Microsoft Security Essentials 1.0 (Morro MSE Free Anti-Virus)

It looks like it is the same scan engine as Windows defender, they added the normal malware signature file and a new gui to it.

The scan engine and detection is excellent, this will hurt all other AV alot in my opinion. Wondering why MS is giving it away for free. Their paid version never took off, maybe good ol' Balmer just wants to show the finger because they didn't managed to take over the market in 2-3 years with OneCare? Or they just want to push their AV to the public and after a while make it paid software again?

 

Agree with Stefan.

Hopefully they offer a limited free product, and make a paid product with more features and say offer customer service etc.

The free one will hurt competition given how popular Microsoft products are.

Regarding other companies in the market. The concept an AV should be free, where did it even come from? No one likes working for free (most would refuse the idea).

 

Think of all the people who work in the Security industry and how many would be 'laid' off to cut back on the loss of their products due to people only using Microsoft's stuff.

Even someone who doesn't work in the Security industry could be impacted. Lack of competition = Lack of service

 

Actually Morro has been stated to have a new engine with Cloud-AV abilities to ensure its pro-active.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10268040-83.html

 

For those interested, the official WSE beta will begin on Tuesday and will be available from this site ( when it goes live ):
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials

Source:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-10268040-83.html

 

I look at it the same way I look at Petrol.

What happens when a service station offers free gas?
People flock to it.

What happens when service stations close down because of that free gas?
People lose their jobs.

What happens when the service station, because it is offering free gas, can slack off and provide fuel that will damage your car?
Lack of quality and service for the consumer.

 

I'm pretty sure that it will ignite again the controversy about antitrust regulations at least in Europe. I for one wouldn't mind to buy a computer without Symantec pre-installed.

 

And then there are people who think all gasoline is the same quality

 

There are actually no free AVs, except Claimwin, which lacks in detection, most likely because it is really free. Avira, Avast and AVG are paid by customers, free versions serves as advertisment of paid versions. Morro is supposed to fill security holes in Windows, which can not be avoided, so in a way it is paid by buying Windows itself. It is quite a smar thing to do, since it also reveals security holes by uploading potentional mallware to MS, but for people it is just a free suite.

 

Agree with the above poster and the analogy 333 gave.

No such thing as a free AV. Sure they gather useful information from the millions of users that may use it, but these AV companies are hoping those who enjoy the product, will be working in corporations, say in the IT department, and will pay for the enterprise product.

So the corporations using the paid version of the 'free AV', paying the big dollars, allow you as the home user to have it for free.

But what if they (corporations) got it for free too, what then? No free AV for you.

Using music as an analogy is suitable. Sure mp3s and downloads can promote a band. Some unknown bands love it, as currently they have zero income. Here, take my songs, give them to your friends, please download from youtube. Give my site hits, hopefully it will help in me landing a record deal.

But please, please when I get that record deal, pay some money when I tour, or do a gig in your town. Please buy my shirts and merchandise if you can (pays my rent). What's that, you want the gig for free? You'll skip it and just download my latest DVD live show, that I paid a lot of money to produce, on a torrent site? Who's paying for me to transfer all my equipment, the fuel bills, who's paying for my meals and accommodation when I come to your town, to replace my equipment that breaks down? Who's paying for me to have some time off to record this next batch of songs? Who's paying for my music video that I have to make? So I'll have to go back to Burger Barn, flipping burgers, while you just download the next band who falls into the same downward cycle, and you sit there smiling and getting paid for your job?

Anything that involves people working hard, whether that be the health industry, music industry, or security industry etc deserves to be rewarded for their efforts.

 

Saraceno

Excellent post! And true on all points made as well.

 

ssj100, I think it's good to discuss products, so my post isn't directed at you, as many people think the same as you.

The thing with CCleaner, and Revo, they might very well be developed by people who do it as a hobby, but there will come a time when it chews into their personal time, and they'll release a paid version, or will not be able to provide updates/fixes as frequently.

I don't mind free products either, I use the above programs, have used avast and Avira free, have downloaded my fair share of music too, but when it comes to something I like and want to keep, I don't hesitate in rewarding the 'artist' or developer.

I like this site (Wilders) too, if they every ask for donations to keep it running and help in paying the hosting/domain registration costs, I'll send some bucks through.

I think with Microsoft, and I'm not against them at all as I'm currently testing the new product, the fear lies in the advantage they have. They have the ability to send this program through to users in their next Windows update, even if it is an optional update/download.

The advantage, along with their name, is why they have the ability to squash others. And once others are flattened, they can charge what they like and have an even greater advantage with less competitors than when they entered the market.

Look at IE. Rather than users getting an option to use IE or Netscape Navigator, IE was the only option on the desktop when buying a PC, and years later when people were upset at using the browser, there was no real alternative. If it wasn't for programs like firefox, guys giving up their free time to start the product, IE would have never had tabs. We'd all be using that ugly old one window!

