Should I go with Microsoft Security Essentials?

[Loose rivets]

. . . and nothing else?

I was surprised to see there was a virus called MS Antivirus, and loads on how to get rid of it. I assume the above, from what appears to be a MS site, seems to say it's all I need, and is hopefully safe.

[Mac the Knife]

"Should I go with Microsoft Security Essentials?"

For personal use, yes. Free, works fine, quick and small footprint.

:ok:

For serious use....use a serious OS!

[mixture]

You are aware of Microsoft's track record in security matters, aren't you ?

[Mike-Bracknell]

MS Security Essentials is one of the few good ones. Thumbs up from here. :ok:

[rgbrock1]

Isn't Microsoft and security mutually-exclusive terms? :}

[jimtherev]

Aren't you thinking of homeland and security?;)

[Don Coyote]

Have been using it since it first came out. Just use windows firewall , the firewall built into the router and essentials.

Windows security essentials just seems to get on with things quietly in the background and has picked up a couple of Adwares and removed them. Seems very light on resources too.

:ok::ok::ok:

[Loose rivets]

Sounds encouraging . . . ish.:)

[green granite]

My main objection to Windows firewall is that I cant stop programs accessing the net which is why I use Zone alarm, despite the fact it makes the system less stable.

[Mike-Bracknell]

My main objection to Windows firewall is that I cant stop programs accessing the net which is why I use Zone alarm, despite the fact it makes the system less stable.

Errr, yes you can (with the version of Windows Firewall in Win7 at least). I find that ZoneAlarm et al leave the end user with either a false feeling of impenetrability, a wide open system through misconfiguration, or a system that falls over and spends all it's time waiting for network timeouts through misconfiguration too. With Windows Firewall there's MUCH less need for a security professional setting it up, hence much less security issue (it also works well).

[green granite]

Errr, yes you can (with the version of Windows Firewall in Win7 at least)

Well I thought that as well, but I told it not to allow Adobe updater to access the net but it totally ignored me, so I no longer trust it.

[Mike-Bracknell]

Well I thought that as well, but I told it not to allow Adobe updater to access the net but it totally ignored me, so I no longer trust it.

PEBKAC? ;)

You get 2 options to block - one based on executable, and the other based on ports. If you get no joy with the executable it's most probably that the executable in question isn't the one that deals with the outbound request? In that situation, either isolate the executable in question or block by port.

[AnthonyGA]

I first installed Microsoft Security Essentials last year on office computers because I wanted some minimal antivirus software without the bloated mess that most commercial antivirus systems produce. It seemed to work well enough so I installed it at home (for several decades I've been running with no antivirus at all—it's not dangerous if you know what you're doing). On rare occasions it is a bit intrusive but for the most part it is quiet and reasonably effective. I refuse to install any bloatware antivirus on any machine of mine.

[superG3]

Yes, as a stand alone AV it is very good ( there are many tech sites that compare all the popular AV's to each other, try a google search).

The big plus for me is the low background footprint and the fact it is designed by MS to work with MS. Other paid AV's make your PC soooooooooooooooooooooooo slow!!

I also use Malwarebytes, works well with MSE and also run Spybot SD (without the "teatimer") every few weeks.

In my experience, NO av programm will find every piece of malware and so on, thats why I use secondary non-intusive scanners aswell. All of the above are FREE and can highly recomend them.

Cheesrs

PS An interesting article for the MAC fan boys who think that it is more secure

Mac OS X security myth exposed - Techworld.com (http://news.techworld.com/security/1798/mac-os-x-security-myth-exposed/)

[superG3]

PPS

not having a go...I myself use a mac laptop and a PC.

Cheers

[onetrack]

MS and Security ARE mutually-exclusive terms. Use Online-Armor from Tall Emu. Works better than anything I've found.

[Bushfiva]

OP is looking for anti-virus. Only the top-end Online Armor has any antivirus.

[twiggs]

I have been using MS Security Essentials free since it was released on XP and W7 and haven't looked back.

