Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 Released
Greg writes with this excerpt from Ars Techica: "Following a four-month beta program, Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) 2.0 has been released. The new version significantly revamps the heuristic scanning engine, adds Windows Firewall integration as well as network traffic inspection. The update unquestionably makes MSE, which has already become very popular due to its quiet but effective ways, even more of a must-have for Windows users. MSE has always been very good at finding and removing malware, but it has relied mainly on antimalware definitions. The improved heuristic engine makes it even better at detecting threats; at the same time, we expect the number of false positives to slightly increase as well. The new Windows Firewall integration is a minor improvement: it lets you tweak Microsoft's firewall from inside MSE."
MSE has been a lifesaver at our non profit. We put on all our clients' computers. It's free, works great and best of all, no nag screens to "Upgrade" to the pro version, etc. Nag screens tend to upset our consumers. So yes, It's great.
CDE open sourced! https://sourceforge.net/projects/cdesktopenv/
It seems to be a genuine improvement. I'll definitely be watching for any performance/stability issues before my company deploys it, but it seems like MSE2 is a step in the right direction for Windows security.
I'd expect McAfee and Norton to be much bigger "bulls eye" targets, since they're heavily deployed in corporate environments. MSE isn't.
Just installed it, having the same concern, and am happy to report that the program doesn't look obviously bloated (just some new options for the firewall), and it's consuming about the same amount of RAM as before. On my machine it usually consumed 4600K, and not it's at about 4800K. Not bad at all, really.
Linux desperately needs something like this, or it will never be able to compete on the Desktop.
The problem goes even deeper; there is a serious lack of malware written for Linux. It just isn't profitable enough for malware-developers to target the platform. And mainstream adoption will sadly remain a dream until that changes.
Kudos to MS for showing how it's done.
You might be a troll, but if not, you are certainly over reacting.
I run windows live messenger and pay attention to the install options which allow me to choose *not* to install things like the Bing Search bar.
Really, you should check your install options with any *free* package, any person who just presses next, next, next without reading what they are doing is simply a fool.
Yes, one could argue that it's evil to have such things ticked by default, but in Microsoft's defense, if you are upgrading messenger, it remembers your previously selected install options and will not by default ask you again to install Bing toolbars and stuff.
How's that any different from any other major AV programs? Some viruses shut down AV software. They know how to get most of the major ones, and perhaps all of them (AV software tells Windows it is AV software, they could use the same sort of thing). So unless you want to change all the time to lesser known AV softwares, from companies that you don't know about (and remember that fake AV software is big) then this isn't an issue.
What's more, the power in AV software on a system isn't virus elimination, it is virus prevention. The whole reason to run an AV program all the time, rather than something like a scheduled task, is it scans files as they come in to your computer, as they execute, and so on. So, if a virus tries to sneak in, the AV software can block it. The virus has to chance to do anything to the AV software as it is not running. It is a "position of primacy" sort of thing. Whoever is there first has the advantage as it can stop the other guy at the door. This is also why when a system gets infect, it is sometimes necessary to do an offline scan, boot from a CD or take the HD to a new computer, because the virus can prevent AV software from being loaded since it is already running.
Virus authors try to defeat any and all virus scanners. It is their business to get on systems. MSE has no special place in that. What matters is how well your virus software is able to pick up on them as they come in (and also how fast it runs as to not slow your system down). MSE isn't the best out there, but it is quite good.
There's two processes: The Front end GUI and the backend service (MsMpEng.exe) which usually consumes about 40MB, which is about average for AV products.
I know it doesn't matter when my desktop has 8GB and my nettop has 1GB of RAM, but I'm old enough statements like that make me cringe.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
"Posted as AC so as to not incur the wrath of the Linux Youth."
Not posted AC.
Piss on the Linux Youth. They do for Linux adoption what pedo priests do for Catholic recruiting.
I can't wait until they become the BSD Youth and someone else has the benefit of their enlightened advocacy. :P
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
MSE install fails genuine check on Windows 7 Ultimate and won't even install. Windows is legit and activated and MS website activation passes and says its genuine. Oh well, the good ole trusty M$ quality again...
Cool. Sell the 256MB of expensive DDR1 ram you have, and use it to buy a new netbook.
What happens when >50% of Windows computers are using MSE, will malware be written specifically to bypass it the same way it does for the other major AV players? Is too much success a bad thing?