on-access scanner, I guess.

I measured the 33% slowdown with Hitman Pro scan times:

Without MSE: 2m 7s
With MSE: 3m 10s

These values are just something I observed while checking out MSE." }-

I totally agree with you.I have the same experience.My computer also has 1GB memory,and couldn't run MSE freely.First,Scanning was slow and cleaning the virus was powerless.

Maybe MSE just suit the computer which has many GBs memory.

[MasterTB]

-{ Quote: "Maybe MSE just suit the computer which has many GBs memory." }-

That is strange.. I have it running on a 256MB windows XP workstation at the office and it runs just fine, no slowdowns and no problem detecting and/or removing malware.

[Defcon]

Am I the only one running MSE as my only security app? I am on Windows 7 x64 with 4GB ram and haven't noticed any issues at all, but after the comments here I'm thinking its not enough ???

[trjam]

I have it on my desktop and 2 laptops and throughout this entire period no slowdowns at all on scanning. Of course I dont run all the other apps that a lot of you do in conjunction with my security products. But to me , MSE is proving to be as good, if not better then all paid AVs. Throw in a program like Sandboxie with it and Online Armors free firewall and I would bet you, there isnt a suite that can touch it either. ;D

[cqpreson]

I agree with trjam.MSE has Microsoft's own advantage.Not one vendor can understand Windows System better than Microsoft.Microsoft know the secrets of Windows and make the most of those secrets.If Microsoft pay more attention to MSE,MSE will be the best,I believe.

[NoIos]

I doubt MSE will get any better or will get any major upgrades soon. Only major bugs will get fixed. I don't like to repeat myself but I'm 100% convinced that Microsoft released MSE to show the way...to set a higher level of quality standard. Their goal is to make the windows platform more secure...they have made a more secure OS, they react faster to all the security holes...I believe that they did and will do what they can. Now they want better security applications for their windows platform. That's why they decided to shake a bit the market.

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "I doubt MSE will get any better or will get any major upgrades soon. Only major bugs will get fixed. I don't like to repeat myself but I'm 100% convinced that Microsoft released MSE to show the way...to set a higher level of quality standard. Their goal is to make the windows platform more secure...they have made a more secure OS, they react faster to all the security holes...I believe that they did and will do what they can. Now they want better security applications for their windows platform. That's why they decided to shake a bit the market." }-

It is definitely in their interest for several reasons to do this. I think it is great for the consumer as long as the product can hold it's weight and stand up to scrutiny.

[IceCube1010]

-{ Quote: "I have it on my desktop and 2 laptops and throughout this entire period no slowdowns at all on scanning. Of course I dont run all the other apps that a lot of you do in conjunction with my security products. But to me , MSE is proving to be as good, if not better then all paid AVs. Throw in a program like Sandboxie with it and Online Armors free firewall and I would bet you, there isnt a suite that can touch it either. ;D" }-

Very True. :thumb:

Ice

[nanana1]

-{ Quote: "I have it on my desktop and 2 laptops and throughout this entire period no slowdowns at all on scanning. Of course I dont run all the other apps that a lot of you do in conjunction with my security products. But to me , MSE is proving to be as good, if not better then all paid AVs. Throw in a program like Sandboxie with it and Online Armors free firewall and I would bet you, there isnt a suite that can touch it either. ;D" }-

Agreed with trjam that MSE is working well but don't think it is better than the paid AV's. It's free for sure and is a good replacement for those who don't want to pay for their AV's. Also agreed that MSE should not be used on its own, add a program such as Sandboxie would further strengthen your system security is prudent.:lurking:

Like all AV softwares, MSE would get better over time and use.*puppy*

[Osaban]

-{ Quote: "I agree with trjam.MSE has Microsoft's own advantage.Not one vendor can understand Windows System better than Microsoft.Microsoft know the secrets of Windows and make the most of those secrets.If Microsoft pay more attention to MSE,MSE will be the best,I believe." }-

I think your argument would be quite appropriate in relation to Vista x64 and Win7 x64 on account of the kernel patch guard which is giving a lot of security applications more than a headache.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Am I the only one running MSE as my only security app? I am on Windows 7 x64 with 4GB ram and haven't noticed any issues at all, but after the comments here I'm thinking its not enough ???" }-

No you're not the only one.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "I agree with trjam.MSE has Microsoft's own advantage.Not one vendor can understand Windows System better than Microsoft.Microsoft know the secrets of Windows and make the most of those secrets.If Microsoft pay more attention to MSE,MSE will be the best,I believe." }-

I wouldn't say just this, as it's MS they have more responsibility to use the API to the fullest instead of well, let's call them "workarounds", that some vendors use that break with patches, or cause incompatibilities with other software. It's more than likely these "workarounds" used by other vendors are what cause MSE's weirdness on certain systems with multiple security software.

