×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 Released

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the if-you-must-use-windows dept.

Microsoft 175

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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

175 comments

good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608374)

good!

better! (1, Troll)

dmbasso (1052166) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608728)

Even better to be without malware for 10 years now! Thanks Debian and Ubuntu!

Re:better! (0, Troll)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610480)

Even better to be without malware for 10 years now! Thanks Debian and Ubuntu!

Why the Troll mod?

If you take a step back, the whole idea of needing (CPU, $ expensive) external programs like virus checkers and firewalls to protect your OS is ridiculous. Microsoft should be deeply ashamed that such a massive industry has grown up around their failure to build a secure OS.

Maybe if they paid more attention to their engineers and less to their reputation managers, they wouldn't need to manipulate social networks and tech sites.

Re:good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608870)

But it requires a little bit of malware called Microsoft Genuine Advantage to be installed first. I chose not do to this, so I can't use MSE.

Re:good (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609146)

Sure you can, just get it from Ninite [ninite.com] and off you go. Of course if you are running a pirated version of Windows it won't work even without WGA, since it will call home on first run, which is when I guess it'll go ahead and check your key. You ARE running a legal copy and not just being a filthy pirate, yes MR AC? Anyway I've checked and no WGA on my XP machine, so if it is a principle thing no worries.

As for TFA, allow me to throw a couple of extra letters and say BS. I just run the update check on BOTH WinXP and Windows 7 X64 and both find new updates to the scanning defs but do NOT update to 2.0. So I'll wait until tomorrow and if it still doesn't update I guess I'll have to do the old fashioned uninstall and reinstall bit.

Personally I like it for myself, as I know I'm just going to places like /. and checking my email. Whereas with my waaaay too click happy customers who may or may not be searching for the pron I prefer Comodo Internet Security, which while being a little more talkative during the learning phase has an excellent sandbox with file and registry virtualization. If you have those kinds of people that can pick up more viruses than a Bangkok Whore I heartily recommend Comodo. It actually uses less RAM than MSE, especially during scanning, which you would think since MSE does less than Comodo would be the opposite. Oh well, I have gobs of RAM and like the fact that MSE never asks me shit, especially when I'm typing, which is when Comodo seems to think is a good time for a nice chat.

Re:good (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610240)

Presumably, Comodo doesn't care if Windows is pirated? (

I ask not for me, I only use linux, but for friends who are filthy windows pirates whom I still fail to ditch as non-paying computer support customers.(I think I will teach them about google next time I'm called upon.))

Nice and Easy (5, Interesting)

christurkel (520220) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608450)

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.

Re:Nice and Easy (5, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608482)

Of course, it should nag you to update off IE 6.0...

Re:Nice and Easy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608868)

Of course, it should nag you to update off IE 6.0...

Old, DEAD joke. If I had mod points (and I usually do), I would mod you down for being a TROLL.

Re:Nice and Easy (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34610414)

No it shouldn't, since MSE only runs on XP and above and IE7 and 8 were automatically pushed out via Windows Update to OS's that supported beyond IE6, which is XP and above. That is unless you knew about and employed the blocking tool for these updates. So for MSE to nag about IE6 would be inappropriate on an internal LAN, and pointless for someone who's turned off updates or is intentionally running unsafe.

Re:Nice and Easy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608964)

MSE is not free, it is only free for individuals and not for companies.

Re:Nice and Easy (4, Informative)

datapharmer (1099455) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609050)

Actually that isn't true. It is also available to small businesses on up to 10 computers. Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be anything between the free 10 SMB licenses and forefront licensing which is insanely expensive for small business.

Re:Nice and Easy (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609174)

Hmm... from what I could find it starts at $8.64 US per user or per device, per year and goes DOWN from there. How is that "insanely expensive"?

http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/endpoint-protection/en/us/pricing-licensing.aspx

Re:Nice and Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609160)

It's really great, I'm not sure how long 3rd part antivirus can survive, especially when this is free.

Re:Nice and Easy (1)

ocdscouter (1922930) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610336)

It's really great, I'm not sure how long 3rd part antivirus can survive, especially when this is free.

There's always marketing and brand loyalty.

Re:Nice and Easy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609310)

no nag screens to "Upgrade" to the pro version, etc
 
Wait until the alternatives die off...

