Microsoft's Security Essentials team has confirmed the final version of Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) will be made available in the coming weeks.MSE is Microsoft's free anti-virus and anti-spyware product that is set to replace Microsoft's paid Windows Live OneCare subscription service which was withdrawn earlier this year. In an email to beta testers the team thanked testers for their participation and encouraged them to upgrade to version 1.0.1500.0 of the beta to ensure a "smooth experience". Neowin exclusively revealed Security Essentials in June when it was codenamed "Morro". Morro was renamed Security Essentials and appeared in beta form in late June.
MSE is likely to be targeted to compete with the low end of anti-virus products from other providers, and it will not have much of an impact on sales of full-blown security suites. According to Janice Chaffin, president of Symantec's Consumer Division, "Microsoft's free product is basically a stripped down version of the OneCare product Microsoft pulled from the shelves. A full Internet security suite is what consumers require today to stay fully protected."
IT seems quite simple/basic, easy to use and doesnt seem to be bloatware.
I wouldnt say its hugely impressive though.
IT seems quite simple/basic, easy to use and doesnt seem to be bloatware.
I wouldnt say its hugely impressive though.
I really like this software, the only bad thing is that is reaaally slow deleting or cleaning the infected files. The other day, it found some infected Wallpapers in JPG with some strange code. So, I decided to delete it because those files were really old and I wasn't using any of them, it took around 15-20min to delete the 9 files. But I could live with the waiting :-D
Were you running it on Vista, the early versions of Vista had problem doing copying, maybe it was copying them somewhere first.
So, when are they going to release a version for Macs :-)
"We don't want our customers to discover that our competitors have better products that won't cost them anything"
It'd probably make for better reading if there was a link to an anti virus comparitives article with MS:E and the other top products.
"We don't want our customers to discover that our competitors have better products that won't cost them anything"
It'd probably make for better reading if there was a link to an anti virus comparitives article with MS:E and the other top products.
AGREE!!
"He"?
Janice can be a boy's name... My friend Harvey said so herself.
Sex change. Where've you been?
Well, a quick Google search proves the gender of the person in question. Harvey as a female name; that's odd.
Some people can be quite crafty in that regard.
Really? Even though it hasn't been released yet.
Norton is rubbish, I agree, but can you trust the same company that can't make its OS secure? And if 7 is so great, why do we even need this?
Norton is rubbish, I agree, but can you trust the same company that can't make its OS secure? And if 7 is so great, why do we even need this?
So windows is not secure? Obviously after the reports that show it more secure than macs, and macs getting hacked in 2 mins...macs are the more secure one.
MSE disables Defender as far as I can remeber when it is installed.
Is normal. MSE = Defender + Antivirus
ASUS has a large deal with Symantec (they offer trials of NAV/NIS with all their products, including their motherboards).
Brilliant stuff - Let's see if Microsoft try to bundle it in to Windows 8! :p
Yep, you've got some point. There has been nothing done in security in past years. They simply don't care and only add more and more applications, but change nothing in OS. First it was XP Security Center with Firewall, then Defender followed by UAC and now MSE. But OS itself is the same, insecure and extremelly vunerable software. Not to mention that you're still admin even in Windows 7 after default install.
Linux does NOT need any of there "features" and still is like million times secure..
Linux does NOT need any of there "features" and still is like million times secure..
I hope that was a sarcastic post.
No... but you can always convice me that i'm wrong
It doesn't work that way. If you're going to throw around accusations that Microsoft has done nothing in past years to improve security, (which is a load of bunk,) you should be providing the proof.
Linux does NOT need any of there "features" and still is like million times secure..
I really liked how you tossed aside UAC, despite that UAC and it's alternative platform equivalents (Ever heard of sudo?) are one of the most significant parts of a secure system.
Totally not ignorant, and without the slightest hint of fanboyism at all! Bravo!
You have to convince me you're right, first. You posted a bunch of gibberish and claims without anything to back it up.
From the immense amount of patching that Microsoft does on Windows, I think they very much do care.
Please, tell me what part of Windows is "extremely vulnerable" and not just extremely targeted. Also, remember that UAC does exist!
And you know exactly what would happen if they did that; world + dog would complain about lost revenue opportunities and would scream *antitrust* (basically what i4i did after seeing Word 2010 launch and realizing the royalty train was about to come to a halt).
Also, MSE costs nothing.
Linux does NOT need any of there "features" and still is like million times secure..
I wouldn't say it's a million times more secure (ever heard of ClamAV). However, the design of Linux is different enough from the design of Windows that virii targeting Windows usually can't attack Linux as well. Also, if you're a virus developer, you go after the largest installed base, and Linux isn't it.
*tosses avast aside for awhile
Does anyone know if it scans emails for known Outlook exploits?
I'm thinking of dumping Nod32v4 which I have found terrible and moving to MSE .. has anyone done so and have they found MSE better than Nod ?
They are both Awesome AV's but MSE is FREE!!!
As for needing a full internet security suite, with MSE & Windows Firewall on Vista and Win7 you pretty much do have everything add a Router into the mex and you have a hardware firewall to boot!
Symantec and others must be very worried!
The EU would get their period again and get all bitchy and try to rape MS again.
Surely they wouldn't be able to justify that, as the OEMs are free to install whatever software they chose onto their machines?