[trjam]

ditto, on 2 computers it is all I run. Caught 2 trojans on my sons computer yesterday from Limewire crap he was downloading.

I know Stefan, you told me so.;)

[Brent Hutto]

It's running on my home laptop and desktop machines as of last night. It was getting close to time for a re-up on my N.I.S. license so the timing was great, I'm less and less inclined to keep dropping quarters in the slot for big suites now that Microsoft is finally (a decade overdue IMO) stepping to the plate with some basic, acceptable-quality antivirus and firewall functionality in Windows. That said, I'm also running the Prevx free thing on those computers just in case.

Microsoft seem to have belatedly realized that as a practical matter having nigh-foolproof, simple default protections (i.e. Windows Firewall, MSE, anti-phishing in IE) that will stop even 80-90% of the malicious stuff coming down the line can--on a population basis of millions--have a huge, huge impact on the overall quality of life for Internet-connected users. All the FUD and downplaying from the big suite vendors is beside the point, the object isn't to give NIS2010-quality protection to every Windows user for free.

The point is that the world would be better off with 90% of users having even a mediocre security setup and 10% having real (paid-for) protection than it is with 10% having real-good protection and the 90% having nada.

[trjam]

Not everyone (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/172873/despite_taunts_from_rivals_microsoft_security_essentials_is_solid.html) agrees with Nortons assumption of MSE being a middle of the road AV.

[Morro]

Well i just installed it as well, and the GUI looks good...and it does not need complicated configuration like some of the other AV's i tried. :D

[Brent Hutto]

I fully expect to conclude that it is quite effective, once I've had it protecting my system long enough to draw any conclusion. My point was that even stipulating (as they say on the lawyer shows) that you get better protection from a quarter-gigabyte suite of Norton, et. al. there is still a great need for a Microsoft-supplied, free "default" security solution.

[trjam]

I understand Brent. You might want to read this page about detection about mid-way down.

here (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/first-look-microsoft-security-essentials-impresses.ars/2)

[blacknight]

I don't like: to use MSE I must run MicrosoftSpynet, and I must enable the WU, that I don't run never, and I enable only at the Patch Day, choosing the Custom Update. >:( Sorry, but I'll renounce to MSE.

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "I don't like: to use MSE I must run MicrosoftSpynet, and I must enable the WU, that I don't run never, and I enable only at the Patch Day, choosing the Custom Update. >:( Sorry, but I'll renounce to MSE. " }-
Totally understandable. You have to make the choice that is best for you, and I respect that. Also MSE is not the find-all end-all for products either. It is a great product but will not be able to replace all for everyone. It will allow some to reduce what they use I think.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "I don't like: to use MSE I must run MicrosoftSpynet, and I must enable the WU, that I don't run never, and I enable only at the Patch Day, choosing the Custom Update. >:( Sorry, but I'll renounce to MSE. " }-

Microsoft is so far the _only_ company I've seen that will give you the option to reduce the amount of data sent to them. Every other AV company does this by default with no choice to you, go around reading some EULA's. Basic SpyNet barely sends anything, which is why I always use advanced.

Also, like stated several times before, you do not need Windows Updates left on to get updates, so both your points aren't really valid.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Not everyone (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/172873/despite_taunts_from_rivals_microsoft_security_essentials_is_solid.html) agrees with Nortons assumption of MSE being a middle of the road AV." }-

Ooh, I hadn't read this, thanks!

[JRViejo]

FYI. FileHippo has added the 3 versions of Microsoft Security Essentials (http://filehippo.com/download_security_essentials/).

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "Not everyone (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/172873/despite_taunts_from_rivals_microsoft_security_essentials_is_solid.html) agrees with Nortons assumption of MSE being a middle of the road AV." }-

I like this statement:

-{ Quote: "If you're already fairly smart about using your computer safely, Essentials will likely give you just the amount of protection you need." }-

[Brent Hutto]

-{ Quote: "If you're already fairly smart about using your computer safely, Essentials will likely give you just the amount of protection you need." }-

OK, that's a little on the nose innit? I think our own trjam is the author of that piece. Come clean, now!

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "OK, that's a little on the nose innit? I think our own trjam is the author of that piece. Come clean, now!" }-

What do you mean? I quoted trjam, which has a link to a PC world article in his quote. Then I quoted a sentence from the PC world article.

[iTrendsNET]

I've been using MSE since the beta was first released. Test machines were a workstation running Windows 7 64 bit and Prevx, a laptop running XP SP3 with SAS and a workstation running Vista 32 bit and SAS.