Re:Nice and Easy (1)

gravyface (592485) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609368)

It really is a nice product. During a recent "outbreak" of Conficker (all machines were patched thankfully and not vulnerable), AVG did jack, MSE cleaned it up immediately. We're moving away from AVG for all deployments; too many missed viruses (see, "Every Fake Antivirus in the wild since 2009").

ok on 8 year old laptops? (2)

FuckingNickName (1362625) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608474)

We have loads scattered around for rdp clients / light browsing w/ XP and MSE 1 has been great. Is MSE 2 under XP more of a hog/same/faster?

Re:ok on 8 year old laptops? (4, Informative)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608524)

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.

Re:ok on 8 year old laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608748)

I use MSE on many of my systems. And the ability to to be used in a business environment is great if you have 10 or fewer systems. Anybody have any suggestions for a good solution on SBS 2003 besides Symantec or Forefront? WSUS is not on this server, and is not an option so whatever would have to auto update at the client only side.

Re:ok on 8 year old laptops? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608624)

How is the resource usage of MSE? I've been thinking about giving it a try out of curiousity, but avast! is really good on not using up my RAM and CPU (currently at 8MB and barely ever touches the CPU with active scanning and heuristics detection enabled).

Re:ok on 8 year old laptops? (2)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608922)

MSE is the best I've ever used in terms of resource usage. If you don't know its there, it's honestly hard to notice.

Re:ok on 8 year old laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609498)

Thanks. I'll give it a go.

Re:ok on 8 year old laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34610302)

Its pretty good. I run NOD32 on just about everything, in part because its so lean. I run MSE on my netbook and on an old Celeron I use for watching movies, etc. I just didn't feel like buying yet another license, so figured I'd give it a try. To be honest, I'm pretty impressed with it. It doesn't nag the hell out of you, and you barely notice its impact on system resources.

Re:ok on 8 year old laptops? (1)

chromozone (847904) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610188)

I put it on a netbook with Win 7 Stater and its pretty lean. I saw most netbook users in my forum recommending it as well (and they usually advise Avira or something like that for bigger computers).

Re:ok on 8 year old laptops? (1)

falsified (638041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610204)

My (mid-range) laptop is only a year old, but I can say that I notice no difference between MSE 2 and MSE 1 for speed, either while scanning or while lurking in the background. So, I'd say go for it.

Great news! But... (-1, Offtopic)

BartholomewBernsteyn (1720348) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608490)

I suppose that either I'm out of luck using Ubuntu
or did anyone manage to make it run under Wine yet?

Re:Great news! But... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608540)

All right! Obligatory, apropos-of-nothing Ubuntu post appeared sooner than normal! Posted as AC so as to not incur the wrath of the Linux Youth.

Re:Great news! But... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608704)

This++. I wish I could mod you up, but someone would obviously just mod me down.

Re:Great news! But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608856)

I have mod points, but now I don't know which way to use them. Great, thanks... :-( ;-)

Re:Great news! But... (4, Funny)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609458)

"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

Re:Great news! But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608792)

AproposOfNothingUbuntuGuy(TM)

v2 has been giving me crashes. (1)

Zelgadiss (213127) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608526)

First I want to say I love the first version of MSE.

Light weight, no nagging, and for most part just stays out of the way.

The new version seems more of the same, except it's been freezing my PC since I upgraded yesterday. I currently have it un-installed to see it's the problem, and so far my PC is rock solid like it has always been.

Any ideas or suggestions? I'm "flying blind" right now.

PS: don't ask me to install Linux (it seems more trouble than it's worth half the time, no offence) or get a mac (I'm broke)

Re:v2 has been giving me crashes. (1, Funny)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608566)

Go get a Mac and install Linux on it.

Really though, have you tried a fresh download and a new install?

Re:v2 has been giving me crashes. (1)

Zelgadiss (213127) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608678)

Yupe.

After a couple of crashes+restarts from the upgrade, I redownloaded, uninstalled followed by fresh re-install.

I even upgraded my video drivers - the crashes I have been getting involves my screen just totally freezing (mouse cursor still works though; just can't click anything), similar to the ones I get during WoW when I use to play it.

Maybe I will reinstall in a week or so, see if anything changes.

Re:v2 has been giving me crashes. (1)

VinylPusher (856712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608574)

I do hope I don't get to work tomorrow to find MSE has updated itself to V2.

I'm in the process of taking over responsibility of our entire IT and it's a nightmare of mis-matched, outdated hardware and utterly pathetic security policies (lack thereof). There are Win 2000 machines on the network with no AV installed and there are XP machines with MSE installed, a terminal services server (Win 2008, the 'Vista' version) with AVG on it.

Oh, and the company I work for is an insurance broker. Security somewhat essential.

Re:v2 has been giving me crashes. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608634)

Well, you could just report them to the BSA and get it overwith...

