Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Computer/Internet Issues & Troubleshooting
Reload this Page >

Should I go with Microsoft Security Essentials?

Wikiposts
Search

Notices
Computer/Internet Issues & Troubleshooting Anyone with questions about the terribly complex world of computers or the internet should try here. NOT FOR REPORTING ISSUES WITH PPRuNe FORUMS! Please use the subforum "PPRuNe Problems or Queries."

Should I go with Microsoft Security Essentials?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 24th November 2010 | 17:20
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Psychophysiological entity
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,383
Likes: 169
From: Walton on the Naze Essex.
Should I go with Microsoft Security Essentials?

. . . 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.
Loose rivets is offline  
Reply
Old 24th November 2010 | 17:39
  #2 (permalink)  

Plastic PPRuNer
25 Anniversary
 
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,902
Likes: 0
From: Rochechouart, France
"Should I go with Microsoft Security Essentials?"

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



For serious use....use a serious OS!
Mac the Knife is offline  
Reply
Old 24th November 2010 | 18:04
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,663
Likes: 0
From: Earth
You are aware of Microsoft's track record in security matters, aren't you ?
mixture is offline  
Reply
Old 24th November 2010 | 18:20
  #4 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
From: Bracknell, Berks, UK
MS Security Essentials is one of the few good ones. Thumbs up from here.
Mike-Bracknell is offline  
Reply
Old 24th November 2010 | 18:55
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 436
Likes: 0
From: Patterson, NY
Isn't Microsoft and security mutually-exclusive terms?
rgbrock1 is offline  
Reply
Old 24th November 2010 | 20:14
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 565
Likes: 21
From: Passed away on Sept 6th
Aren't you thinking of homeland and security?
jimtherev is offline  
Reply
Old 24th November 2010 | 20:30
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 272
Likes: 5
From: England
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.

Don Coyote is offline  
Reply
Old 24th November 2010 | 22:31
  #8 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Psychophysiological entity
20 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jun 2001
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 3,383
Likes: 169
From: Walton on the Naze Essex.
Sounds encouraging . . . ish.
Loose rivets is offline  
Reply
Old 25th November 2010 | 06:51
  #9 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,513
Likes: 1
From: land of the clanger
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.
green granite is offline  
Reply
Old 25th November 2010 | 14:00
  #10 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
From: Bracknell, Berks, UK
Originally Posted by 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.
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).
Mike-Bracknell is offline  
Reply
Old 25th November 2010 | 15:05
  #11 (permalink)  
More bang for your buck
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,513
Likes: 1
From: land of the clanger
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.
green granite is offline  
Reply
Old 25th November 2010 | 15:17
  #12 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
From: Bracknell, Berks, UK
Originally Posted by green granite
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.
Mike-Bracknell is offline  
Reply
Old 25th November 2010 | 17:13
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
From: Paris, France
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.
AnthonyGA is offline  
Reply
Old 26th November 2010 | 21:40
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: Aussieland
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

Last edited by superG3; 26th November 2010 at 21:52.
superG3 is offline  
Reply
Old 26th November 2010 | 22:03
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
From: Aussieland
PPS

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

Cheers
superG3 is offline  
Reply
Old 27th November 2010 | 01:16
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,803
Likes: 0
From: Perth - Western Australia
MS and Security ARE mutually-exclusive terms. Use Online-Armor from Tall Emu. Works better than anything I've found.
onetrack is offline  
Reply
Old 27th November 2010 | 02:54
  #17 (permalink)  
Hippopotomonstrosesquipidelian title
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,825
Likes: 1
From: is everything
OP is looking for anti-virus. Only the top-end Online Armor has any antivirus.
Bushfiva is offline  
Reply
Old 27th November 2010 | 03:52
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
From: Australia
I have been using MS Security Essentials free since it was released on XP and W7 and haven't looked back.
twiggs is offline  
Reply
Old 3rd December 2010 | 17:50
  #19 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 196
Likes: 11
From: UK
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.
Stu666 is offline  
Reply
Old 4th December 2010 | 17:09
  #20 (permalink)  
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,133
Likes: 0
From: Bracknell, Berks, UK
Originally Posted by Stu666
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.
Mike-Bracknell is offline  
Reply


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.