Like many of you here, I like to stress test ;D and MSE has caught everything I tossed at it, so SAS and Prevx stays quiet. I've experienced zero compatibility problems and have been so impressed that I recently converted three large offices to MSE while still in beta.

Memory use for me has been a consistent 56 to 63 MB, regardless of what software or file directories I have open. My guess is that perhaps some of the people reporting much lower memory use may be running Vista or 7 and may not be ticking the button to "show processes for all users" (?). The user interface service is what runs at 4 to 5 MB.

Regarding memory use spiking at boot time, sorry, but I consider that to be normal for many anti virus solutions. Heck, it was not that long ago that SAS used to do that for me. Ditto for Vipre, which was notorious for doing it. Even though memory use is higher than what was reported on my machines for Avast, Avira, Eset, etc., in practical use it runs "light" for me.

I can understand how some users might prefer suites, while others prefer to "roll their own". I, for one, do not want a suite with SPAM filters as I prefer what I get in Thunderbird or WLM. Scanning of inbound AND outbound mail? I'm also not interested.

We've got plenty of options to choose from. I recall many times that I felt the anti virus I was trying was a second classed citizen on my machines as things just were not right. At least MS knows how to hook MSE into their OS. Look how long it took for many solutions to work with Vista (and we all know why.) ::)

I want SpyNET and I set my controls to advanced so MSE can check the servers if it finds something acting tacky on my machines. MSE always seems to pull it's updates before Windows Update does it's daily thing. I do not fault them for wanting WU enabled. Wilders users are capabable of managing their own machines. What about the zillions of users who never tweak their machine from day one and think it is fine to use the anti virus trial that was installed back in 2006 with little or no updates?

[rolarocka]

Im unable to run MSE. It takes long time to load the startmenu. Long bootup? scan. Not to mention browsing folders with a lot of .exe's. I wished this would replace Windows Defender but no luck i guess....

[Brent Hutto]

Johnny,

I was just posing fun at trjam. The quote you pulled from that article (which I had already read before seeing it linked here) just happened to sound like just the sort thing friend trjam would say. So I left off the smiley but meant to jokingly imply we had a ringer in our midst.

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "Johnny,

I was just posing fun at trjam. The quote you pulled from that article (which I had already read before seeing it linked here) just happened to sound like just the sort thing friend trjam would say. So I left off the smiley but meant to jokingly imply we had a ringer in our midst." }-

Oh ok I gotcha. :D

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: " Even though memory use is higher than what was reported on my machines for Avast, Avira, Eset, etc., in practical use it runs "light" for me. " }-

My mother's Vistax86 machine was running Avast. I removed it and put MSE beta on it when it came out. I tallied all the processes from Avast in terms of ram usage in process explorer. I think that MSE used about the same or a little more ram. Like you, I felt MSE was lighter. Windows start up is little quicker now too. Like you said the program seems to be more efficient than some av's. Like others have said, it doesn't hurt that it was created by the same people that created the os that it is running on.

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "Johnny,

I was just posing fun at trjam. The quote you pulled from that article (which I had already read before seeing it linked here) just happened to sound like just the sort thing friend trjam would say. So I left off the smiley but meant to jokingly imply we had a ringer in our midst." }-
All taking in good terms and yes, I could see myself saying that.;)

[blacknight]

-{ Quote: "

Also, like stated several times before, you do not need Windows Updates left on to get updates, so both your points aren't really valid." }-

I can't understand why it's not valid. I want know - till it's possible ::) - what and which security updates Microsoft gives to me: there is something wrong, or offensive for Redmond ? ;D And many security softwares ask if I want to share or not my data. I didn't say: MSE is bad; I don't think, and anyway I can't say it so far. I say: its policies are not for me. Free to think it, I believe.

[Morro]

-{ Quote: "Im unable to run MSE. It takes long time to load the startmenu. Long bootup? scan. Not to mention browsing folders with a lot of .exe's. I wished this would replace Windows Defender but no luck i guess...." }-

Actually after i installed MSE today i noticed that Windows Defender was deactivated and that MSE took over the job, so it has replaced it in a sense.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "I can't understand why it's not valid. I want know - till it's possible ::) - what and which security updates Microsoft gives to me: there is something wrong, or offensive for Redmond ? ;D And many security softwares ask if I want to share or not my data. I didn't say: MSE is bad; I don't think, and anyway I can't say it so far. I say: its policies are not for me. Free to think it, I believe." }-

I'm sorry I just cannot understand what you are saying - I said it wasn't valid because you don't need windows updates on to use MSE, which is what you think.

Also, please name an AV that doesn't extract data from your system and send it to the company.