It is not licensed for companies bigger than 10 employees or some such..

Re:v2 has been giving me crashes. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609686)

utterly pathetic security policies (lack thereof). There are Win 2000 machines on the network with no AV installed ...company I work for is an insurance broker. Security somewhat essential.

Emphasis on the somewhat. There are no data protection standards or laws in the US insurance sector? In EU the relevant regulations kick in as soon as you have created a registry of personal information in any context..

Re:v2 has been giving me crashes. (1)

VinylPusher (856712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610222)

I'm not in the US. Also, sarcasm.

Not only am I going to look after their IT, I'm going to be jointly responsible for writing and enforcing their compliance policy.

Personal data is currently secured by dint of everyone using Remote Desktop to get into the Win 2008 server, where the full-on policy, claims, accounting and document management software resides. They're still going through a transition to this new software, away from a Citrix Metaframe accessible remote provider (which was utterly debilitating, having only been provisioned with 1Mb of access bandwidth and some clearly overtasked servers on the other end).

Unfortunately, the incumbent 3rd-party IT support company fail to recognise any of the already problematic malware attack vectors. The main one being that people are using the RDP shortcut from personal laptops with no control whatsoever. I took on the role a little over 1 full week ago and already there have been 2 instances of laptop users bringing in malware resulting from their home internet activity. My real job is explaining to the directors the why's and how's of this being a really bad idea.

Oh, and the Win 2008 server hasn't even got BitLocker switched on.

Re:v2 has been giving me crashes. (1)

bcmm (768152) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608816)

it's been freezing my PC since I upgraded yesterday

don't ask me to install Linux (it seems more trouble than it's worth half the time, no offence)

Heh.

WHO CARES? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608584)

seriously?

Re:WHO CARES? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608810)

Yeah, what does this have to do with Wikileaks?

But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608590)

...will it run on Linux?

Re:But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608604)

More people than run linux.

Re:But... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608778)

Who knows?

Very few people here actually run linux, they just say so to fit in.

Security by inception (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608594)

Leonardo DiCaprio, think about that for a second.

Did you feel the magic in his eyes, straddling over the table, saying "I've come back for you, to remind you, something....something you once knew..."

Now, do you feel this inceptive magic in MSE 2.0?

No you don't.

MSE is a perception, designed to lure you into a imaginary forte.

You know it is true.

Now, what you need is two strong eyes. A real insurance that you will be safe.

This is exactly what Leonardo can give you.

too much of a target (0, Troll)

Dzimas (547818) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608646)

My biggest concern about MSE is that it's released by Microsoft. That makes it a natural target for malware and virus authors -- there's a certain credibility to be earned by writing software that defeats security protection by The Man. I'd prefer to run a less common (but equally effective) anti-virus suite that won't attract as much attention from the black hats. As it is, running MSE 2.0 feels a bit like pinning a big bulls eye target sign on my back.

Re:too much of a target (3, Insightful)

Shados (741919) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608658)

I'd expect McAfee and Norton to be much bigger "bulls eye" targets, since they're heavily deployed in corporate environments. MSE isn't.

Re:too much of a target (-1, Offtopic)

Frosty Piss (770223) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608884)

My biggest concern about MSE is that it's released by Microsoft.

I read no more, your post is a troll. It does not relate in any way to the actual product, which has been well recieved, and is in fact no more that a mindless Micro$oft Hate post with no real value.

Re:too much of a target (2)

Tridus (79566) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608946)

You're running Windows, so you're already a big target. Do you really want to try to find something that will go below the radar, or do you want to use what works? MSE is quite good at what it does.

Ummmm (4, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608954)

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.

Let the bloating begin...? (1)

snugge (229110) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608688)

let's hope they dont screw this little gem up.

Re:Let the bloating begin...? (4, Informative)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608752)

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.

Re:Let the bloating begin...? (2)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608830)

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.

Re:Let the bloating begin...? (4, Funny)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608992)

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.

Re:Let the bloating begin...? (2)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609880)

Which is a shame if you're trying to keep an old system going for someone for simple web browsing. The AV can place the biggest RAM burden on a system with only 256MB RAM (more than the OS or browser). Of course slashdot's favorite answer is "Install Linux". But most full desktop distros like Ubuntu are too bloated for such old hardware as well.

Re:Let the bloating begin...? (0)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610114)

Why? You can get a brand new netbook for under $300, and that has 1GB of ram and 160GB drive, and runs windows 7.

Re:Let the bloating begin...? (1)

VinylPusher (856712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610258)

DDR1 RAM is expensive. Many machines still use it.

