Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Security Essentials Released; Rivals Mock It

Posted by kdawson on from the free-but-is-it-worth-it dept.

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."

7 of 465 comments (clear)

  1. It's working great for me by mantis2009 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:It's working great for me by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It might not be perfect protection, but if it's going to be used by all the mum and dad users with zero tech skills, then it's a good thing.

      They likely would have never understood why you need to pay a lot for top end protection, nor would they likely have payed for it. This is a nice step between.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:It's working great for me by not+flu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Files don't have human rights.

    3. Re:It's working great for me by KillerBob · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, any anti-virus is better than no anti-virus, but it won't take long before malware authors discover how to circumvent the Microsoft tool.

      Microsoft bought out an antivirus company a couple of years ago. This is simply the rebranding and current version of that company's software.

      And you know that virus-writers have figured out how to circumvent more expensive antivirus programs like McAfee, Norton, and PC-Cillin, right? This is why you update the virus database... so that it detects viruses that can disable your antivirus before they get that chance.

      Give MS a chance. They could actually have stumbled onto a good product, and it could be something that actually helps the world at large.

      I won't be installing it myself, but that's because I'm quite happy with the Avast that I have running. I'll wait for the next report over at av-comparatives before I pass judgement on it. Interesting to note that for the last several reports, several free options have been in the top 5 and occupied the top spot over all. In the latest report (August 2009), AntiVir had a 99.4% trap rate, Avast has a 98.0% trap rate. (Norton and McAfee had 98.7% and 98.4% trap rates, by comparison) But here's the rub... Avast had the lowest false positive rate of any of the top 5 antivirus programs. Norton had almost 3x as many false positives as Avast. AntiVir had more than 4x as many. And McAfee had more than 8x as many false positives. Out of the top 4 antivirus solutions, I'll stick with Avast.

      But they do those tests on a regular basis, and you have no idea how well Microsoft's offering will fare in the next one. It could actually do very well. I wouldn't hold my breath, though... on the most recent testing, while MS's pay-for service tied Avast in false positives, it had a pretty lousy 90% trap rate... Still, that's nowhere near the worst offering out there.

      Anyway... do your research before you decide that something is automatically bad just because it comes from Microsoft. Even if it just ties the other software, a 90% trap rate on viruses is better than a 0% from not having antivirus at all. And suggesting that it won't be long before virus writers figure out how to circumvent the software is completely ignoring the fact that virus writers figured out, a long time ago, how to circumvent commercial offerings like Norton and McAfee, and that hasn't actually hurt their trap rates at all.

      --
      If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
  2. Symantec is a bunch of crap by tjstork · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  3. Since I don't need a graph or pop-ups by earnest+murderer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Microsoft about to kill another industry? by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.