Microsoft Security Essentials

[richc46]

I have just found this article relating valuable information about MSE; installation, features and a review. It should be of interest to all who use MSE and those thinking about switching.
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-...-640587/review

 

[niemiro]

Nice article! Thanks for sharing!

 

[Lorien]

That's a pretty good review (and pretty much sums up why I use it and have since it was released - having previously used PandaSoft - but why pay for something that's just as good if not better and is free) - and I changed the default scan time almost immediately (trying to find a time when the computer is running but I'm away from it which isn't all that often so it frequently runs in the background as I work).

I will say that it doesn't use a lot of resources running in real-time mode or even when doing updates, but when scanning it can use 30-40% CPU at times and that's quite a hit (but not much worse than what I had before or the other products out there that I occasionally use (except for Malwarebytes which doesn't have much impact at all) - and not as exceptional as they claim but usually tolerable unless I have a lot of things open at that time and then things slow to a crawl and I need to cancel the scan to do it when less is happening).

I haven't tested it with real viruses (first I don't have any or know where to get any - and probably don't want to know as I don't need that temptation or to take that risk), but I've run other programs from time-to-time (Malwarebytes and some others that are either free or with free trials - but not Norton or McAfee or any like that that I've seen cause problems and are notoriously difficult to fully remove even with the removal tools) and only Malwarebytes has ever caught anything MSE missed (one was a trojan, but easily removed and did nothing and that was almost a year or more ago so I'm sure it was cleared, and otherwise a few tracking cookies of minimal consequence). MSE has also warned me away from several web sites that otherwise appeared safe (where they offered software that might help someone I was trying to assist) and I took the advise and avoided the site. I'll never know if it was valid or not, but what's the point of having software that provides such warnings if you ignore them (unless you KNOW the site is safe and the warnings are false positives which I didn't know in any of the cases where it occurred).

I also read the few comments after the article where opinions seemed to be that MSE was fine, but there were better choices (and some were even willing to pay for such software claiming it was better). I'd have to say I disagreed with many of them. I don't believe the one who claims he tested in a virtual environment with real viruses and Kaspersky caught 10 that MSE missed - OK, maybe it actually was true but I'd believe that only after seeing those results with my own eyes. In any event, I don't think Kaspersky is a better product and certainly wouldn't pay money to get it over MSE or even some of the other free options. And I flatly disagree that AVG is a better product (or even an equal product) even if it isn't a bad choice - just not the best (and others like Avast and maybe Avira are also better than AVG IMHO).

Thanks for the article, Richard. In my case, it merely confirms that I've already made the right choice and have no intention of changing without good cause.

 

[richc46]

Thank you for your support of MSE. I have solved many BSOD problems that were caused by an anti virus other than MSE.
In fact, when I learned about MSE and uninstalled my free for one year Mcafee, I found 6 Malwares and one Trojan. Thumbs for MSE.

 

[niemiro]

That's a pretty good review (and pretty much sums up why I use it and have since it was released - having previously used PandaSoft - but why pay for something that's just as good if not better and is free) - and I changed the default scan time almost immediately (trying to find a time when the computer is running but I'm away from it which isn't all that often so it frequently runs in the background as I work).

I will say that it doesn't use a lot of resources running in real-time mode or even when doing updates, but when scanning it can use 30-40% CPU at times and that's quite a hit (but not much worse than what I had before or the other products out there that I occasionally use (except for Malwarebytes which doesn't have much impact at all) - and not as exceptional as they claim but usually tolerable unless I have a lot of things open at that time and then things slow to a crawl and I need to cancel the scan to do it when less is happening).

I haven't tested it with real viruses (first I don't have any or know where to get any - and probably don't want to know as I don't need that temptation or to take that risk), but I've run other programs from time-to-time (Malwarebytes and some others that are either free or with free trials - but not Norton or McAfee or any like that that I've seen cause problems and are notoriously difficult to fully remove even with the removal tools) and only Malwarebytes has ever caught anything MSE missed (one was a trojan, but easily removed and did nothing and that was almost a year or more ago so I'm sure it was cleared, and otherwise a few tracking cookies of minimal consequence). MSE has also warned me away from several web sites that otherwise appeared safe (where they offered software that might help someone I was trying to assist) and I took the advise and avoided the site. I'll never know if it was valid or not, but what's the point of having software that provides such warnings if you ignore them (unless you KNOW the site is safe and the warnings are false positives which I didn't know in any of the cases where it occurred).

I also read the few comments after the article where opinions seemed to be that MSE was fine, but there were better choices (and some were even willing to pay for such software claiming it was better). I'd have to say I disagreed with many of them. I don't believe the one who claims he tested in a virtual environment with real viruses and Kaspersky caught 10 that MSE missed - OK, maybe it actually was true but I'd believe that only after seeing those results with my own eyes. In any event, I don't think Kaspersky is a better product and certainly wouldn't pay money to get it over MSE or even some of the other free options. And I flatly disagree that AVG is a better product (or even an equal product) even if it isn't a bad choice - just not the best (and others like Avast and maybe Avira are also better than AVG IMHO).

Thanks for the article, Richard. In my case, it merely confirms that I've already made the right choice and have no intention of changing without good cause.

Just another thought about that Virtual Machine test. If MSE installs itself further down the Winsock than Kasperky, then Kaspersky will scan the file first. It then deletes it, and MSE never gets to see it, and as such, Kaspersky gets all of the credit. There is nothing wrong about installing further down the stack, it is no less secure, and can be caused by no more than the install order of the two programs. This is what I think has happened. The tester has waited for both programs to flag up the test file, but without realising that some anti-malware programs work on the Winsock level, and require the previous program to pass the file onto it, ie get Kaspersky to ignore the threat, and see if MSE picks it up now. Therefore, I think that MSE did miss these 10 viruses, but that it was the test that was at fault. Make sense?

Not all anti-malware programs work like this, and this is only part of the story. They now use drivers, but the point above still applies if Kaspersky sweeps it into Quarantine first, so that the user can decide to move it back, or leave be (in the Quarantine box) then MSE still will not see it.

 

[richc46]

I think the true worth of an Anti Virus depends on the defintions used and the timliness of their availability
In additon to the above, resources used should be an important consideration.