MSE 4

That probably has more to do with YOU than MSE.

 

Unlikely? lol. There are many cases that a bad signature update will cause weird things in the OS.

Okay, but similar to Daveski17, I haven't been infected even once in my time running MSE.

And so is other AV's.

 

I think they do.

On the one hand there are multibillion dollar corporations like Sophos that are entirely dedicated to security research. That's their entire business, so you could definitely make the argument based on that that AV companies are more equipped to deal with security.

But... Microsoft has the source code. They know the inner mechanism of the software. All of that encapsulated code that AVs can only access through documented APIs are free to be seen by the MSE team (or at least I assume.) That's a big advantage but it's more theoretical.

I'd say that:
1) Microsoft is the only company that can truly secure its OS.
2) Microsoft is not doing a good job and they should have developed a security model that works before implementing Patch Guard.

 

MSE seems to be holding its own.

http://www.westcoastlabs.com/realTimeTesting/article/?articleID=1

 

I assume the AVs are kept entirely up to date there?

 

In fact, Generic signatures are "enhanced signatures" because of the wildcard support, which tell the scanner to ignore some sequence of bytes not common to all the family's members.

“Generic detection” is a term applied when
the scanner looks for a number of known
variants, using a search string or pattern that can detect all of the variants. While it may detect a
currently unknown variant in which the same search string can be found, it’s only a heuristic
detection if it involves the use of a scoring mechanism(like heuristic calculation). Otherwise it’s really a special case
of virus-specic detection. Some systems use a hybrid approach, where a scoring system
is added to the generic detection capabilities to give a probability of the variance or family
membership with difering degrees of certainty. For instance, if the similarity is close enough,
the scanner may report “a variant of x,” or if less sure, it may report “probably a variant of x”.

 

All it means is that instead of looking for an exact match heuristics looks for a close match.

Generic detection = heuristics. It's just problem solving with "best guesses" instead of exact answers.

So if you have a generic signature for the Vundo family and it drops a vundo.exe in /appdata/ your "generic signature" will go nuts when uvndo.exe gets dropped in /appdata/ (oversimplification.)

 

Maybe, either way, I have faith in MSE. Otherwise I would use something else. There are viable alternatives.

 

98% ain't bad in my book.

 

Lucky you, congrats.

 

I use it too. MSE and Panda Cloud are the only free ones I'll touch nowadays. I have friends who say MSE has missed things now and then, but I have had good luck with it.

 

It's probably not luck. I'm just not that lucky. What was that percentage of detection rates did MSE have now? Do I hear 98%?

 

I've used the Panda Cloud (freeware) & I thought it was very good, apart from the false positives. That's another thing I like about MSE, very few f-ps.

 

That's true. MSE has very few FP's. I haven't had any probs with Panda either. For me, both have been good.

 

I haven't used Panda for about 18 months, no doubt they've improved it. Which is good to know. It was the lightest AV I have ever used.

 

Westcoastlabs? gimme a break! 98% above Avira 95% ..rotfl. Then I'm from Mars, sorry. Case closed.

 

This would be even more valid for behavior blocker. I mean, they made the OS, they know whats normal and what's not. Where others have to use almost trial and error to make one...

 

MSE has done consistently well on more than a couple of tests. Why would these guys lie?

~Image removed. See https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=19950 ~

I hear the weather's nice this time of the year on Mars. Your retro rockets are obviously not firing. Case closed.

 

Well, MSE is not intended for patching vulnerabilities in the OS, but it can detect exploits

 

Hello!

Here’s how to change the update interval with a registry: http://www.lifehacker.com.au/2011/01/change-microsoft-security-essentials-update-frequency/.

This is for experience users!

 

^ Or you can use Task Scheduler.
On the right panel click 'Create Basic Task', enter a description (MSE update); 'Trigger' ; Daily; 'Action'; Start a program; in 'Program/Script' enter: ...Program Files\Microsoft Security Essentials\MpCmdRun.exe; in 'Add arguments' enter: -SignatureUpdate.
Click Finish. Wala.

 

I'm not comfortable with MSE updating once a day or less, so I teamed MSE with Immunet.

 

You can easily change signature update interval of MSE.

1. Open up the Registry Editor
2. Go to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Microsoft
Antimalware/Signature Updates.
3. Right click on Signature Updates, click Permissions, then Advanced.
4. Go to the Owner tab, click on the Administrators group and click OK.
5. Go back at the Permissions window, check the box labelled “Full Control”
while the Administrator’s group is selected.
6. Double click on the SignatureUpdateInterval key, and change the number
to something between 1 and 24.
This will be the number of hours it waits to check for a new update
(the default being 24).
7. Once you’ve done so, you can change the permissions back
(where SYSTEM owns the key and Administrators do not have full
control).
Above procedure is for Windows 7.
Procedure for Windows XP is easier, because you need not change
ownership and/or control of registry node.

Best regards.
William

 

Hi all

A new prerelease is out

Microsoft Security Essentials 4.0.1542.0 Prerelease

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=29942

 

any changelog?