Microsoft: Security Essentials final edition in coming weeks

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and anti-spyware product that is set to replace Microsoft's paid Windows Live OneCare subscription service which was withdrawn earlier this year.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."

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Big cat on Microsoft campus (and it's not a Snow Leopard)

Next Story

Google to compromise on book search deal

107 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I'm dismayed at how uninformed my fellow posters are!
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.

I uninstalled Avast and installed this Microsoft Security Essentials. I like it so far, and its interface is much easier to use. It also detected and stopped that stupid popup "Antivirus 2009" trojan that Avast never once stopped or detected.

TC17 said,
I uninstalled Avast and installed this Microsoft Security Essentials. I like it so far, and its interface is much easier to use. It also detected and stopped that stupid popup "Antivirus 2009" trojan that Avast never once stopped or detected.

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

Well I am lookin forward to this. Actually it's about time that MS did include protection, which really should have been built into the OS all along But then antivirus companies will bitch about it, which they probably still are going to, but as far as I'm concerned, MS has the right to protect their OS with it's own software, and give their customers built in protection. Seems logical to me. Besides, I think if someone buys an OS they should have security built into it for free anyways.

rippleman said,
just use avira..... simple easy, best.... oh ya... and free.................

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.

Seems to work really well and from what I've read it's the second best for detection rates, just behind Avira, and the lowest false positives of the top 16 products. So don't see any reason not to go with it.

Just dumped my Avast Home Edition/Malware Bytes Anti-malware combo for the MSE beta, and I must admit, I am very impressed! It has a very small footprint, uses less resources, and so far has caught everything on my av "test" drive (infected to hell) much better than Avast.

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!!!

Sweet. I was wanting to replace Comodo Anti-virus with MSE's beta but missed the cut :(

Comodo Firewall is still pretty sweet, though

those of you who are waiting for the final why wait.

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.

Try it yourself. I haven't noticed it even running... Check thiXkull's post below about where you can still get the beta.

GreyWolfSC said,
Try it yourself. I haven't noticed it even running... Check thiXkull's post below about where you can still get the beta.

But technically by NW rules that wouldn't be allowed as the beta is no longer open and it's not distributed by MS.

I don't think there is a Media Access Control version... There are other security applications available for OS X, though. I think Snow Leopard even has malware protection built in.

GreyWolfSC said,
I don't think there is a Media Access Control version... There are other security applications available for OS X, though. I think Snow Leopard even has malware protection built in.

I was just joking, but yes, it would have been hilariously funny if MS were to create anti-virus software for MAC OS X.

zagor said,
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.

Funny my MSSECS.EXE uses 1,256K I know thats a lot for an ATARI 1024 but with 12GIGs its not a lot :)

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

mrmomoman said,
Funny my MSSECS.EXE uses 1,256K I know thats a lot for an ATARI 1024 but with 12GIGs its not a lot :)

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.

will dump symantec endpoint protection 11 when MSE final out. win firewall+MSE is perfectly safe for home computers.

This is a great program. My only 3 complaints that I have are that 1) The protection seems to turn itself off when checking for and applying updates. I think this was mentioned somewhere in here. Hope that is fixed in the final version, and secondly, it seems to use about 5X the amount of memory than Norton 2010 uses. Norton AV 2010 used about 10-12 MB between 2 processes, MSSE uses about 65 MB over 2 processes. I know this isn't alot when you're talking about a machine with 4GB of RAM, but I was curious as to why there is such a huge difference. Hopefully this will all be corrected in the final release.

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.

Sounds very promising and One Care was quite good but did not really grab attention of the security market, and their subscription was not that successful either. Whereas this version being FREE and a potential to grab the market, Microsoft could be onto a winner here. I haven't actually seen it in action yet nor have I used it, but there has been some very good reviews and some promising features which any simple minded EU will understand because it's simple and basic but has a good engine under the hood of the software which does the job of protecting you against the majority of the evil minded people out there whom try to gain access to your computer.

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?

If it's like the beta, I like it. It's simple, basic and gets the job done.
It also spartan enough, where paid av companies can show the additional features you can get if you buy theres.

Every OEM PC builder should ship with MSE installed and on by default. An end to the 60 day trialware bloat suite default installs would be VERY welcome by new and old Windows Users alike.

OEMs get paid from those AV installs so if anything you can expect them to increase. The major AV makers will try to keep themselves in business by increasing their number of default installs hoping less technical users will renew with them later down the line.

excalpius said,
Every OEM PC builder should ship with MSE installed and on by default.

The EU would get their period again and get all bitchy and try to rape MS again.

powerade01 said,
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?

anewhope said,
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.

Once my Norton (NAV 09) license runs out I'll replace it with MSE. I'll definitely be installing this on my parents and brothers machine.

