Microsoft Security Essentials Poll

DrBenGolfing · Jan 20, 2013

er34 said:

When I install an antivirus for somebody, I tell them that antivirus program is not 100% protection guarantee. However, they use the best protection and will have the best possible protection. Antivirus software is just a tool - a single tool that will help them with specific things it was made for. Additionally, they should treat the antivirus as an insurance. They may never need to use it, but should it happen, they'd better have it, it will pay off - for sure.

During my life I have done business and very seriously worked with different security vendors - Symantec, ESET, Microsoft, AVIRA, Panda (and I still do with some of them, I do IT services for living).

Microsoft (No.1) and Norton (No.2) (as stand alone products) have had the best cleaning abilities - I mean when installed on already visibly and heavily infected computer.

Panda (1), ESET (2) , Norton (3) and AVIRA (4) have had very good protection rates - protecting clean machine.

However, AVIRA, Norton and Panda have at the end caused extremely serious problems for business and home users and they must have been replaced. AVIRA and Norton have had very many false positives many times on various clean local files (false positive is very serous issue when it happens on network or when the end user is not experienced). Panda and AVIRA as company attitude very bad people not respecting others, and their products always had some technical issue.

I have had least problems and I am most comfortable with Microsoft (No.1) and ESET (No.2) - serous companies that can be trusted, small/fast and light products that do protect and clients have always been happy with these products.

Anyway - the point of writing this is that I have tested different products and I have experience with some major vendors and I know from real world what I tell. No matter the antivirus, I have seen infected computer no matter the antivirus name. And I have some clients I know from very long time and they always get infected despite my advice, despite the AV name (they have used Panda, AVIRA, ESET, Norton and they finally are infected). But the reason they get infected is always one - they don't follow basic security guidelines : they always have something out of date, they install tons of software and junkies, they get things from torrent trackers, some of them use cracked/pirated software.

I sometimes ask some of them to try to explain to me how I never get infected but they always manage to? How my original software never causes problems but their pirated or clogged with junk OS is not working. And they can't answer my question and just smile quietly.
As I have posted (and every real pro will tell you that - however real pros rarely visit forums and never get into such topics because they respect themselves) , security comes from layered defense measures - the OS itself, perimeter protection such as firewall, IPS, up to date OS, up to date software, sandboxed browser, good browser, autorun protection, physical protection and many other things (depending on the IT environment, IT needs and IT users)...

So, from my experience, I can trust what does the job for me and for my clients - Microsoft and ESET (and MBAM) no matter what results they get in the biased tests, because I see the in real world. But that can change - nobody gives assurance.

Security is layered approach and whether you will get infected when using AV x is not because of AV x, but because of the user of the machine. Shame if some people in a security forum don't know it.

I am not a big company, I don't have business interest, I am not engaged with any company or product and that is why I look at the situations independently.
Click to expand...

And Microsoft doesn't build a unified layered system like Avast, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Comodo, because......? Note the word: unified.

gaslad · Jan 20, 2013

DrBenGolfing said:

And Microsoft doesn't build a unified layered system like Avast, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Comodo, because......? Note the word: unified.
Click to expand...

I don't speak for Microsoft, but the concept of a single program, or even a security suite providing a "unified layered system" is a fantasy insofar as providing comprehensive protection. Not as long as the end user remains the weakest link.

This concept of a "deus ex machina" (literally, "god from a machine") to solve all problems has been criticized since the days of Aristotle.

Daveski17 · Jan 20, 2013

DrBenGolfing said:

And Microsoft doesn't build a unified layered system like Avast, Bitdefender, Kaspersky, Comodo, because......? Note the word: unified.
Click to expand...

I thought that the whole concept of MSE was to be a very light simplified basic anti-virus program that created few (if any false-positives), few conflicts with other programs, integrated itself well with Windows & enabled virtually anyone to use it competently.

IMO it has achieved all of these things.

Cudni · Jan 20, 2013

For further discussion on merits of MSE visit
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=322765

and as this poll has otherwise been answered as well as it can be, poll closed.

Log in or Sign up

Microsoft Security Essentials Poll

While using MSE, has your machine gotten an infection?

Yes

No

DrBenGolfing Registered Member

gaslad Registered Member

Daveski17 Registered Member

Cudni Global Moderator

Log in or Sign up

Microsoft Security Essentials Poll

While using MSE, has your machine gotten an infection?

Yes

No

DrBenGolfing Registered Member

gaslad Registered Member

Daveski17 Registered Member

Cudni Global Moderator

Useful Searches