[demoneye]

-{ Quote: "Not everyone (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/172873/despite_taunts_from_rivals_microsoft_security_essentials_is_solid.html) agrees with Nortons assumption of MSE being a middle of the road AV." }-
Trend and Symantec want your money :)

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Trend and Symantec want your money :)" }-

Everyone wants your money ;D Even MS!

[ad67]

I installed MSE yesterday and found it mostly very good, but I had a couple of concerns and uninstalled it. I am using XP with 2 GB ram and Intel core 2 duo.

Process Explorer showed it using approx 170 MB at first and after a few hours it had decreased to approx 120MB - perhaps it would continue to decline. It seemed mostly very quick scanning, but some programs (PCTools firewall is one example) took a very long time to scan, while Avira scans the file almost instantaneously - perhaps MSE is doing a more thorough scan.

I have seen reports of very high CPU usage with MSE, but it never got over 50% and generally was in the 20-30% range (still higher than Avira), but when using a file manager and opening an folder with exe's, MSE takes several seconds to scan the files, while Avira uses less CPU and scans much faster.

MSE doesn't provide much info as to what it is doing; perhaps it is doing a more thorough job, but on my computer, Avira uses less resources and is faster.

[trjam]

Ok, I have a question FunkyDude. I have windows to update at will. My update has now past the 24 hour mark for a auto update. This PC is on all the time. I have seen others say they get theirs every 4 hours. This is the one area MS has, at least to me, not clarified. Suggestions because I will be damn if I have to hit the update key manually.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Ok, I have a question FunkyDude. I have windows to update at will. My update has now past the 24 hour mark for a auto update. This PC is on all the time. I have seen others say they get theirs every 4 hours. This is the one area MS has, at least to me, not clarified. Suggestions because I will be damn if I have to hit the update key manually." }-

Well to begin with it does not matter if you're not fully up-to-date:

-{ Quote: "Microsoft Security Essentials uses real-time protection to help prevent PCs from becoming infected, and it is the first Microsoft security product to make use of the company’s new Dynamic Signature Service, a technology that helps ensure users stay protected by the most current virus definitions available without having to wait for the next scheduled download." }-
http://www.microsoft.com/Presspass/press/2009/sep09/09-28SecurityEssentialsPR.mspx?rss_fdn=Press%20Releases

But to the point: Unless they changed it in the final release (I haven't paid much attention sorry) the beta only updated once a day. But that's not to say there actually was an update at that point in time, it could well be when the schedule triggered there was no update, and now it's waiting for the next schedule.

[Hugger]

Some of you are using Sandboxie and Prevx with MSE.
How are you configuring MSE and Sandboxie to work together?
Isn't Prevx considered an antivirus?
If it is, wouldn't there be a conflict between MSE and Prevx if Prevx caught something and took action to prevent infection?
Thanks.
Hugger

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "I said it wasn't valid because you don't need windows updates on to use MSE, which is what you think." }-

To clarify.....to use MSE you don't have to activate Automatic Update service?
If that's the case, I may reconsider and start using MSE.

[funkydude]

No, Prevx is designed to run alongside AV/AM/etc. In the past I ran MSE+Prevx+Sandboxie together. On 64bit I just run MSE.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "To clarify.....to use MSE you don't have to activate Automatic Update service?
If that's the case, I may reconsider using MSE." }-

I guess you need the service enabled but turn it off in the settings, but that's just a guess. I only know you don't need it turned on in the settings, I would try it yourself and see.

[Firebytes]

Not sure if it has already been mentioned or not (if it was I missed it) but for those who are interested you can apparently disable Spynet completely without losing the functionality of MSE either by editing the registry or your hosts file. See here (http://www.malwarehelp.org/how-to-block-microsoft-spynet-2009.html).

* I haven't tested either method as I am not using MSE; just bringing it to your attention.

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "I guess you need the service enabled but turn it off in the settings, but that's just a guess. I only know you don't need it turned on in the settings, I would try it yourself and see." }-

Ok. Thank you for clarifying that for me.:thumb:

[acr1965]

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=243868,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2353447,00.asp

Maybe this post should go in the Forticlient thread too

[trjam]

and yes PC Mag sleeps with Norton, we all know. But what I find interesting is Bitdefender. I really think F-Secure may have found the winning combo.

[trjam]

But for MSE, roddy32 shows update 216 at 3:48 today. I still show 198 from 4:00 9/29. I really hate thinking there has been a new version out with new sigs for the last 5 hours and i dont have it.

[BuzzStone]

trjam: I have version 216 also, from 3:11 AM. But I see on the definitions page that 244 is now available from 9:30 PM UTC.

[funkydude]

But like I stated in my previous post, it doesn't matter, due to MS's tech.

Everyone will always have different versions because they update at different schedules. Also, much like other AV's, MS has servers all over the world and the updates will take a whilst to propagate, hence the different versions in different countries.