I've been using this for a while and also use Symantec AntiVirus Corporate Edtion and Its funny MSE's Realtime protection actually picked up some viruses about 2 minutes before SAV did lol

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!

Anyone did a really good review of MSE ?
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 ?

Yeah MSE has replaced all my other AV alternatives as well. My only gripe is the lack of configurability - but then again it probably doesn't need it.

Does anyone know if it scans emails for known Outlook exploits?

I got rid off AVG and Norton on different computers and installed the beta version of the MSE... it uses far less resources (the install file is 4MB!!!) and seems to detect anything i throw at it. I am really happy for this non bloatware antivirus that is holding a very high standard at the same time. Cant wait for the final!!1

CoolBits said,
They better make windows itself more secure... not to require aditional software purchases and install... LOL


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..

6205 said,
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..

I hope that was a sarcastic post.

6205 said,
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.

6205 said,
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..


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!

6205 said,
No... but you can always convice me that i'm wrong

You have to convince me you're right, first. You posted a bunch of gibberish and claims without anything to back it up.

6205 said,
Yep, you've got some point. There has been nothing done in security in past years. They simply don't care

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!

CoolBits said,
They better make windows itself more secure... not to require aditional software purchases and install... LOL


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.

6205 said,
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..



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.

I personally feel that MSE is the best free anti virus package available. After using AVG, Avast and a few others, I feel MSE wipes the floor with them in terms of impact on system and ease of use.

Brilliant stuff - Let's see if Microsoft try to bundle it in to Windows 8!

I still think Avast! is better on file I/O impact than MSE. Whether it remains in effect for the final build remains to be seen.

MSE is brilliant; there's just one slight problem for ASUS Update users and that is you are unable to upgrade MSE when a newer client comes out; the only solutions are to remove ASUS Update or rename update.exe in the asus update folder to something else, update MSE and then rename it back, for some reason they didn't bother fixing it as I left a bug report :S

n_K said,
MSE is brilliant; there's just one slight problem for ASUS Update users and that is you are unable to upgrade MSE when a newer client comes out; the only solutions are to remove ASUS Update or rename update.exe in the asus update folder to something else, update MSE and then rename it back, for some reason they didn't bother fixing it as I left a bug report :S



ASUS has a large deal with Symantec (they offer trials of NAV/NIS with all their products, including their motherboards).

And then Symantec should stop releasing Norton Antivirus and continue selling Norton Internet Security Suite after these words...

I switched to this from Norton 2009. Funny thing is it actually blocked a bad webpage from loading that I had been going to for months with Norton installed and it never said a word about it being unsafe.

I had it block TPB the other day, but I believe that what it was really blocking was one of the occasional spam sites that advertizes there.

How this works together with Windows Defender? Are they not in conflict? Because both have anti-spyware/malware protection and MSE adds only anti-virus protection. This could made Defender useless, so question is if it's still running after installation of MSE..

6205 said,
How this works together with Windows Defender? Are they not in conflict? Because both have anti-spyware/malware protection and MSE adds only anti-virus protection. This could made Defender useless, so question is if it's still running after installation of MSE..

MSE disables Defender as far as I can remeber when it is installed.

It does, since MSE basically has a copy of the Defender spyware/malware definitions along with the virus, stuff that it scans for. No need to have two scanners working.

OldToad said,
I dumped Norton '09 and went for MSE . Haven't looked back .

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?

cakesy said,
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?


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.

To be honest "A full Internet security suite is what consumers require today to stay fully protected" is already catered for with Windows Firewall + MSE. Well it is in my case.

What Janice Chaffin actually means when she says "A full Internet security suite is what consumers require today to stay fully protected" is;

"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.

anewhope said,
What Janice Chaffin actually means when she says "A full Internet security suite is what consumers require today to stay fully protected" is;

"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!!

lol. true. i'd rather not have their "internet security suite" that makes my pc run worse than if it was infected with spyware/virus.

GreyWolfSC said,
Janice can be a boy's name... My friend Harvey said so herself. :D


Well, a quick Google search proves the gender of the person in question. Harvey as a female name; that's odd. :S

rm20010 said,
Well, a quick Google search proves the gender of the person in question. Harvey as a female name; that's odd. :S

Some people can be quite crafty in that regard.

Ive been using this for sometime.
IT seems quite simple/basic, easy to use and doesnt seem to be bloatware.

I wouldnt say its hugely impressive though.

barteh said,
Ive been using this for sometime.
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

SuperKid said,
Proberly a bug deleting 9 files in like 20 mins..

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 :-)

Did it do a standard delete where it just kills the pointers to the files or did it do a secure delete where it overwrites the files with all 0s and wipes out any references or backups?

Not really directed a you Tom, but doesn't it feel wrong that a competitor's comment is included in a summary of a product?