Microsoft Security Essentials

P

polonyc2

Fully [H]
2FA
Joined
Oct 25, 2004
Messages
30,553
my subscription recently ran out for Kaspersky and I decided to give MSE a try...very lightweight...I hear it doesn't detect all of the viruses/malware that the paid products do but it does fine with the major ones...I'm thinking of keeping MSE and using it with 64-bit IE10 with ActiveX Filtering enabled and calling it a day...good idea?

anyone have any experience/impressions of MSE?
 
Other freeware AV apps do better on detections (Avast and Avira especially).

MSE is better than nothing. I would not use solely MSE and call it a day, because I've seen too many systems with a fully updated MSE come in infected. It stops some threats, but not all.

In the least, run a moderately secure browser setup and use something like OpenDNS and you'll probably be in pretty good shape (or at least, 'good enough' shape).
 
I use MSE on some computers/laptops. Used with a Malwarebytes AntiMalware free, scan every couple weeks as a precaution (the free version does not autoscan) has worked well enough.
Malwarebytes seems to catch cookies with malware MSE does not. I've also used Malwarebytes to rescue other peoples computers with viruses,

Odd timing, Microsoft just admitted they do not spend the effort on MSE they should. You just missed getting Kaspersky from newegg 1 yr 3 pcs $30 (a week ago?).
 
MSE used to be very good...it is now crap. Get something else and keep Malwarebytes loaded on it for WHEN you get infected.
 
I know MSE does not have the best detection rates hence the reason I thought running IE10 in Enhanced Protected Mode (64-bit) plus having ActiveX Filtering enabled plus careful browsing would compensate somewhat...I was not using any AV at all for a few months and things were fine (I used only Sandboxie then)
 
Microsoft Security Essentials is not as aggressive about detection as other anti-virus software. This is okay, though, because MSE also has essentially zero false positives (it doesn't use odd-ball detection heuristics in the hope of catching anything and everything that ever does something on your computer) and is extremely lightweight.

Of course, using Microsoft Security Essentials and only logging in with a standard user account will be orders of magnitude more secure than using one of those chubby 3rd party AVs and logging in as an admin with UAC disabled. People who do the latter need the extra aggressiveness, because they're foolishly letting everything on their computer run as an admin.

Your AV software is the least significant/least important security practice. It's good to have one, but having the best one around isn't going to make up for doing something idiotic for everything else.
 
All the people that say keep Mbam for when you do get infected.

How about you pay $15-25 for the licensed version of it, and instead of
fixing an infection it'll stop it for you.

Seriously, its a one time, never pay again license, there's no reason not to own it.
If for no other reason, scheduled scanning and the website blocker that works so awesome
I can't describe it. My gf is a coupon freak and sometimes goes clicking flashing shit, I've
watched mbam actively railroad her desire to click no matter how many times she tries ;)
 
MSE for full time + realtime, Trend Micro Housecall for when I feel like doing something a bit more thorough.
 
Maybe people are downloading too many torrents......but I only use MSE....and nothing before it....and don't have issues.
 
Has anyone done a test with the SCCM Endpoint Protection vs normal MSE?
Endpoint Protection has done a pretty good job on our computers. I've always thought that it was the standard Essentials client but with a managed head, but I wonder if SCCM EP would fair better in those tests.
 
thebufenator said:
Maybe people are downloading too many torrents......but I only use MSE....and nothing before it....and don't have issues.
Click to expand...

Or downloading torrents without checking the comments to see if others have been infected.

MBAM and MSE user here. Haven't gotten infected in years and years, and I turn off the nagware UAC warnings. These days getting a Windows install infected and hosed says far more about the user than it says about anything else.
 
Skripka said:
Haven't gotten infected in years and years, and I turn off the nagware UAC warnings.
Click to expand...

If you had even the most basic understanding of software you'd know that 'nagware' is absolutely the wrong word for UAC.