[trjam]

FD, it isnt because I dont think you are right because I know you know more then me and care, but for me, I guess I know the difference now between paid and free. Just my 2 cents. And just because MS says it is so, doesnt make it so.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "Am I the only one running MSE as my only security app? I am on Windows 7 x64 with 4GB ram and haven't noticed any issues at all, but after the comments here I'm thinking its not enough ???" }-
That's all I have here aside from the router.

[Securon]

Good Evening ! Tried MSE not really impressed or unimpressed. It's a average stop gap solution for an economically minded individual. I appreciated the non cluttered minimalist Gui. Tried the quick scan nothing detected. Tried the thorough scan,have to admit it took far too long, again nothing detected. Compared to Avast 4.8 it simply at this stage can't compare. Until Windows 7 arrives I'll stick with Vipre. In summation hats off to Microsoft, a decent gesture for the masses. Sincerely...Securon

[loli22]

-{ Quote: "In summation hats off to Microsoft, a decent gesture for the masses. Sincerely" }-

i believe this is the whole point of MSE, not tryin to compete with the big boys, but...something better than nothing

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "FD, it isnt because I dont think you are right because I know you know more then me and care, but for me, I guess I know the difference now between paid and free. Just my 2 cents. And just because MS says it is so, doesnt make it so." }-

I'm not saying you don't think I'm right, but you clearly don't understand, this is an advantage it has over other AV's, it doesn't need to be the latest signatures for you to detect new threats, it uses DSS to detect them. Therefor, Microsoft have the flexibility of knocking back the update schedule to a longer period of time.

The feeling I got from your post was that you think it was a disadvantage or bad in some way, correct me if I'm wrong.

[ronjor]

-{ Quote: "Stress Testing Microsoft's Free Anti-virus Offering

The MSE performance analysis comes from av-test.org, a group that routinely publishes the results of anti-virus stress tests. AV-Test ran MSE against 3,732 samples of malware that are currently infecting PCs around the world, and found that the program blocked all of them, both when the samples were opened or accessed and when the malware was manually scanned." }-Brian Krebs (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2009/09/stress_testing_microsofts_free.html)

[Sjoeii]

Here is another nice one
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=nl&sl=nl&tl=en&u=http://webwereld.nl/nieuws/63836/rivalen-kraken-gratis-microsoft-security-af.html&prev=hp&rurl=translate.google.com&usg=ALkJrhhD-TsBbBchHO5NWEPRqJ-KdKgZUw

[Legendkiller]

well its running fine on my system....i am using with another free product-Outpost FW and both seem to gel well....
There are very obvious concerns about its detection-rate and preventive capabilities....
But the link posted by Ronjor above seems assuring..........lets see how microsoft develops it further......

[simisg]

unistall any other real time security software you have in this pc then install mse, defragment the hard disk and then scan with mse


-{ Quote: "I took the final of Microsoft Security Essentials for a spin on a laptop of a friend of mine (Windows XP, 1 GB memory, Centrino 1800 CPU).

I have let the initial 'fast scan' scan the whole night and this morning it wasn't even on 10% of the scan! And the CPU was at 100%. I don't know why MSE is so slow on this laptop. I guess MSE is not for every PC?

The initial scan on my Windows 7 RC1 Vaio SZ4 laptop took 10 minutes and after this scan MSE constantly consumed 60MB of memory and the overall slowdown of the PC is about 33%. These are normal figures for an active on-access scanner, I guess.

I measured the 33% slowdown with Hitman Pro scan times:

Without MSE: 2m 7s
With MSE: 3m 10s

These values are just something I observed while checking out MSE." }-

[RejZoR]

Does anyone know how often does MSE check for definition updates?
It seems weird that so far i always had to update myself, because signatures were already 1 day old. When i checked, it installed new definitions.
It seems to me like it's checking only every 24 hours or something. Thats kinda lame considering most of antiviruses check for signatures every hour or for example every 4 hours (avast! free).

[IceCube1010]

-{ Quote: "Does anyone know how often does MSE check for definition updates?
It seems weird that so far i always had to update myself, because signatures were already 1 day old. When i checked, it installed new definitions.
It seems to me like it's checking only every 24 hours or something. Thats kinda lame considering most of antiviruses check for signatures every hour or for example every 4 hours (avast! free)." }-

I thought this was a problem also. It does update every 24hrs. Sometimes, it updates twice in the same day. But this works differently in that when checking a process or file, I believe the sequence is definitions, heuristics and then a connection is made to their servers if somethings seems suspicious. The only other AV I would trust for realtime is the one you like.

Ice

[trjam]

;) Cube, that would make total sense. Now even I understand it. MS should cut and paste your response for the front page of MSE. Well most of it at least.

