Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
Forum Moderators: bill
Microsoft's New Tool in the Fight Against Malware Free to Consumers [microsoft.com]
Microsoft Security Essentials, Microsoft Corp.'s new no-cost, core anti-malware service that helps protect consumers against viruses, spyware and other malicious software, will be available tomorrow, Tuesday, Sept. 29. Microsoft Security Essentials, independently certified by West Coast Labs, is backed by the company's global security response team and is built on the same award-winning core security technology found in the company's security solutions for businesses. It requires no registration, trials or renewals and will be available for download directly from Microsoft at [microsoft.com...]
This doesn't appear to be available yet, but it's already Tuesday where I am.
I've read very good reports from the beta testing community about this package. It is supposed to be quite easy on system resources, and it isn't as in-your-face with warnings and notifications compared to packages from other vendors.
The tool is widely available now and winning rave reviews:
[arstechnica.com...]Microsoft Security Essentials has one of the simplest and clearest GUIs we've seen for an antimalware solution. This is not something we would call "obtrusive" or "bloated" like many of the security products currently on the market. It may not be the most elegant design, but that's not what one should be looking for in a security solution anyway. An antimalware solution needs to clearly communicate important information when you're using it; barring a need for user response, it should make itself scarce.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:30 pm (utc) on Sep. 30, 2009]
[edit reason] Updated Links [/edit]
Because when you try to download it, it says that if you have other virus protetion, the Microsoft product may get in the way. So I am not sure what to do.
Anything that comes pre installed on any machine has cost the assembler no more than $2.oo or $3.oo to add in ..and so you get what you only just paid for ..:) norton or panda et al are usually pre installed ...Dis them ..buy NOD32 ..and be carefull anyway ..nothing is 100% proof.
So far, I am quite impressed by this product by MS. It installed clean and was fairly system friendly. Nice work MS. I am surprised it took them this long to get one out the door.
Or sent it to some of the more well known "driveby" sites or open a lot of spam ?
IMO thats about the only way it can be field tested for performance ( what it catches .or doesnt ? ) other than what impact it has on machine resources .
I would volunteer :) ( but the only machine I have here that meets the spec and is allowed to connect to "outside" is running XP pro sp3 .. is my wifes .and it's in use til ( I would "hear" if I touched it before ..especially in the interests of "science" ) next monday .
So one would assume that with chrome all bets are off and that your machine was "a poil dans les ronces" ( unclothed in the briar patch ) ..you might want to run a full scan of that machine with MSE and another known real AV ( see my post above ) ..and with chrome switched off ..before you do anything else ..with that machine ..;)
slightly OT> Actually I'm surprised to see that MS lets it play nice with FF ..Mr B getting soft in his old age ..or just trying to shut out G ( any browser ) by branding them as an "unsafe browser" on MS products ..:)
I've used it on machines with other browsers than IE, and it has nailed everything.
I'm not sure about the mail clients though. I don't use any 3rd party e-mail clients. Even if it doesn't proxy email for mail clients other than Outlook & Live, it still has both "on demand" and "on access" scanners. That should catch bad attachments.
The security suite products I'm familiar with include firewall products. MSE doesn't have that, but it is pretty comprehensive for everything else.
Curious omission, unless MS considers that Windows Firewall provides sufficient protection. Does it?
I'd always assumed that the Windows XP Firewall was a temporary firewall that was useful to get you up and running, but ultimately needed to be replaced. I also know that my little Linksys Cable/DSL router (basically NAT) isn't considered to be all that secure by itself, so I think I'd need a software firewall.
I haven't run any software firewall, other than the Windows Firewall, for years. I've never had an issue. However, I do run a hardware firewall on my network and that makes a difference.