Jump to content



Photo
microsoft security antivirus mse

  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#16 Darrian

Darrian

    The Apathetic

  • 2,509 posts
  • Joined: 22-October 01

Posted 05 October 2013 - 08:37

How is this news?  From the very beginning the entire point was that it was a free antivirus in a day and age where the average idiot person wasn't running any form of antivirus.  It wasn't ever meant to be the best antivirus you could possibly get, it was only meant to be a pretty decent one for people who couldn't afford one.  Now it's built into Windows, and it does a good enough job that I don't feel the need to install a 3rd party antivirus.




#17 arend

arend

    Neowinian

  • 8 posts
  • Joined: 26-August 13

Posted 05 October 2013 - 09:06

Previously, Microsoft would spend resources trying to improve Security Essentials' performance in tests. "We used to have part of our team directed towards predicting test results and figuring out what might be in someone’s test. There’s always a cost to that," she said. "If they are doing that work they are not looking at those threats that are affecting our customers. We always felt that was wrong. There’s something not right about that – we’re not doing the best job for our customers."
The company decided to stop that practice and put its effort elsewhere.
 
"We put half of those people on focusing on what we call prevalent threats. We developed this new telemetry to look for emerging threats - sort of an early notification system that new threats were emerging. We had this group of folks start focusing on those threats and we saw that it increased our protection service level for our customers."

 

 

from the same art, basically they are saying that in the past there focus was on improving the test results instead of the actual threats and that they are now focused on protecting you better instead of making it appear so through test that they are protecting you.



#18 monkeylove

monkeylove

    Neowinian

  • 92 posts
  • Joined: 20-August 11

Posted 05 October 2013 - 15:03

There are free versions of other antivirus software.



#19 remixedcat

remixedcat

    meow!

  • 10,072 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Vmware ESXi and Hyper-V happy clouds
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 05 October 2013 - 15:18

Webroot has been excellent and it's very cheap (56USD for 5 PCs)



#20 NightScreams

NightScreams

    Neowinian

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: 16-October 12

Posted 05 October 2013 - 15:22

Some malware can enter a system through exploits and the user never be any the wiser no matter how much of a security pro they enjoy thinking they are. Even visiting a popular site infected with something that can exploit say java or flash. depending on what it does or it's intend. Botnets are usually bad about sitting there with no activity, then you have ones like Chameleon which steals money from advertisers.

Then you have the people who are easily satisfied with an executable just because someone else said "it's a false positive" So they ignore their AV warnings, not saying some false positives don't exist but I mean c'mon, don't be so gullable, the #1 security for your network is YOU and it's easy to circumvent all fail safes just by saying, it's ok. I would certainly question what code is doing if it sets off any AV alert, like why does *xx* need kernel level access when all it does is user level type stuff.

Many AV's don't acknowledge lesser known malware as it's a cat and mouse game. I had a file on my back up drive for 10 years that has just recently been flagged by most every AV, it belonged to an old game I got from one of those retro sites, I considered it benign but even virustotal set off every scan. So whatever, maybe it's false, maybe AV's just now caught onto the code but better safe than sorry.

 

I'm actually surprised there hasn't been that one poster who says they don't need AV cause they be elite. Usually there is always one at every forum.



#21 Jason Stillion

Jason Stillion

    Neowinian

  • 1,400 posts
  • Joined: 04-April 12
  • Location: United States

Posted 05 October 2013 - 15:36

I check vb100 tests from time to time, and notice Microsoft Security Essentials has been slipping over time.

https://www.virusbtn...mparative/index

(From the Feb-Aug 2013 Chart)

 

MSE is currently still 90% Reactive Effective, and 80% Proactive Effective. It's very close comparative to Avira Free at the moment.

AVG (Free) is currently showing 95% Reactive Effective, and 75% Proactive Effective.

It looks like Norton, McAfee didn't submit there for Feb-Aug time frame.

 

AV protection effectiveness changes over time.

Right now, F-Secure, Kingsoft, and Optenet are leading from the ones tested.

 

The testing, however does not test how easy / difficult the products are to use or the resources (memory, cpu) they use.