[Stu666]

I own a computer repair workshop and virus removals are a huge part of my business. Here are my observations:

1) There is no such thing as a free lunch. Free antivirus is OK, but it is always better to have a full blown security suite.

2) MSE is nice, and has a light footprint. But like every other antivirus package, it cannot and never will offer 100% protection.

3) Windows Firewall is in general easy to defeat, regardless of version.

4) There is nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, that will stop nasties 100%. There is always something one step ahead of the good guys.

5) Even the experts get viruses from time to time. Humans are easy to fool.

6) Smart people think about what they are clicking and steer clear of dodgy sites. If it seems too good to be true, it IS too good to be true.

[Mike-Bracknell]

1) There is no such thing as a free lunch. Free antivirus is OK, but it is always better to have a full blown security suite.

3) Windows Firewall is in general easy to defeat, regardless of version.

I don't have issue with any of the other items you mention, however the two quoted above need comment.

As regards 1) you need to be clear on what you're saying is better than what. A full-blown security suite versus a free antivirus & windows firewall has a big pros vs cons argument. Surely you've had people come in your shop saying "my PC is deathly slow and i'm having problems with some programs that won't work". That's because configurable firewalls should NOT be given to numpties, and they've inevitably blocked something they shouldn't, or fiddled and left a security hole. Compare that with a free antivirus product that has 110 million users giving 110 million instances in the field with which to collect virus variants, and a 'set & forget' firewall, and you'll see how i'll disagree with your stance.

As regards 2) All firewalls are easy to defeat from the inside. Windows Firewall and all other firewalls don't have any faults from the outside.

[Stu666]

With regards 1) We see plenty of PCs with AVG, MSE or what have you, coupled with something like ZoneAlarm firewall. The very fact we see them in our shop riddled with viruses is testament to the fact that nothing is 100% bulletproof.

And 2) The problem with Windows firewall is you might as well not have one installed when it comes to outgoing traffic (pre-Vista anyway, but I do believe even in Vista/Win7 you have to manually configure it to block outgoing traffic). Since a lot of modern malicious code relies on dialling home at some point, it will pass out unchallenged and potentially worsen the infection when it downloads the latest undetectable version of whatever nasty it is.

The vast majority of infections we see come from users relying on freebie antivirus and Windows firewall, so I firmly believe my original points are valid.

That being said even savvy individuals with a multitude of strong security software and properly configured firewalls come back to us infected time and again. The issue is, there is ALWAYS something ahead of the security software, no matter how much they bleat about their "zero day protection" capabilities.

[Mike-Bracknell]

With regards 1) We see plenty of PCs with AVG, MSE or what have you, coupled with something like ZoneAlarm firewall. The very fact we see them in our shop riddled with viruses is testament to the fact that nothing is 100% bulletproof.
I agree nothing is 100% bulletproof, what I was pointing out was that a free AV with Windows firewall is comparable (favourably) to something like Norton 360 due to an incorrectly configured firewall being worse than not having one at all.

The vast majority of infections we see come from users relying on freebie antivirus and Windows firewall, so I firmly believe my original points are valid.
You sure that's not because the vast majority of home users put everything second to cost? and hence you're much less likely to get someone in your shop who's paid for their AV product? :)

[Loose rivets]

Well, I loaded it, and did little but stop it looking at my photos. I'm not sure this is a good idea, but the vast majority of my used disc space consists of .jpg files, and eliminating them reduces the scan time enormously.

Just what can be hidden in the typical family photos?


The first thing that struck me was the professional front-end to the software. I was less than impressed with the daft 50's jukebox look of some of the oft-mentioned freebies. I got the impression I'd loaded something designed by spotty teenagers.

[Bushfiva]

Buffer exploits that install backdoors. The heyday of jpeg attacks was a few years back.

[Stu666]

I agree nothing is 100% bulletproof, what I was pointing out was that a free AV with Windows firewall is comparable (favourably) to something like Norton 360 due to an incorrectly configured firewall being worse than not having one at all.