UAC is not merely a prompt. It manages security authorization tokens, and also has some very important 'registry/file' virtualization. Calling UAC nagware is literally no different than calling sudo nagware. UAC is used to enforce the principle of least privilege. Any application, by default, receives a standard user token when UAC is enabled. This is good. This is what people who have even the faintest idea of security want to have happen. It is nearly impossible to do anything particularly harmful without admin privileges. Thus, you only want applications which you know need them to run with them. If an admin token is needed, it will ask the user for permission before allowing it to elevate. Additionally, when something doesn't receive admin credentials, UAC can make registry and file changes 'appear' to have succeeded, even though they didn't. The result is that malicious software doesn't even know that it's attempt to overwrite google in the hosts file, etc., weren't successful, so the malicious software doesn't make any attempt to circumvent the problem.

Turning UAC off results in every application you run to be given the administrative token, which is effectively like logging into a Linux computer as root. It's a very foolish thing to do. It's the year 2013. Nobody uses admin privileges to browse the web and read emails anymore.
 
polonyc2 said:
my subscription recently ran out for Kaspersky and I decided to give MSE a try...very lightweight...I hear it doesn't detect all of the viruses/malware that the paid products do but it does fine with the major ones...I'm thinking of keeping MSE and using it with 64-bit IE10 with ActiveX Filtering enabled and calling it a day...good idea?

anyone have any experience/impressions of MSE?
Click to expand...
The memory commit size is comparable to other products. Most AV products, if not all, have moved away from the heavily bloated nature that they were several years ago, even Norton, which was notorious for being bloated and slow. MSE does do a very good job at not slowing down system performance. It ranks towards the top in that regard.

As for it's detection rate, MSE is heavily based on signature detection which means it has almost zero false positives. However, that also means it does a very poor job against zero day malware. For well known malware the detection rate is low 90's percent range, which is average vs other products.

One component that MSE doesn't have, but that is incredibly useful, is http/port 80 scanning. Two products I use at work and home are Kaspersky and Avast, both which have the web/port 80 scanner. The majority of malware is blocked here before it even hits the system. MSE does include a network inspection system, but it's not the same. Network inspection and web/port 80 inspection are two different network layers. The Windows 8 version of MSE (Windows Defender) does not include Network Inspection at all (I've heard 8.1 does?).

If you are a typically smart web browser and do not get malware, MSE is fine. If you want something to protect grandma's computer you may want something better.

I'm not sure why you believe IE x64 and ActiveX filtering are going to provide any level of protection other than preventing memory buffer attacks and preventing crap add-ons. DEP is enabled by default for IE 32 bit as well. I just don't want you believe there's a lot of protection here. A significant amount of malware is installed through web links, ads, or is inadvertently downloaded and installed. Most of which will not be prevented on x64 browser. I'm not saying x64 IE isn't better, I just think it's only better by a negligible amount. Even with Windows x86 vs x64, there's only a little bit of difference, about 2% (here and here)

Check out this site to view the comparisons AV products.
 
Last edited:
I use MSE on customer installs and small business. Very good results. No worse than paid alternatives such as Norton, McAfee, ESET.
AV is not a magic bullet or talisman- it is most effective as part of a layered security approach. If you remove layers, you remove protection.
 
stiltner said:
All the people that say keep Mbam for when you do get infected.

How about you pay $15-25 for the licensed version of it, and instead of
fixing an infection it'll stop it for you.

Seriously, its a one time, never pay again license, there's no reason not to own it.
If for no other reason, scheduled scanning and the website blocker that works so awesome
I can't describe it. My gf is a coupon freak and sometimes goes clicking flashing shit, I've
watched mbam actively railroad her desire to click no matter how many times she tries ;)
Click to expand...

No kidding...but how many people are going to pay for it? I gave up trying to convince people years ago.
 
RocketTech said:
I use MSE on customer installs and small business. Very good results. No worse than paid alternatives such as Norton, McAfee, ESET.
AV is not a magic bullet or talisman- it is most effective as part of a layered security approach. If you remove layers, you remove protection.
Click to expand...

Actually the latest comparison results show that yes it is worse, by quite a bit. I no longer recommend it.
 
pcjunkie said:
No kidding...but how many people are going to pay for it? I gave up trying to convince people years ago.
Click to expand...

TBH, I found the payware license of limited use. The freebie license is just as good IMHO.

pcjunkie said:
Actually the latest comparison results show that yes it is worse, by quite a bit. I no longer recommend it.
Click to expand...



"Worse", except that all the other solutions might have better detection rates....but are resource hogs either in eating storage or RAM or in hogging CPU time or all of the above, and most are payware, and if you don't pay up the nag popups are never ending.
 