 

I use Security Essentials, very good about how / where I surf, but in the case I suspect something, I use multiple different products / tools to check.



#22 +warwagon

warwagon

    Only you can prevent forest fires.

  • 26,268 posts
  • Joined: 30-November 01
  • Location: Iowa

Posted 05 October 2013 - 15:57

nor I had any single virus on the PCs.

 

That you know of :laugh:



#23 farmeunit

farmeunit

    The other white meat.

  • 2,894 posts
  • Joined: 05-May 03
  • Location: Branson, MO USA

Posted 05 October 2013 - 16:12

For the average joe, MSE is all you need. I have MSE on all my systems and never had any issues. Infact I do my banking on my main system with MSE installed and I download trainers for games onto it.  Done this for years.

I've found quite the opposite.  I usually install MSE for other people, just because of no nagging to purchase, and I ALWAYS get those machines back to work on later.  A few of them infected so bad, I had to spend several hours on them cleaning up.  I just won't do it anymore.  Not worth the trouble.  I've been going with Avast lately, but have always use Avira for myself.  For paid, I use Kaspersky on main machines.



#24 Mazhar

Mazhar

    Neowinian Senior

  • 5,530 posts
  • Joined: 16-July 06
  • Location: Pakistan

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:26

That you know of :laugh:

 

What you mean?



#25 HoochieMamma

HoochieMamma

    Professional Hoochie™

  • 8,803 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: Melbourne, AU
  • OS: Windows 7
  • Phone: Nexus 5

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:32

Every time I see MSE on someones computer it's usually disabled/trashed and the computer is full of malware.



#26 Nick H.

Nick H.

    Neowinian Senior

  • 11,472 posts
  • Joined: 28-June 04
  • Location: Switzerland

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:39

What you mean?

Antivirus software is only as good as the definitions it has. What you can say is that MSE has never detected a virus on your machine. However, a new virus may be undetectable to MSE at this point in time, and so you would never know for certain that your system is 100% safe.

#27 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,473 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:42

wait, didn't most PC-security gurus usually said that you should NOT use anti-virus on top of another?

They mean above and beyond, not in conjunction with >.<

 

Regarding Norton not showing up in tests, it's due to Symantec having an objection to the testing methodologies used in the tests.

Symantec claim their software is a multi-tiered approach that does most of it's work on the front end stopping things getting virused rather than removing existing viruses. Thus loading a computer with viruses and seeing what Norton sees is rather ineffective. They subsequently removed their software from the tests as a result.

 

When MSE was pushed to market in place of OneCare, we were directed to tell consumers that it should not be used in place of paid third party internet security. I have to say, in the hands of an idiot, MSE isn't sufficient, but it's fine for people who have 2 brain cells to rub together (i.e. most Neowin users).

 

Just don't use Trend IMO.



#28 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,473 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 07 October 2013 - 10:44

Antivirus software is only as good as the definitions it has. What you can say is that MSE has never detected a virus on your machine. However, a new virus may be undetectable to MSE at this point in time, and so you would never know for certain that your system is 100% safe.

I oft make this argument and people don't get it.

 

For those sitting on the fence, he means the only way to tell you have a virus (short of it showing itself) is for your AV to tell you you have a virus. If your AV can't see it, it  won't tell you, and subsequently you think you are fully protected.

 

To simplify: You can't prove a negative.

 

EDIT:: Can we turn post merging back on plox?



#29 remixedcat

remixedcat

    meow!

  • 10,072 posts
  • Joined: 28-December 10
  • Location: Vmware ESXi and Hyper-V happy clouds
  • OS: Windows Server 2012 R2
  • Phone: I use telepathy and cat meows to communicate

Posted 07 October 2013 - 11:03

Webroot doesn't use standard definitions... it's all realtime... this, the reason that standard tests don't work on thier product. 



#30 articuno1au

articuno1au

    Neowinian Senior

  • 4,473 posts
  • Joined: 20-March 11
  • Location: Brisbane, Australia

Posted 07 October 2013 - 11:42

Speaking of buzzwords >.>

 

It could also be that webroot are a nearly non-compete in the market..