Microsoft Admits That Security Essentials Is Just a Basic Anti-Virus Product

I posted that, trjam was quoting me. Yes I usually do have a 3rd party antivirus installed, but this is not an issue. Windows Defender on Windows 7 is just an antispyware program and won't conflict with antivirus software. On Windows 8 where Windows Defender is a full antivirus it is automatically disabled when a 3rd party antivirus is installed.

 

No, that's not the case MSE is not designed to run alongside other antivirus software, and on Windows 8 where MSE is already included with Windows (but called Windows Defender, not MSE) it is automatically disabled when you install a 3rd party antivirus.

 

Also, it would seem that Microsoft had bigger plans for an antivirus when they bought RAV (Reliable/Romanian Antivirus), but these days having good detection rates is not a priority.

 

I thought detection rates are essential for basic anti-virus products?

 

I guess they have finally realized that AV simply isn't the correct solution to pursue and have poured resources into proper protection ranging from anti-exploit techniques to file reputation. AV has and always will be a "fall back plan" in my opinion.

 

Thanks. As you note some of this is older, but still educational.

 

When you think of what Windows Vista and above has to offer in terms of built-in protection like:

1. UAC (preferably at Max)
2. DEP/ASLR (preferably strengthened with EMET)
3. SmartScreen (file reputation but not really my cup of tea)
4. IE Protected Mode (preferably strengthened to EPM)

and couple that with:

1. Low rate of FP
(unlikely to mistakenly detect system files and cause BSOD)

2. Updates are handled through WU
(less likelihood for home users not getting prompt updates compared to some 3rd-party products and easier management for enterprise)

3. Free of cost for home user and small businesses
(no nags, no periodic registrations, no AV-run-out-of-trial-or-subscription scenarios)

.......you'd see why MSE or WD on Win8 makes sense despite being a "basic" product. That being said, MS realizes that it'd be stupid of them to monopolize the AV industry whereby diversity is an advantage for us against the side that we're supposed to be fighting.

 

Judging from the facts that MSE/Defender is aimed at ordinary PC users, I think it would be bad if it has a high detection rate. Hint: false positives and automation.

 

I once thought that Microsoft might improve MSE as an AV (refer this comment from the Softpedia link)
''The Microsoft rep admitted, however, that Redmond previously invested a lot of money trying to make Security Essentials achieve better results in all these anti-virus tests''

- but perhaps Microsoft don't really need to bother. Check this comment from the link below:

''When do poor consumer test scores not matter? When you're Microsoft's Security Essentials''

http://redmondmag.com/articles/2012/12/12/se-market-share.aspx

The Redmond link claims MSE as the world leading AV at 15.3% market share – 30.4% in North America! (The article is somewhat dated - December 2012 - so not sure what the current status is)

 

I've always seen MSE as basic AV.
No surprise here.

 

I consider MSE as a part of multilayered security.
If to use M$ only then MSE + EMET + FW + SRP + AppLocker (for Prof and Ult). Then yes, your are secure.

 

MSE is defiantly not the best however I wouldn't say it's horrible either.

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=391963,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/image_popup/0,1871,iid=391965,00.asp

 

https://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/ar...to-microsoft-antimalware.aspx?Redirected=true

 

Our commitment to Microsoft antimalware

http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/archive/2013/10/09/our-commitment-to-microsoft-antimalware.aspx