Does a pay-antivirus market collapse by MSE?

.
Generally I agree with you, however I think you have to consider the serious problem that exists because there are so many unprotected PCs on the internet. The botnets are a real threat to everyone and they rely on unprotected "zombie" PCs to exist. The argument for allowing pirated copies of Windows to receive security updates (or use MSE) is it will help reduce the spread of malware. It's understandable that Microsoft does not want to support pirated copies of the OS, but you see the dilemma. I don't know what the best answer is.

 

All of the are diminished in some way with either advertisements or reduced detection. MSE is the first of it's kind that's a fully fledged free AV and hopefully not the last.

Behavior analysis and HIPS is IN NO WAY required to keep a system 100% secure, and it seems so far MSE is more than capable of standing it's ground without such intrusive methods of protection.

Also, MSE uses close to 0 signatures. They are all dynamic heuristics.

You mean more marketing frills to make you choose one product over another? None of these are required in anyway. All newly created files are scanned on-create so you're protected in that perspective.

If you test it yourself, you would see that MSE is already capable of detecting files during it's download in Opera/firefox. It does that without this magic ability to "support browser XYZ". Bringing me back to the point of marketing advertising.

You're judging a free AV over the fact Microsoft doesn't give OS's for free? Um, logic please?

Let's also take a look at the wider scope, the fact that MS isn't dominated by Bill Gates anymore, the fact they are releasing a new brilliant OS, the free AV, the already free built-in firewall, and in future a free version of MS office.

It's unfair to spread the hate because of it's "past reputation" or because "other's do it". Take a look at symantec and what kind of comeback they've made.


Try before you buy

 

I'm a consultant for a big company and work onsite with many clients, mostly gov agencies, so I get to see many malware attacks on them and my opinion is based on what I'm seeing on a daily basis. Sig only scanning is not enough anymore, with all the virus I see passing through AV, any AV, no one will make me believe that sig scanning is still safe enough, even the AV companies are admitting it, malwares are created too fast for them to create all those sigs in time. And dynamic heuristics only means it goes to check for a signature at MS server... it's still signatures.

True in most cases, but if the file is written in some kind of depository(like a .PST) not supported by the AV, it will never get scanned and while it might detect on execute, it will never prevent you from spreading it further. What I'm saying is if such an app is not made by Microsoft, MSE will never support it while other free AV make an effort to support them when they are popular apps.

Microsoft products have been my bread and butter for over 10 years and I talk with MS reps and techs all year long. My judgement is based on that. Microsoft never had, and still doesn't have, a culture of "free" product.

Right now MS has a full team working on Microsoft Forefront, their corporate AV , and that's why MSE is possible, because they use that tech. If Forefront fails to get market share over the next 5 years and make money for them, do you think they will keep MSEssential running? And even if Forefront is a success, it only takes one new manager that thinks MSE is a money sink to pull the plug, and managers shifts are time a dozen in Seattle.

Hurray for windows 7 , Vista gave me too many headaches, I honestly look forward to it. Never had anything against Bill Gates, he created my job. Free Office.. is only free because of Google Docs, and if you don't already use Google Docs you probably won't use the free office either as it will be web based too. The desktop version won't be free.

Hate, what hate? You have a wild imagination me think, I'm only saying MSE won't have such a negative impact on the paid AV market.

 

So to sum up your post you don't have much faith in it because of past experience. Well I guess we shall wait and see what the future has in store, and after such a short period of time, it already looks bright. I highly doubt MS will suddenly "back out" of the AV market. It's not got a reputation of backing out of markets at least.

 

Hi elapsed.
I too think MSE is good, but some of your comments seem a little OTT.

Some are indeed "diminished" in the manner you suggest, but not all. Actually I can only think of one at the moment (starts with 'a'. Ends in '!') so MSE is not "the first of it's kind that's a fully fledged free AV"
Neither is it the first that's free for commercial use. (PC Tools and COMODO are already there.) So for the moment, it is "the last".

'BA = intrusiveness' is not a causal formula. Rest assured, MSE is quite capable of being "intrusive" in its own way.

Please explain "Also, MSE uses close to 0 signatures. They are all dynamic heuristics." for the benefit of us without gnostic insight into this terminology.


Maybe you just need to choose a narrower brush.

 

I think what he means by "Dynamic Heuristics" is the Dynamic Signature Service (DSS) offered by MSE. Which is similar to McAfee Artremis and allows generic detection to be checked in cloud and also sent to remote server for analysis. Thus providing a near 0-day coverage (if implemented on large scale, which will probably be the case).

 

Can you prove it ? Really you believe that the " hips " or the " antirootkit " features of an av, or the Windows restricted policies, are able to defend totally a system by complex malwares, rootkits, zero days attacks, intrusive and obscurated malwares.......?

 

If you want proof, then I guess I'm evidence in person. And the funny thing is that I don't even run an AV or setup any custom policies.

 

I think Microsoft might use their 'snooping' for a good use now. They can get malware samples easily even if the people are using different AVs. This makes Microsoft get malware samples faster and update them to their systems.

 

Don't even start me on COMODO, and PC Tools isn't exactly top tier AV like MS/Avira/A! Also, I wasn't aware A! didn't have a downside? Doesn't it have reduced detection compared to the paid version?

You're totally right, BA isn't intrusive, it's a really good form of detection, I take that back as I misread. But an AV doesn't need BA to be good, see Avira for example.

vijayind explained this well, you can see more here http://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/beta/Definitions/WhatsNew.aspx

Notice the high amount of "updated detections". Nearly everything is heuristic based.

Maybe your young age is clouding your judgment, but Microsoft doesn't snoop on everything you do. Who told you this?

 

IMO if you approach MSE without any anti-Microsoft pre-conceptions it deserves the benefit of the doubt at least,the early signs are that it's showing genuine promise.Of course there's no guarantee that it'll last the course,but that's true for any product,but here and now this is a welcome development.

For those that wish to add the likes of HIPS or BB there's nothing stopping them doing so,MSE is going for a simplified protection that suits the needs of the bulk of average users.

 

Comodo. Don't get me started either. It works but...

You're right about PC Tools AV, it's useful but not comparable with Avira/avast!

Apart from missing the Script Blocker, avast! 4.8 Home has exactly the same detection capability as Professional. comparison

Yes (and thanks vijayind) I know how it works. Maybe it's me but I what I don't understand is the use of the word "heuristic" to describe this feature. Heuristic means "to guess", not to rapidly create generic definitions/signatures from centrally collected and analysed samples.


cheers.

 

Lol who told you that?!!!!!(that i'm young)
LOL and I meant something like, if a file crashes, it can be sent to microsoft for info in how or what happened. Didn't mean to say snooping but couldn't think of another word.

 

OK, I understand what you mean now, but error reporting has always been optional and easily turned off. I turn it off myself too.

Thanks!