Skripka said:
TBH, I found the payware license of limited use. The freebie license is just as good IMHO.





"Worse", except that all the other solutions might have better detection rates....but are resource hogs either in eating storage or RAM or in hogging CPU time or all of the above, and most are payware, and if you don't pay up the nag popups are never ending.
Click to expand...

I'd rather have it use up a few more resources than getting a call so now I have to go clean it out and waste a couple hours. And many of the other AV programs are much better now at using less resources.
 
bigdogchris said:
I'm not sure why you believe IE x64 and ActiveX filtering are going to provide any level of protection other than preventing memory buffer attacks and preventing crap add-ons. DEP is enabled by default for IE 32 bit as well. I just don't want you believe there's a lot of protection here. A significant amount of malware is installed through web links, ads, or is inadvertently downloaded and installed. Most of which will not be prevented on x64 browser. I'm not saying x64 IE isn't better, I just think it's only better by a negligible amount. Even with Windows x86 vs x64, there's only a little bit of difference, about 2% (here and here)

Check out this site to view the comparisons AV products.
Click to expand...

enabling ActiveX filtering is huge...it blocks all ActiveX content on websites (but allows you to run it selectively on sites you trust)...so all Flash content is disabled along with a lot of ads (which is where a lot of potential malware comes from)...running a Standard User account also helps...I think MSE is great for people who are already diligent with their browsing habits
 
pcjunkie said:
I'd rather have it use up a few more resources than getting a call so now I have to go clean it out and waste a couple hours. And many of the other AV programs are much better now at using less resources.
Click to expand...

Workplaces are one thing...but for home or personal machines, MSE is where I draw the line at "good enough". Work machines should probably have Deep Freeze or similar on them anyway, less hassle to just DF the system image than it is to *attempt* to clean a system infected already.
 
Skripka said:
Workplaces are one thing...but for home or personal machines, MSE is where I draw the line at "good enough". Work machines should probably have Deep Freeze or similar on them anyway, less hassle to just DF the system image than it is to *attempt* to clean a system infected already.
Click to expand...

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403986,00.asp

Microsoft Security Essentials detected 63 percent of the threats, lower than any product tested with the current or previous set of malware samples. It left behind executable files for more than half of those it did detect, and several of them were still running after their alleged removal. Its overall score of 4.3 points for malware cleanup is the lowest of any current product.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, I've noticed MSE does not fare well in arenas where advertising is sold to other AV software. The reviews seem to weight areas MSE does not offer functionality, like constant pop-ups, search bars, rescue disk, etc. In my experience, MSE is more than adequate, and I stand behind it with a money-back guarantee. I've had occasion to run across virtually every AV product and can say I've seen malware get by every single one.
I don't trust PCmag for printer reviews, much less AV software. MS has gone on record about their perceived deficiencies, such as not reporting threats that are not found in the wild or are stopped by a properly configured computer. Why are you worried about a boot virus when NTFS partitions are all but immune to boot viruses?
If you don't want to roll to a customer when malware gets by the A/M software, what do you do when the A/M software borks an install or prevents needed updates?
There are plenty of alternatives to MSE, I believe Avira is the top desktop A/M software at the moment in terms of detection and prevention. Pick what suits you best; their are trials out there for most.
Please don't spread FUD.
 
Skripka said:
My stand is, that if your machine is so vulnerable thanks to user stupidity that MSE won't be adequate...you probably need to DeepFreeze the image. Because there are lots of morons that'll click and install anything out there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, unless your an enterprise company with lots of $$ to spend on extra snapshot security then good luck with that. Most users ARE stupid enough to click on stuff...your only point is only that your too stubborn to look at something better, even its free.

PS: you going to purchase DF for all your friends and family as well?
 
pcjunkie said:
Yeah, unless your an enterprise company with lots of $$ to spend on extra snapshot security then good luck with that. Most users ARE stupid enough to click on stuff...your only point is only that your too stubborn to look at something better, even its free.

PS: you going to purchase DF for all your friends and family as well?
Click to expand...

I refuse to be tech support for anyone I'm not paid in cash to be. Why don't you?
 
Still running MSE with MBAM weekly scans. I bought my MBAM off EGG when it was $9.99. Don't mind paying some money out to people like that at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top