[Kees1958]

Well,

It may be the way my son's rig is configured and loaded with aps, but

* it uses about 25 secs cpu time until system is ready
* reads only 170MB of data, writes are negligible

After operational mode (looking at executable starts and downloads/mail)
- startup of large applications hits 3% cpu usage at the most, WHILE
- total CPU time stays at 25 secs (so it is just a blimp)

- triggering the traditional Windows Defender Agents (I think it had 8), keeps
CPU spikes under 1% and adds nothing to ttal CPU time
- MSE has a simplified GUI, so it shuld have same agents as WD, but you
can not configure them.


Compared to other AV's does it uses a lot of CPU during boot time, it needs less disk I/O (an important 'feel or system crispiness' factor) and uses minimal CPU while in operation with no spykes (no 'lag' feel during operation).

For a freebie, just used as add-on to UAC (smart with Norton's UAC tool) and SRP (with PGS) and ThreatFire for x64 (not a native x64 applicaton) it is good enough (and great on the Price/CPU load ratio).

Regards Kees

Regards Kees

[tgell]

From Microsoft

-{ Quote: "The Microsoft Malware Protection Center (MMPC) typically provides roughly 3 updates per day, but Microsoft Security Essentials only performs one automatic update download in a 24 hour period. That's why there's a good chance that an occasional click of the Update button in MSE will find a definitions update available.

Another way to automate an additional daily update is to set up a scheduled daily quick scan for a time the PC will be on but not in heavy use. By also checking the the box for "Check for the latest virus & spyware definitions before running a scheduled scan", any available update will be downloaded at that time.

Also note that the new Dynamic Signature Service will automatically check for a matching signature if something unknown is detected on your PC and download the update immediately if a match is found. This feature will work anytime something new acting like malware is detected and the Internet is available to perform the DSS check. This completely avoids the need to download definitions several times a day, since it can get them on demand whenever they might be required." }-

[andyman35]

Symantec are really going all out to discredit MSE,which,in itself makes my opinion of the latter higher.Nice to see that their FUD isn't going unanswered though.

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Protection-Blog/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Reruns-Aren-t-Just-for-TV-Anymore/ba-p/155531#A374

[Kees1958]

-{ Quote: "Symantec are really going all out to discredit MSE,which,in itself makes my opinion of the latter higher.Nice to see that their FUD isn't going unanswered though.

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Protection-Blog/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Reruns-Aren-t-Just-for-TV-Anymore/ba-p/155531#A374" }-

Oh I love these partial scope debates. Just pick something out of the equation and you proof you are right.

NORTON vs MSE = a full fledged versus a basic AV

Of all the points they could have taken succesfull shots at MSE, Norton choose the worst: MSE lacks a reputation feature

Call me stupid, but IE8 has one of the best reputation features available.

Of course it is not in MSE, you silly guys from Norton, it is a free feature of Internet Explorer


:argh: :argh: :argh:

[trjam]

yes, I have to admit that any positive feelings I had for Norton are now gone. If MSE sucks like they say, why are they even commenting on it. It wont take long before consumers find this out. Or could it be, it doesnt suck.;)

[andyman35]

-{ Quote: "Oh I love these partial scope reasoning

NORTON vs MSE = a full fledged versus a basic AV

Of all the points they could have taken succesfull shots at MSE, Norton choose the worst: MSE lacks a reputation feature

Call me stupid, but IE8 has one of the best reputation features available.

Of course it is not in MSE, you silly guys from Norton, it is a free feature of Internet Explorer" }-
It's so transparent that MSE has those folks at Symantec seriously twitching with all these snide potshots they're taking.I just hope that most people won't fall for this shameless dirt throwing.

[Littlemutt]

-{ Quote: "Symantec are really going all out to discredit MSE,which,in itself makes my opinion of the latter higher.Nice to see that their FUD isn't going unanswered though.

http://community.norton.com/t5/Norton-Protection-Blog/Microsoft-Security-Essentials-Reruns-Aren-t-Just-for-TV-Anymore/ba-p/155531#A374" }-

Interesting that Symantec had someone test a version of MSE that never saw the light of day, other than a branch leaked build 1.0.2140.0. That alone discredits the entire test and results.

[trjam]

Someone said it best, I forget who, but what MSE will do is force vendors to make a better paid product and what is wrong with that. I dont see Kaspersky taking shots, and I know they WILL build a better product to compete. I dont see smaller vendors that have the most to lose doing it.

Nope, just Norton who for so many years could not even make a dependable product. Well, just when you show you have some character, you stick your foot in your a$$. Some just never learn.

[cqpreson]

As for Windows,MSE VS Norton = Parents versus Alien:) .