And besides, why would the EU bitch about OEMs actually saving customers money by installing an effective (and zero-cost) AV solution, even if it is from Microsoft? I have MSE installed right now on Mom's PC and mine (both running 7 RTM, 32-bit Ultimate for Mom, 64-bit Ultimate for me), and will be installing MSE on every qualifying (in the sense that an operating system MSE supports is installed) PC that I can.
It also spartan enough, where paid av companies can show the additional features you can get if you buy theres.
Overall, from what I have researched and read up to now, I would say this is going to be a good thumbs up for Microsoft and a stab in the back for Symantec and McAfee and possibly will have an effect on the price banding for Symantec and McAfee...? Although we shall wait and see what happens then this is released. I would probably speculate the release will be around the release of Windows 7 or even just a little before. Predictions on downloads...? I would estimate at least 50,000 within the first week?
lets see what the next version brings
And third is the definition updates fill up the Windows Update History log. While I know WU is technically used to update the software, it shouldn't show up there, instead it should update through the client exclusively.
These aren't major showstopper problems, just little annoyances which I hope are "polished up" with the final release of MSE.
Last edited by nytiger73 on 21 Sep 2009 - 16:04
Most routers have a firewall for home users, then you have MS Firewall and then MSE. The system is low resources, low key(not high tech )and does what it needs to do for MOST users. Power Users will always want more "tweakability" but it wasn't designed for the less 5% of the user market. We seem more concentrated here at this site and everyone seems to be a power user but compared to the rest of the "real" world we are a blip compared to the overall "average" user market that it was aimed at.
Norton has sucked for a while and continues to suck as far as I am concerned. I have comcast and get McAfee Suite for free and never have installed it.
Great job for Microsoft to rise from the ashes of OneCare and provide this.
Trust me people when I say this. If Microsoft were given the same freedom to package software applications like Apple does they would stifle competition immediately.
I also notice that Janice had to put in a little DIG about how OneCare was pulled off the shelves
Most routers have a firewall for home users, then you have MS Firewall and then MSE. The system is low resources, low key(not high tech )and does what it needs to do for MOST users. Power Users will always want more "tweakability" but it wasn't designed for the less 5% of the user market. We seem more concentrated here at this site and everyone seems to be a power user but compared to the rest of the "real" world we are a blip compared to the overall "average" user market that it was aimed at.
Norton has sucked for a while and continues to suck as far as I am concerned. I have comcast and get McAfee Suite for free and never have installed it.
Great job for Microsoft to rise from the ashes of OneCare and provide this.
Trust me people when I say this. If Microsoft were given the same freedom to package software applications like Apple does they would stifle competition immediately.
I also notice that Janice had to put in a little DIG about how OneCare was pulled off the shelves
That is true, however, check the MsMpEng.exe process and notice it takes about 60MB of RAM. Norton has actually cleaned up their software by leaps and bounds. But be that as it may, I am not knocking MSE, it's a great piece of software. I was just commenting on a few apparent little annoyances is all.
I was just joking, but yes, it would have been hilariously funny if MS were to create anti-virus software for MAC OS X.
MAC and Mac are 2 different things.
But technically by NW rules that wouldn't be allowed as the beta is no longer open and it's not distributed by MS.
head over to softpedia.com they have a beta available for download.
its a older version but as soon as u install it it will update to the latest version and the final once its released.
comodo firewall + MSE is a sweet combination.
Comodo Firewall is still pretty sweet, though
I personally hope Symantec and Kaspersky are shaking in their boots, because they should be. Finally, an AV program that not only beats them hands-down on detection, but also sports a sweet and clean interface, NO "Look at what you can get if you upgrade to the Pro edition" crap, low resource usage, and DOES provide a complete protection package on Win 7 when used with the W7 firewall.
Symantec can kiss my sweet petutie!!!
Free with a BIG frickin ad that appears every time it updates. Yes I know you can hack it and turn it off but MSE doesn't have a big annoying ad to begin with.
You should see it try to deal with a Antivirus 2010 install.bat . Didn't do so well, but then again ether did most of the other AV's http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?act=...=post&id=239342
The objective "I like it" type comments are pretty well useless. Yes this is a lightweight (meaning small memory footprint), unintrusive, very regularly updated (mainly definitions) AV which is simple to use. On that basis it probably is the best AV available.
But there is only one relevant question - does it identify virii and other malware?
I run it in tandem with Eset (on Windows 7). I know that's a no-no but the fact is they sit easy with one another. The shocking news is that in the last 3 months or so I've had 6 alerts. What is shocking is that 2 were from Eset exclusively, 2 from MSE exclusively and 2 detected by both. Really that's no surprise - no AV is perfect!
As for independent and rigorous testing - there isn't much!
AV-Comparatives is probably the most reliable independent testing regime - the link to their lates report (August ) is - http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stor...vc_report23.pdf
Regrettably this tests One Care not MSE and rates it relatively poorly, G Data, Symantec, Avast, F-Secure, BitDefender, eScan and ESET score highest. The German Tester AV-Test Org doesn't publish it's results directly but I read a very early report by them which gave very high praise to MSE here - http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/913...makes_the_grade and PCWorld have reported extremely positive results by AV-Test.org here - http://www.pcworld.com/article/167325/micr...lts_are_in.html.
All in all I'd make a guess that MSE is as good as any other AV software and apart for some malware holes may be a winner.
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.