Microsoft Security Essentials

Any opinions? - it's free, and seems very promising -

Microsoft Security Essentials entry at Wikipedia

For me, it can potentially replace a whole host of security soft/freeware - where there was always a danger of incompatibility.

It's in beta; I wouldn't chance PC security with a program that's still being ironed out. Wait until a few weeks after the official release and then read the experienced reviews.

StarHalo said:

It's in beta; I wouldn't chance PC security with a program that's still being ironed out. Wait until a few weeks after the official release and then read the experienced reviews.

Click to expand...

Agreed, thanks.
If it's of any interest -
to find out more - I trial installed a copy of the beta Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) and here are some initial findings -

I read that in various articles on the web that Automatic Updates is forced ON.

However I called up Microsoft Updates - yes, it is set for "Automatic Updates" - which was my previous setting anyway - but my chosen option of "Notify me but don't automatically download or install them" is still an option and checked.

Automatic Update is for MSE (which makes sense) -
but being able to choose what other updates and when to download and install option is still available and open.

here's a more definitive answer over at the MSE support forum -

List of Changes Made to System when Installing MSE?

Another thing I've read on the web is the claim for a "small footprint" of resources - and at first sight it appears to be really small.

There is a resident program called msSecEs.exe and its working set size is 3,824Kb and Peak Working set was 9,460Kb - which seems amazing.

BUT it is NOT the only resident process - while doing a scan I discovered a whopping processing called MsMpEng.exe - Working Set size = 61,876Kb (while idle), and the Peak Working set = 188,904Kb.

So combined this footprint does not seem that small -
but might be just a bit smaller than all the other security software I used to have installed.

Here are a couple of informative replies over at the MSE forum to my direct questions on these points -

MSE - Automatic Updates and footprint?

If you're interested in small-footprint well-updated security, check out NOD32: http://www.eset.com/products/nod32.php , it's an enterprise-level antivirus/spam that cruises comfortably at 40-45kb, and I've seen it update as frequently as three times a day..

StarHalo said:

If you're interested in small-footprint well-updated security, check out NOD32: http://www.eset.com/products/nod32.php , it's an enterprise-level antivirus/spam that cruises comfortably at 40-45kb, and I've seen it update as frequently as three times a day..

Click to expand...

Thanks for that.

All 3 of the most popular Freeware AntiVirus have small footprints -
FWIW - about.com had a Free AntiVirus Comparison comparing AVG, Avast! and Avira (AntiVir) - in that article they said -

" Footprint
Each of the free antivirus scanners was conservative in the amount of disk space used, installing 40Mb or less on our test systems. (The smallest was AVG at only 30Mb). AVG installed four running processes, compared to three for AntiVir and six by AVAST. The footprint on the system can be particularly important for those running older operating systems (i.e. Windows 98/ME) where hard drive space and memory might be at a premium. Fortunately, any one of the three meets those needs. "

Drilling down to the individual reviews -

AVG - " Installing only 30Mb of files and 4 running processes, AVG Free Edition is the smallest antivirus scanner we've tested and may well be the best choice for an older PC with severely limited system resources. "

Avira (AntiVir) - " The svelte scanner installed only 34MB and 3 running processes to our Windows XP Pentium 4 test system, making it an excellent option for those with older PCs or limited system resources. "

Avast! - " The scanner installed just under 40MB and 6 running processes to our Windows XP Pentium 4 test system, taking a slightly bigger toll than other free antivirus scanners, but still well suited for older PCs or those with limited system resources. "

However as noted in their reply to my direct questions on MSE forums -
MSE - Automatic Updates and footprint?
MSE resident contains not only antiVirus but also has antiSpyware and rootKit detection - and once one adds these other resident processes then the total footprint along with Avira (smaller than NOD32, which I used) comes out to be about the same as MSE's total.

I should be more specific - I was referring to the "footprint" of the memory being used, not the drive space. In the age of terabyte hard drives, I'm not so concerned about how much disk space an antivirus needs, but I am concerned about how much memory/overall system performance it uses.

NOD32 has just the one process at 40-45kb. It's not a "suite" so there are no modules or extra processes; they assume that since you're putting a security scanning program on your PC, you want it to scan for every possible kind of harmful/malicious data, so it's anti-virus/spyware/rootkit/error/etc, an all-in-one ultralight single program.

StarHalo said:

NOD32 has just the one process at 40-45kb.

Click to expand...

Ooops - my apologies - need to get my eyes checked - that was Kb right? - I was still thinking of Mb! now that is a tiny-tiny footprint - amazing.

Update - there are actually two process (nod32kui.exe, nod32krn.exe)
as given in this thread
but it is still very small.

Of course, keep in mind that NOD32 costs $39 (every year?), while AVG, Avira and Avast are free for home users.

+1 for AVG, I install it on every Windows PC I build or work on. I have yet to find a better solution for Windows.

Or you could always switch to Linux and hardly have to worry about it :devil:

+1 for Avira AntiVir. I've been using the free version for a number of years and it has proved to be a reliable and aggressive antivirus solution.

From the reviews I've seen Windows Defender and OneCare both seemed lacking when it came to their ability to detect malware, so until MS can prove that Security Essentials does a better job my advice would be to stick with one of the more proven AV packages.

Or you could always switch to a Mac and never have to worry about viruses at all.

Actually, as a confirmed Windows user forget I said that.

eSet user here. Small memory footprint was a requirement. I couldn't take what Norton did to my systems. I can trace a truckload of problems back to that software. Never again.

I can't believe MS hasn't put out something like this before. Obviously they could dominate the market if they put out something decent.

da.gee said:

I can't believe MS hasn't put out something like this before. Obviously they could dominate the market if they put out something decent.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you said that.