[InfinityAz]

Just saw these results from AV-Test.org, testing MSE this week. It detected 98.4% of malware (out of a sample size of ~535,000). I guess this means Symantec is wrong. ;)

Story from PC Advisor (http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=3203023).

[Brent Hutto]

It's easy to be an armchair quarterback but I think Symantec chose the wrong set of responses. There's one tactic that's easy to make work and one that's tough and they definitely took the tough one.

The easy route is to do what most of the other security vendors seem to be doing. You say "It's better than nothing and kudos to Microsoft for offering something to those [by implication cheapskates] who aren't buying any antivirus software. But of course our paid solution is much more comprehensive".

The hard route is convincing the public that Microsoft's free offering is complete garbage by going on and on and on comparing it to your own $70/year subscription service. At worst you sound all shrill and defensive (which is what Symantec so far comes perilously close to IMO) and at best people say "Well jeepers, I sure as heck hope your super expensive Cadillac product does more than Microsoft's. Theirs is free, what do you expect". Sort of a lose-lose tactic.

[ablatt]

From the same article:

"In a follow-up test of adware and spyware detection - Security Essentials also includes anti-spyware scanning - Microsoft's software spotted 12,935 out of 14,222 samples, for a 90.9% accuracy rate."

[IceCube1010]

-{ Quote: "Someone said it best, I forget who, but what MSE will do is force vendors to make a better paid product and what is wrong with that. I dont see Kaspersky taking shots, and I know they WILL build a better product to compete. I dont see smaller vendors that have the most to lose doing it.

Nope, just Norton who for so many years could not even make a dependable product. Well, just when you show you have some character, you stick your foot in your a$$. Some just never learn." }-

Sounds like something I would say. But common sense says, build a superior paid product and users, companies will follow. There really is no need to bash any security vendor as we are all in this together.

Ice

[simisg]

Maybe microsoft decides to make better and more secure systems finally... because of the popularity of the mac and linux. The true now is that a full updated xp sp3 or 7 is now more secure than ever add now to this mse and a router and you have a very secure system.... in the year 2010 finally windows is secure for smart people... because if you are stupid and you ranning unknown .exes or open unknown emails....
and you surf in the bad side you are never fully protected....
(in my tests mse is better to prevent and clean a malware than other free antimalwares and most of the pay ones)

[kC_]

to be honest if nortons trash was free, id still never ever use it.

the only good bit of software of theirs i use on a daily basis in work is : SymNRT

norton removal tool

[silver0066]

Does anybody know if you can run MSE and Norton Internet Security 2010 simultaneously?

Many thanks,

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "I just installed Defensewall to run alongside MSE. DW popped up a warning that mpsigstub.exe was attempting to access the internet (or something to that effect). I checked the logs of DW and it shows the mpsigstub.exe was running from my external hard drive (J). And that that there was an "Attempt to overwrite file C:\Windows\system32\MpSigStub.exe".


Why is MSE running an updater from my external hard drive?" }-

Anyone have any comments on this issue? Or is it not an issue?

[ronjor]

mpsigstub.exe is mentioned in this KB article. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953523

[osubuck]

-{ Quote: "Does anybody know if you can run MSE and Norton Internet Security 2010 simultaneously?

Many thanks," }-


This would be a bad idea, you never want to have 2 realtime scanners going on 1 machine at the same time.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Does anybody know if you can run MSE and Norton Internet Security 2010 simultaneously?

Many thanks," }-

I _highly_ doubt it, you would be lucky to run any security software alongside a suite.

[JohnnyDollar]

-{ Quote: "If MSE sucks like they say, why are they even commenting on it." }-

I agree, they would not be so loud about this if they didn't think it would affect their bottom line. Someone else here made the point about Norton's main end user revenue being from preinstalls on so many retail machines. So many consumers just go ahead and buy a subscription to norton because they don't know any better and renew when it is time to renew. Perhaps Norton is worried about MSE affecting their little sweet money maker they got going on with these pc manufacturers. All this noise coming from them is really disgusting. It makes their reputation that much worse.

[cqpreson]

-{ Quote: "Does anybody know if you can run MSE and Norton Internet Security 2010 simultaneously?

Many thanks," }-

I don't think it is a good idea.There are someone testing this situation.And the result is bad.Two more AVs are installed,their ability will be powerless.When scanning the computer,they will influence another one and just can detect a few viruses.

[the Tester]

Running two very similar programs together is asking for conflicts.
Definitely not a good idea. An adventure maybe.

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "Running two very similar programs together is asking for conflicts.
Definitely not a good idea. An adventure maybe." }-

well for some reason, the people over at the Avast forums seem to think runing 2 AV's is no problem at all if thers no "VISIBLE" issues ::) and i thought people who visited a technical forum like that knew better...

