Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Security Essentials Released; Rivals Mock It
Bimal writes "After a short three-month beta program, Microsoft is officially releasing Microsoft Security Essentials, its free, real-time consumer anti-malware solution for fighting viruses, spyware, rootkits, and Trojans. MSE is available for Windows XP 32-bit, Windows Vista/7 32-bit, and Windows Vista/7 64-bit. 'Ars puts MSE through its paces and finds an unobtrusive app with a clean interface that protected us in the dark corners of the Internet.' The software received positive notes when in beta, including a nod from the independent testing group AV-Test." But reader CWmike notes that Symantec is trash-talking Microsoft's free offering. Jens Meggers, Symantec's vice president of engineering, dismissed MSE as a "poor product" that will "never be up to snuff." Meggers added, "Microsoft has a really bad track record in security." The GM of Trend Micro's consumer division sniffed, "It's better to use something than to use nothing, but you get what you pay for."
Doesn't bug, silent updates, fast scans, no noticeable performance hit. I can finally get my parents off of their annoying Norton or whatever they paid $50 to use for 12 months.
Sorry to throw Symantec under the bus, but the AV program and AV mentality that they have created amounts to a CPU tax. We don't have 4 core machines, we have 3 cores plus for one for Symantec, which manages to have the deadlock everything while it scans a single file.
This is my sig.
And what, use a fresh drive image every time you boot up the virtual machine?
It's still the same problem except it's possible to detect virtual rootkits from the host OS.
Please, please. Symantec offers an "expensive product" that has managed to sink further away from the figurative snuff as time goes on...
To tell me it's working, it sounds like pretty much the best thing out there.
When the CEO of your competition derides your product publicly, you know it's got to be good shit.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
I've used Avast Antivirus (free), Malwarebytes Anti-Malware (free) and Comodo Firewall (free) for a couple of years now. I've never had a virus and various other types of malware are promptly and efficiently dealt with.
Trust the inventors of Windows Genuine Advantage with my security? Or freakin' Symantec? I won't bore you with the horrible, hellish experience of getting Norton Antivirus off my machine. It was harder to get rid of than the virus it failed to catch.
Fat chance. I'll stay with something that works, thank you very much.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
I see. So you want to explain to my parents why their data went away and, no, I can't get it back without spending a few hours implementing a rigorous and thorough virtual infrastructure on their home computer?
Symantec? Ha! I would rather have nothing at all than Norton products. They are bloated resource hogs, and any script kiddie's concoction can disable them. People who know nothing about computers, but still own one for their work or their kids' school buy Norton crap purely on name recognition. All they are buying is a false sense of security.
The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
Using Windows inside a VM makes removing dangerous stuff like rootkits easy (e.g. by simply falling back to a snapshot).
But if someone catches a trojan and then directly heads for his bank website to do some transfers, the VM doesn't do shit to protect him. Same goes for worms, spambots and all the other crazy stuff. As long as the VM is running, they are as dangerous as ever. Telling people by running stuff in VMs makes them immune to threats just gives a false sense of security.
You know a product is good if competitors start shaking in their boots running to government agencies for protections!
If that were the case, IE would be the best browser ever made. :)
You DO know that they're scared, though, if they have to trash it like this. You _should_ be scared if Microsoft enters your segment with a free product. It may not be the best, but that's never stopped Microsoft from crushing competitors in the past.
Execuse me if I'm missing something here but shouldn't they fix the security holes to prevent the problem in the first place?
You want MS to block everyone's access to shady porn sites?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
You are implying that these viruses/spyware aren't being installed by people clicking 'Yes' to "Do you want to run setup.exe from codecs.xxx_teens.com" prompts.
This 'hole' will never be closed. The only option is to develop software which scans for and intercepts these installs for people that can't make an informed judgement for themselves. (i.e 90% of computer users).
I.O.U One Sig.
Lots of humourless Microsoft shills here today. The "Uninstall Windows"-posts aren't trolls, there attempts at being funny. Lighten up for once. To be slightly on topic: I'd trust neither Norton nor Microsoft with the security on my systems, but if it actually does protect people and doesn't get in the way for the users, it's all the better.
-- Linux user #369862
According to the Ars Technica link in the summary, MSE is a superset of Windows Defender, to the point where the MSE installer will disable Windows Defender completely if detected.
As for the single core issue, quite possible. I noticed for example that Vista's Windows automatic update detection check utilized 100% CPU of my (then) single-core machine for several seconds, affecting performance considerably. But when I moved to a dual-core, the effect was completely unnoticeable. Seems as if single-core is no longer considered when testing software performance and impact on the rest of the system.
Quaterdeck had a business model based on selling software to fill a temporary gap in technology from a vendor. MS didn't have anything to do with killing them, there own lack of foresight is what did them in. both memmaker and Qemm died because they were no longer required.
Long ago, we had Norton Antivirus for Windows 95. I guess this was when online updates were a new thing. The box said something like "never buy antivirus software again!" and boasted about how it would always be updated and current. Then one day it stopped updating. Our reply from the customer support people was "this product is no longer supported". They told us we had to buy the new version. Let them die.
Could you provide a link for this which involves a "serious" anti-virus company (Norton/McAfee/Kaspersky/BitDefender etc.) and an actual released to the field piece of malware. "There are cases" could include the "anti-virus" packages advertised via online ads which actually are malware.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
Never let anyone over the age of 40 use Windows. They don't need the latest games so there is no reason to do so and the ease of management you'll get by putting them on Ubuntu will be massive.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
What security hole? There is no security hole involved when someone downloads a file and executes it. You're confused or disingenuous.
You're a retard. You haven't used the product but you _know_ it sucks. Right.
Opinion: Dismissed.
It's the past as well. As you might recall, MS-DOS 6 included a virus scanner.
Pretty good is actually pretty bad.
Actually they are just trash talking MS in the true spirit of corporate competition. It is like brushing teeth in the morning for them. You are not taken seriously as a competitor if you don't issue some form of short press conference where you can say how bad everything but your own products is.
The truth is, through my "fixing" of countless laptops ridden with Symantec products, I can honestly say, disregarding their security track record, I despise and resent their products as much as I ever could. Large, monolithic but with 10 services to get rid of, poorly uninstalling or not uninstalling at all, horrible user interfaces - at least Microsoft products are benign compared to Symantec, use FAR FEWER resources to the point where you don't notice them (but they still do the job), have usually quite well designed GUIs and remove themselves without question. Thing is, Microsoft has different divisions, and clearly divisions that work on Windows Defender, Windows OneCare Live, and now Windows Security Essentials are, by evidence, not the same division that work on builtin Windows security, although situation seems to be improving on the latter.
Symantec and those corporate benemoths have been preying on customer fear for malware, and feeding us crap for more than ten years now. There was once Peter Norton and his Norton Commander, ever since that it went downhill with all things related to him and his company. Symantec has a lot of fat around the waist now. And they are afraid Microsoft is onto them.
The whole anti-virus industry is kind of like a dysfunctional family sitcom, with Microsoft as the wacky uncle whose crazy antics ironically bring in new customers for the family business by the end of every episode. Every other season the crazy uncle threatens to leave and the kids go nuts trying to convince him he can't make it without them, but everyone knows he's going to be back by next season's premiere. This story arc is no different.
The funniest episodes are when the kids go out and try and pitch woo. They seem to think that everyone else is crazy as "Uncle Mike" and leave a trail of property damage all over town as they fail to convince Apple and Palm and everyone else that their nutty schemes are JUST what they need for success.