Anyway, we all have different views, no one view is right or wrong.

I just hope, for the program to be actively developed, knowing the amount of users it will attract, it will still need to earn revenue. If it's just a free version, after awhile, say a year or so, they might find ways to start earning money from it by inserting ads into the main GUI, or using various user statistics for marketing, or something bizarre like that! Who knows, or they might downgrade the updates server so it takes forever to download a small update.

All I know is, I dig youtube, gives me hours of entertainment. But all those ads popping up now on those videos, is a turn-off. I'll pay $5 a month minimum, just get rid of those damn overlay ads! But I know it's costing millions to run and is running (for now, and near future) at a significant loss. See recent article here, and older analysis here.

Anyway, back to Microsoft, if it's a good product, I don't mind paying for it. But offering it for free with the operating system advantage they have, won't be beneficial or fair to all the other companies employing hard-working people like you and me.

 

Correct. It must be changed.

 

If Microsoft bundled this Free Anti-virus with Windows they'd be facing an Anti-trust case again. However, I do think that offering such a fully featured free Anti-virus for download online is just as Anti-competitive in my opinion, but they can escape any Anti-trust case it would seem.

Yes, people have a choice if they use it or not, but when people see an Anti-virus offered online that will include all the features of a Rivals paid product, many will switch to it. Of course Other Anti-virus companies offer free products too, but the difference is something like AVG or Avira for example are basically cut down demo programs, so the companies hope that the users of these programs will pay for their full programs. Also Avira for example is full of Ads, unlike this new Microsoft free Anti-virus. Comodo probably makes most of their revenue from the corporate side??, but even Comodo offer a payware product for home users.....over time I can see Comodo cutting features out of their free product so people will upgrade.I don't know this however, just a theory. There is no such thing as 'Free' really and companies need to make money simple as.

I just dislike the fact that Microsoft being such a huge company with large sums of revenue, can use abuse their market dominance in this way. This Global recession has been tough and Microsoft doing this is really going to hurt other security companies badly IMO.

 

I don't know if I should agree or disagree here. I could see why you should pay for OneCare - OneCare is software, Windows is another software. In this case though, we've a simple Anti-Malware tool - a simple, but very effective AM tool. I can see why it should go free as an easy-to-use, first-line of defense, while we at Wilders, always search for something to add on top of it.

 

I'm not completely sure this applies to Avast! to be honest... It really includes everything you need to protect yourself AV-wise, or even AM-wise. The only time it'll "nag" you, is when you click on something which is a little more advanced, and most people don't need that stuff.

 

leave words and bla bla test it! to know what protect and what detect

 

I believe there is going to be a paid version that will be for corporate users. The name is different also but apparently uses the same database for definitions. This will have 24/7 support and some other tools that I think OneCare provided.

I really don't think this will hurt Avira, Avast, AVG and some of the others only because there are people that will not trust Micro$oft in any security realm. Plus, there are so many users worldwide with so many computers and so much malware that there is enough to go around.

I'm much more surprised how polished this program is from the start. Except for the silly looking icon.

Ice

 

I tested MSE against some new samples last night and it did quite well. I have tested it against a thousand or so older samples and it catches about the asme as most.

Its very light and i like the simple interface. Running fine for me alongside Prevx.

I would think this will become the most populat AM out there and will be used by most home users - the average user wants something simple and does not want to have their system slowed down for the sake of security.

Its being released on the 23rd as a Beta. the version is downloaded is clean and has the ability to update the main AV (not the database0 look under the help drop down to find this.

Puss

 

Good to hear Retad. It is light, and seems to be very easy to use.

IceCube, that's what I was looking for. As long as there is a corporate version, a paid version, then it will continue to be developed, and compete with other programs based on features, ease of use, and detection rates etc.

Free for everyone, would be no good. And hopefully they play fair, and just offer the program as a download from their site, rather than through windows updates.

 

Stefan, do you know if the Defender engine is the same as the OneCare engine? In our testing we always assumed that these were the same but only Defender database was limited (like you said).

 

Don't worry Saraceno, I think it'll turn out just great in the end. Windows Defender was offered as a "genuine"-download through their site too, right?

 

Retad, you think the current leaked version will get updated to the official beta when released and forthcoming versions?

 

How great - everyone agrees it's a non-good looking icon. Now what a pity if it doesn't get changed in the end.

 

Raven, good point about defender lol.

Retadpuss and I tested some samples. Only a small number <50. He tested MSE and I tested Avast! Very similar results (Avast detected one more - but considering a couple of safe files were in the set, should be 'even stevens' as they say).

Retad mentioned MSE took about a minute to clean the samples. Avast took a shorter time, a couple of seconds to delete/move to chest all the detected files.

But on live infections, might be interesting to see how well MSE cleans. Seems to be churning away and doing its thing, but might do a great job. Nevertheless, for a beta, is does seem impressive.