Should I go with Microsoft Security Essentials?

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Stu666

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.

[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

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.