Microsoft Security Essentials

Unfortunately, You can never be 100% Secure. 100% Security does not exist. As for MSE, They have done an excellent job with their Antivirus and I applaud them for this excellence. Well done to them for providing free AV for end users benefit!

 

So after all these posts it comes down to, you either like it, or dont.

 

Are you still running it on any of your machines?

 

Isnt' that what it comes down to for any piece of software?

 

Software? More like life

 

I have a question about dynamic signatures. How does MSE determine if a file needs to be compared against their most current signatures? Does it depend upon its heuristics to make the decision?

 

I use MSE along with ESS about 4 days, and intrestingly, MSE caught some troyans, while ESS did nothing.

 

i like it as long as you run it on a newer computer running xp
and for vista and windows 7 it runs very smoothly

robin

 

Are you sure ? This will start some discussions here

 

Bahh.. there will always be samples that one AV will miss that another picks up. If you look at the AV-Comparatives test of August 09 you'll see that Microsoft Onecare/MSE didn't do so well, i'll take this result over a random missed sample reported by a user.

 

Sounds familiar to me

 

Looks like you found your Av solution then.

 

Seems you are correct.

 

Just tried it and it looks good. Nice and light. Will recommend to friends who just want a free security solution.

 

This is an actual test and the result was unexpected with a free and light MSE av software performing better than a paid and acclaimed ESS av suite.

Believe that ESS will catch the trojans as well just that MSE beats ESS to it

 

Since no one bit I'll expand upon what I wanted to bring up. MSE updates its signatures about every 24 hours. Many AVs update several times a day. To make up for this, MSE uses:

So MSE must determine that a file is "suspicious" before it queries DDS. My question was how does MSE determine a file is suspicious? I would guess that it depends upon heuristics. So how is this on par with AVs that typically have heuristics of their own but update several times a day? I believe tests show that heuristics are not as effective as signatures.

I'm not saying MSE is unsafe or anything, but I do not think DDS compensates for the lower rate of updates. If anything, it just reduces the number of false positives the heuristics may detect. Am I wrong in thinking this?

 

Alas...another opinion. http://blog.avast.com/2009/10/02/and-what-about-microsoft-security-essentials—mse/

 

you software vendors just dont get it, do you. Silence is golden because it cant come back and bite you in the ass.

 

Very well written , IMO . I completely agree with everything in this Alwil blog entrie!

 

you would, you like Norton.

 

I also like Microsoft and Bill Gates .

 

I always knew you were a smart man. Never once questioned it.

 

well said
MSE is nothing special and nothing more than what Vincent said. Personally never liked it tho' i used for a short time but it was enough to say ,,,,no thanks

 

http://arstechnica.com/security/new...rs-fail-virus-bulletins-october-2009-test.ars

Same test also discussed on this thread https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1554393#post1554393

MS got a VB100 and Avira failed it.

edit: Just thought I would bring up this test since so many people are referring to the latest av comparatives test.

 

I think enough has been said on MSE. Some will like it and others won't. That's life

There is general consensus that it is a simple, minimum maintenance and free av from your friendly Windows maker that will perform the basic security task of detecting viruses and malwares.

It's time now to let it run for some time.

Silence is golden now