The answer isn't always 'just buy a cheap ', especially when someone is short of cash but has an old PC in the loft.

Re:Let the bloating begin...? (4, Funny)

KingMotley (944240) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610406)

Cool. Sell the 256MB of expensive DDR1 ram you have, and use it to buy a new netbook.

Re:Let the bloating begin...? (1)

falsified (638041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610256)

Worth noting that MsMpEng is truly just "sitting there", unlike Norton or McAfee (or even the good guys like Avast) where there's random, unneeded churn. The only time so far I've seen it have any CPU usage was when I tried to close it with Task Manager and MSE popped up a warning asking me to restart the service.

Clippy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609004)

Now Clippy jumps up, unfolds, and pokes you in the butt and says "It looks like you've been infected. Would you like me to brick your CPU?"

Cannot find MS malwares (-1, Troll)

vibrunazo (1929992) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608766)

There's a serious problem on MSE. What happens is that the MS's Messenger installer and windows updates will sneakily replace your firefox's default search engine with bing instead of Google. Without user consent. Which is where most of bing's page views come from in the first place. If you google this issue you'll find tons of people complaining bing took over their firefox out of nowhere.

So by definition, MSFT's Messenger adn system updates are malwares. But Microsoft Essentials won't detect Microsoft's own malware. Just a little bit biased one would say. Can we trust the anti-virus of a virus making company?

Re:Cannot find MS malwares (1)

Daltorak (122403) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608916)

What happens is that the MS's Messenger installer and windows updates will sneakily replace your firefox's default search engine with bing instead of Google.

[citation needed]

I recently installed Live Messenger and am fully up to date with Windows Updates, but my Firefox search engine is still Google. It's never changed. Heck, Bing doesn't even show up as a search engine in Firefox!

Re:Cannot find MS malwares (4, Informative)

Mortimer82 (746766) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608948)

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.

Re:Cannot find MS malwares (1)

4phun (822581) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609484)

Good Lord Man

You are not saying we should trust Google?

For a lot of people they are the enemy!

MS FTW (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608836)

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.

Forefront analysis (1)

bbasgen (165297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608910)

We are currently assessing endpoint security products for around 6,000 desktops. The subject of Forefront actually came up, partly because of it's low cost. Yet, I can't find any evaluation of the product in professional reviews, likely due to how new it is. I'd really like to see how it stacks up for the sake of due diligence.

Re:Forefront analysis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608972)

We are currently assessing endpoint security products for around 6,000 desktops. The subject of Forefront actually came up, partly because of it's low cost. Yet, I can't find any evaluation of the product in professional reviews, likely due to how new it is. I'd really like to see how it stacks up for the sake of due diligence.

we use forefront in about 2000 computers at my company. IT works really good, better than symantec endpoint protection. If we had money to spend i would propably use eset instead.

Re:Forefront analysis (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34610264)

It's not new, we've been using it at our company deployed on 50+ servers for years. Forefront isn't new.

Corporate adoption (1)

asvravi (1236558) | more than 3 years ago | (#34608968)

So is there anything stopping its adoption in the enterprise and Fortune 500 companies, replacing the likes of Norton? How about managed updates, LAN update server, policy based scanning settings etc?

Re:Corporate adoption (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609056)

you should really use forefront for that. The licensing prohibits use with more than 10 clients.

If you work @ a F500 company you probably use sccm, the new version of forefront, just RTM:ed, uses sccm for everything.

Re:Corporate adoption (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609070)

Yes. It is only licensed for home use and organizations with 10 or fewer computers.

The sell Forefront Endpoint Protection for businesses.

Jorgie

Re:Corporate adoption (1)

The Second Horseman (121958) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609122)

For larger companies and not-for-profits (more than 10 computers), you're supposed to license Microsoft Forefront. For many, that means adding it to your corporate or campus license agreement. It's a pretty good deal.

Microsoft SpyNet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34608984)

When you have upgraded Microsoft Security Essentials - be certain to open the program and click the Setting tab.

Next, on the left of the Settings tab page, click on Microsoft SpyNet. You might find it interesting that you have been opted-in.

Re:Microsoft SpyNet (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610192)

It does always ask you before phoning home. Usually it pops up when I install a new version of iTunes that it isn't sure about.

Re:Microsoft SpyNet (2)

falsified (638041) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610296)

While this is true, it's true of plenty of other software, and they make it pretty clear what's going on and what they send. Hell, they named it SpyNet!