Mike, I think you are placing too much weight on incorrectly configured firewalls. Sure we get the odd one, but nothing like the amount of freebie AV/Windows Firewall combos. Far better if you ask me to have a screwed up firewall which is easy to reset, than a virus-ridden PC.

You sure that's not because the vast majority of home users put everything second to cost? and hence you're much less likely to get someone in your shop who's paid for their AV product?

I see where you're coming from, but we are almost as likely to see computers with fully-paid up copies of Norton/McAfee/Kaspersky/Whatever than we do freebies. Hence my point all along, nothing can truly stop the nasties, but you can minimise the risk somewhat by:

A) Inversting in a decent, big name security package (i.e. Norton Internet Security 2011).

B) Running a seperate antimalware package alongside your AV, for instance SuperAntiSpyware or MalwareBytes Antimalware, but you must be prepared to suffer a performance hit.

C) Being wise about what you click and install.

D) Keep your fingers crossed and hope for the best. :E

[AnthonyGA]

If you practice "safe computing," you're unlikely to be infected with anything, with or without antivirus software (although a firewall is still a good idea). If you are careless or uninformed in the way you use your computer, you may still be infected no matter how much antivirus and other software you have installed.

I've only recently installed MSE, and only on a lark, since it seemed pretty non-intrusive and I figured it couldn't hurt. For the several decades prior to that, I had no antivirus software on the machine, and I was never once infected by a virus or any other malware. However, I'm careful about what I do on my machine, and I do make some sacrifices, such as having all Flash and Javascript disabled on my browser unless I specifically authorize them for a given Web page. That kind of prudence is necessary even if you have antivirus software. I also look at the raw message text of e-mail messages that seem suspicious, which most people won't do. And so on.

Most commercial antivirus suites are bloatware, and I see no evidence to indicate that they are any better than MSE. They simply slow the machine down a lot more, and produce a lot more irritating pop-ups, and are much more likely to break other applications. In fact, they can be worse than the malware against which they are supposed to protect.

Windows Firewall, like most firewalls, is essentially bulletproof from the outside. It doesn't help from the inside, but if you have malware calling home from the inside, your security has already been breached. A firewall outside your computer, on a broadband modem/router for example, can be superior to Windows Firewall because nothing on your computer can turn it off. I use both. All incoming traffic except SMTP and HTTP is blocked, and those two protocols are directed to my UNIX server and never see the Windows machine. You can avoid most infections by being prudent, but a firewall is necessary to block traffic that might exploit bugs in your operating systems or applications.

[Mike-Bracknell]

but you can minimise the risk somewhat by:

A) Inversting in a decent, big name security package (i.e. Norton Internet Security 2011).

Conversely, my experiences are that Symantec sucks donkeys, and whilst no one package is 100% you are more likely to be at risk from viruses whilst running the big names than those with free counterparts.

C) Being wise about what you click and install.

To all and sundry reading, THIS is the most important element of virus avoidance.
:ok:

[Stu666]

Its like cars, you can get one model that is great, the next model from the same manufacturer is absolute cr*p. e.g. BMW X3 and X5.

My own experience of Symantec products spans about 15 years, and yes, a few years back their Internet Security suite was pathetic. 2009 onwards was completely re-written and has been great. I now have it on all my personal machines, replacing ESET Smart Security (purely because it was a nicer price, the two are pretty much equal). It is sleek, efficient and offers excellent protection.

McAfee is the very definition of bloatware, eurgh.

[Mike-Bracknell]

Oh I agree. Glad to hear the rewrite of Symantec's AV has proved useful to you though. Also nice to see no throwing toys out of pram etc and a reasonable, healthy debate :ok:

Whereabouts is your shop based? as we've managed to align ourselves with several high street IT shops in a symbiotic relationship.

[Stu666]

Based in Northwich, Cheshire. Who do you work for Mike? Likewise, glad we can agree to disagree without it getting childish.

[Mike-Bracknell]

I'm an IT Director of an SME support company (and we're AVG resellers for one thing, but I do also have some mates who work for Symantec). I'll bung you a PM anyway.

[Avitor]

I have M/S AV and have no plans to change.