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "well for some reason, the people over at the Avast forums seem to think runing 2 AV's is no problem at all if thers no "VISIBLE" issues ::) and i thought people who visited a technical forum like that knew better..." }-

I see that. A junior member suggests running the beta with MSE as one of two options for a disgruntled beta tester.:wacko:
ROFL!

[Cutting_Edgetech]

I can pretty safely say you can not run the two together without even trying it. You can only run one resident shield, and one on access shield at the same time. You can only use more than one antivirus if the other antivirus gives you the option of only installing the on-demand scanner module. You can get away with installing two antivirus for a while sometimes if you disable both of the above shields, but you will eventely have problems with system stability. Running two software firewalls at the same time will make your system less secure; not more secure. Don't do it. Firewalls work off of policy based rules, and if you have two different sets of rules trying to accomplish the same thing at the same time then you will run into problems. I don't want to explain the technical details out of pure laziness right now lol

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "I see that. A junior member suggests running the beta with MSE as one of two options for a disgruntled beta tester.:wacko:
ROFL!" }-

several of the more senior forum members say the exact same and it really just lowers my confidence of the technical knowledge over at that supposed "AV" forum...

[acr1965]

-{ Quote: "mpsigstub.exe is mentioned in this KB article. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/953523" }-

Maybe I will try to unhook my external hard drive and see if MSE creates a new temp folder.

[andyman35]

-{ Quote: "several of the more senior forum members say the exact same and it really just lowers my confidence of the technical knowledge over at that supposed "AV" forum..." }-
It is quite worrying if the 'seasoned pros' are recommending running 2 real-time AVs simultaneously.Any possible benefits (a few extra signatures) are far outweighed by the potential major issues and it's irresponsible for them to say different.:wacko:

[firzen771]

-{ Quote: "It is quite worrying if the 'seasoned pros' are recommending running 2 real-time AVs simultaneously.Any possible benefits (a few extra signatures) are far outweighed by the potential major issues and it's irresponsible for them to say different.:wacko:" }-

thats exactly what i posted ther, but apparently im wrong... ::)

[rhuds13]

According to this: http://blog.avast.com/2009/08/28/greetings-from-redmond/
should work fine.

[Follower]

No automatic updates? ???

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "No automatic updates? ???" }-

Read more of the thread.

[andyman35]

-{ Quote: "According to this: http://blog.avast.com/2009/08/28/greetings-from-redmond/
should work fine." }-
From that post:

"During that time, we tested avast with over 15 other low-level applications and fixed a few compatibility issues. For example, we made sure avast! works flawlessly with the upcoming Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) – a program that has severe issues with the current avast beta build 5.0.89, by the way "

That's all terrific but are they going to guarantee there will never be any such 'severe issues' in future? and for what exact benefit is there in running both together?

[the Tester]

-{ Quote: "According to this: http://blog.avast.com/2009/08/28/greetings-from-redmond/
should work fine." }-

Looks to me like that article is about compatibility on Windows 7.
If you don't have enough faith in your choice of av, dump it. In the case of Avast's beta, it's more suitable for test systems at this stage.

[JohnnyDollar]

I have plenty of memory and cpu, but look how much memory it is using on my pc. As long as I don't notice any sluggishness then it is ok. Does it use more resources if you have them available?

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "Does it use more resources if you have them available?" }-

This is the only explanation I can think of at the moment.

[Fly]

I didn't read this entire thread, but I've read the MSE isn't good at prevention against new threats, that is, malware for which no signature exists yet.
No good heuristics either.

Source: non-English website.

It may have been mentioned somewhere in this thread, but I'll just state it here, just in case. :)

Antimalware based on signatures only is rather limited.

[funkydude]

-{ Quote: "I didn't read this entire thread, but I've read the MSE isn't good at prevention against new threats, that is, malware for which no signature exists yet.
No good heuristics either.
" }-


In my "personal" experience, it's the complete opposite.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "I didn't read this entire thread, but I've read the MSE isn't good at prevention against new threats, that is, malware for which no signature exists yet.
No good heuristics either.
Antimalware based on signatures only is rather limited." }-
It does employ some special features per this article:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9134682/First_Look_Microsoft_Security_Essentials_beta_offers_free_protection_against_malware

"Security Essentials uses a new feature called the Dynamic Signature Service, which employs a variety of techniques to check for malware even before that malware's specific signature has been identified. Microsoft says Security Essentials emulates the behavior of programs before they run, and uses the signature created during the process to look for any suspicious behavior or patterns of suspicious behavior, such as starting an unexpected network connection or trying to modify certain protected sections of Windows. The Dynamic Signature Service then determines what action to take against the potential malware."