For those not able to check right now, it sends: Where the malware came from, what you chose to do or what MSE did for you, (ignore/quarantine/delete), and whether it worked. Yes, sending that info might get personal data as collateral damage (they'll know you downloaded preteenbj.exe, and probably the file path), but that is by no means a new level of information sharing for automated info dumps.

Essential? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609030)

If these are security "essentials", why the fuck aren't they part of the product to begin with?

MSE vs Forefront Client Security (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609032)

i have on my uni provided laptop forefront client security. it seems to be identical to MSE. the only problem is that these idiots have made it impossible to change the auto scan schedule. does anybody know of a good reason not to uninstall forefront and install MSE?

Re:MSE vs Forefront Client Security (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609136)

i have on my uni provided laptop forefront client security. it seems to be identical to MSE. the only problem is that these idiots have made it impossible to change the auto scan schedule.

"These idiots" usually do that kind of thing because it's the only way to ensure that "those other idiots" (ie. you) don't either disable it altogether or otherwise turn down the settings so much that you may as well disable it altogether.

Re:MSE vs Forefront Client Security (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609186)

yeah well i hate it when i wake my lappie up in the morning, and realize after 15 minutes that 25% of the 6 hour battery has been consumed by a full system scan. i wouldn't have minded a once a week scan. but this thing performs a full scan every day and partial scans every fucking 8 hours. the worst part is that it doesn't care about being on battery power. imo, auto scans should be done only when connected to ac power.
so, if you can tell me of any difference between forefront and mse i'd be very thankful.

Re:MSE vs Forefront Client Security (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609474)

Afraid not, I don't use MSE.

Don't really see the point in periodical scans, either. Most modern malware is perfectly capable of hiding itself from such a scan, you need to have the AV product actively running in realtime against everything and block at the perimeter of the PC.

Re:MSE vs Forefront Client Security (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34609622)

Forefront = corporate (and not free) security software.
MSE = consumer (and free)

Yell at your sysadmins for setting such a ridiculous policy - Forefront by itself doesn't require a full system scan ... ever, much less every day.

Re:MSE vs Forefront Client Security (1)

wiredmikey (1824622) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610028)

According to Microsoft: "For consumers and very small businesses needing protection from malicious software including spyware, viruses, trojans and rootkits, Microsoft Security Essentials is a no-cost, high-quality anti-malware service that efficiently addresses the ongoing security needs of a genuine Windows-based PC. Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010 provides endpoint protection for business environments, including antimalware and additional protections like behavior monitoring and firewall management. Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010 also includes central deployment, configuration, and reporting features needed for ensuring protection is maintained across the enterprise." Microsoft did just release the latest version of Forefront as well (Forefront End Point Protection 2010)

Good, but there's room for improvement still (1)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609386)

There's one thing I'd like to see in MSE: Control over when it looks for updates. I'd prefer being able to schedule what time of the day it does this, or even have the ability to turn it off and do all updates manually like with all other updates for Windows and Microsoft products.

MSE fails genuine check, no install, on validated (3, Funny)

twomi (986768) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609630)

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...

Avast! (1)

enter to exit (1049190) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609656)

I personally run avast on my windows computers.

Security Essentials has made it easier for me to convince a lot of people to stop paying for Norton AV because the MS brand eases their mind (the bitter irony).

It's not that i have a qualm with paying for software, it's just that i don't think Norton does a better job than any of the free AV options.

no server support... (1)

george14215 (929657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34609948)

Unfortunately, it still has the restriction that you cannot install it on Windows Server 2008 (the OS I'm using on my development laptop).

Not seeing or forcing upgrade / restart? (1)

echucker (570962) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610072)

No new version is being pulled down on an update, and the "upgrade" option only appears on the help menu, which claims version 1.0.2498.0 is the latest version. What gives?

Re:Not seeing or forcing upgrade / restart? (1)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610216)

It is not on the update servers yet. I guess it gets rolled out gradually to stop a huge surge in traffic. You can download it from microsoft.com, google or bing "microsoft security essentials" to find it

From a Computer Repair Shop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34610370)

We deal with computers that have been infected with Viruses all day long. Most of these have Norton, McAfee, Avira or AVG. We almost always remove and put MSE in its place. Our return rate of infected computers is VERY low. Thumbs up for MSE from us.

So long Avast! (1)

blitzd (613596) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610404)

I have switched to MSE and so far am happy with it. Got tired of the Avast nags to upgrade. Poor approach on their part.

Is being successful a bad thing? (4, Insightful)

box2 (1885028) | more than 3 years ago | (#34610462)

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?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...