I am not particularly enamored with Microsoft - although being a Windoz user I have become aware of many compatibility issues when using independent software like browsers. I do now use FireFox 3.5.1 and am very impressed with it.

BUT I do not say I wonder why I never switched to FireFox before - because I know exactly why I did not use FireFox before - and that is despite many people telling me I should, including many respected reviews. Yes, FireFox was "better" than IE7 - but it was simply not "better" enough to overcome some of the compatibility issues I had for my usage of a browser.

However FireFox 3.5.1 is now "better" enough that I now can "live" with the incompatibilities and accept I have to either use the IE Tab add-on or open IE7 separately to address those issues.

I could have done that with earlier versions of FireFox - but like I said it was not "better" enough for me.

for more details please see my thread FireFox 3.5.1

So one can see I am not exactly a Microsoft fan (at most a begrudging "fan") - but the initial reviews and feedback on Microsoft Security Essentials seem to be pretty positive - even to the point of enthusiasm -

I only meant to install MSE as a trial as it is still in beta - but the results so far have been good - so much so that I am contemplating leaving the installation as-is and "trust" in Microsoft to update and address any issues.

Now this may sound naive and somewhat reckless using a beta security software and "trusting" Microsoft. But think on this I use Windoz - and already "trust" MS with its regular updates of which many are security issues - I know MSE is beta only - but so far MS seems to be taking a conservative approach and the response I had over at the MSE support forum was outstanding.

Yes I am taking a risk - but it is not any more risky than installing any security Freeware - one might say that those are time proven - but I recall I had distinct problems with SpyBot S&D where I tried two different latest versions and had to back down to an earlier version. Avira worked well until recently whenever it updates automatically it now throws a self-advertising screen up - that's no longer Freeware, that's now ADware. I also remember when an update of Zone Alarm literally crashed my system and took me a full day to recover it....... all these are very reputable established security software - there is no such thing as risk-free......

Agreed UnknownVT. It doesn't even have to be great software. It just has to be decent to good. My guess is it will follow a similar product path as IE, not the best, not the worst but damn easy to download and install, likely compatible with everything and a lot of users will use it by default.

I'm definitely not an MS fanboy but since IE7 (now IE8) it has been on my hard drive and I even went through a stint where it was my primary browser...until Google Chrome.

I've done Microsoft Network and client administration for pretty much every major industry. Banks, Telecom, Health Care, School districts.....etc.

Experienced admin like myself don't have time to dork around with this stuff because of resources. I recently did some contract work for a local school system, and noted that with 2000+ teenagers on their Windows computers all the time they've been Spyware/Malware free for almost two years.

So, what magic product did they use? None - nobody other than the tech team was allowed local admin rights. We still had Nod32 installed locally because of it's small footprint, but logs indicated the product had yet to detect anything. If a student or teacher was suspected of logging on with admin rights we wiped the box and re-imaged it.

Funny that a large health care network and Bank I had previously worked with had the exact same policy; you do not have local admin rights, you will not get local admin rights, we do not want to waste money cleaning up messes created by you having local admin rights. If you want local admin rights do it on your own home PC and whine and complain about all the spyware/malware problems and why it's Microsoft / Windows fault.

75% of the Spyware / Malware infections I do deal with for friends involve a major product like Symantec or McAfee....or worse yet...they think their software firewall acts as a filter. Why is this? Because the programmers in Russia and China writing this junk can freely buy the same Security software and learn to work around it.

Learn to surf and use a general purpose account without admin rights, stop dowloading illegal software from bitorrent, , keep your software and OS patched and updated, and take the frikken admin rights away from your teenagers.

blasterman said:

Learn to surf and use a general purpose account without admin rights, stop dowloading illegal software from bitorrent, , keep your software and OS patched and updated, and take the frikken admin rights away from your teenagers.

Click to expand...

Seriously, does this mean under Windoz if I create an user without admin privileges and use that to surf the net and receive e-mail (and only ever use the admin user for admin type stuff) - that I would mitigate most of the malware problems - so that I would not even need a firewall or anti-malware security stuff?

Thanks,

UnknownVT said:

I would mitigate most of the malware problems - so that I would not even need a firewall or anti-malware security stuff?

Click to expand...

It would mitigate most of it, but you still need to practice safe browsing techniques, and no one solution is 100% effective. Aside from that, not all programs/features work unless you're on the admin account.

If your computer is connected to a router, you're already using a very good firewall. You should still have the Windows Firewall turned on just in case something strange tries to call in/out.

As for anti-malware, you'd want it already installed if something went wrong, so it's best to have it just in case you need it. The smaller-footprint programs are so ubiquitous that they seem this way anyway.

StarHalo said:

I should be more specific - I was referring to the "footprint" of the memory being used, not the drive space. In the age of terabyte hard drives, I'm not so concerned about how much disk space an antivirus needs, but I am concerned about how much memory/overall system performance it uses.

NOD32 has just the one process at 40-45kb. It's not a "suite" so there are no modules or extra processes; they assume that since you're putting a security scanning program on your PC, you want it to scan for every possible kind of harmful/malicious data, so it's anti-virus/spyware/rootkit/error/etc, an all-in-one ultralight single program.

Click to expand...

Indeed NOD (Eset) is one of the few that has had a 100% detection of Virus Bulletin Wild scanning going back to April 2002 where they had a fail. (Sorry, you have to do a free registration to see all the Virus Bulletin product testing results. They seem to be the most reliable independent source for evaluating your AV products).

My stupid BitDefender has had 3 fails in the last 18 months, and for some lame reason I paid for a 2 year subscription just before their failures started. I was using Kaspersky before that until they had a string of 4 Fails in 2007-8, plus I just don't trust the Russians with my security anymore.

Avira has also had 3 fails in the last 2 years, most recently in June. Norton has passed going back to 1999.