MSE: Is it REALLY that good?

[cheewongken]

Okay my friend is planning to change out from norton soon, and asked me if MSE was okay. I told him i was satisfied with it.. But then i started doing some homework. I then stumbled upon this.

AV-Test.org · Tests of Anti-Virus- and Security-Software

It gives MSE really bad ratings compared to other AVs.

You guys are the one who made me switch to MSE from AVG in the first place. So, my question is, do you all think MSE is really a great AV/AM? (Considering you're comparing only free products)

 

[severedsolo]

Can I just point out that that on that page you linked to, MSE is beaten by complete suites? Thats a totally different ball game. MSE is NOT an entire Security suite, it is just an Anti-Virus. Those other suites come with loads of extra's which may or may not be necessary. (Note how it still beat several proper "Internet Security" suites as well though, including Norton)

If your asking for a personal opinion, I love MSE as an antivirus, because I don't ask it to do things it can't. It just sits there doing it's thing, and you don't even know its there unless you have a problem. MSE+Windows Firewal l+ a full scan with Malwarebytes once a month keeps my system in tip top shape.

 

[yowanvista]

Its good for general users as it offers basic protection
AVG will cause more problems, use MSE

 

[mpcrsc562]

For me, yes, it is that good.

I clicked the link you provided and read the report. One thing I could not deduce from the report is if MSE was the only tool users used on their systems.

For me, MSE is not the only product I use...
...I take care to not haphazardly click links in unsolicited emails or ads...
...I don't really "surf" in the truest sense -- there are really only a handful of sites I frequent. I'm not a "click-and-go" person...
...I have set up host files on my system (http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/78266-hosts-file-use-windows-7-vista.html?ltr=H and the program Spybot Search and Destroy has an option to insert/update host files)
...my pc is not a multi-user pc, meaning, I know intimately the history of web usage and downloading. (Even the multi-user pc I have set up in my house, MSE has protected that pc with no problems at all)

So, for me, again, yes it is that good. I have NEVER received an infection while using the product on any of my pcs.

 

[baxxter]

check av-comparatives and it says its good one ,Ill ask it again ,wich one we should believe ?!

 

[DeaconFrost]

It has been great for me, and has definitely kept my family and friends from calling me late at night. It is what it is, though. If you aren't knowledgable enough to identify a phishing e-mail, then maybe you need to spend the money on a suite. MSE and Malwarebytes do the truck for me and my non-tech savvy friends and family.

 

[EchoX860]

MSE = Basic Protection
W7 Firewall = Basic Protection

In my own opinion, MSE is for light PC users. I'm on my PC doing College work, music, Facebook, etc etc. I need something more than basic. (See Sig)

 

[DeaconFrost]

In my own opinion, MSE is for light PC users. I'm on my PC doing College work, music, Facebook, etc etc. I need something more than basic. (See Sig)

One could consider that light use. So tell me, of your list, what doesn't MSE handle? Facebook viruses? It blocks them. Music? Same deal. I use MSE to remove malware from my friends computers who still use Norton's older products. MSE is for PCs that are in use by users with common sense and good computing habits.

 

[Borg 386]

According to whatever article/test results you read, ALL AV's have a different rating.

MSE has caught things on mine and other peoples that the "paid for" versions haven't.

The articles I've seen usually place MSE in the top 5 to 7. But like I said, depends on what article/test results you read.

As Deacon said, common sense helps out a lot too. If you go surfing for hacks, cracks and illegal software, "you takes your chances"

 

[malexous]

(Note how it still beat several proper "Internet Security" suites as well though, including Norton)

The link provided shows Norton scoring best overall.

 

[Golden]

Hi Cheewogen,

The issue of the "best" anti-virus is a subjective topic as you will have seen by now. The reason is that different software test lots of different virus under different simulated conditions. In answering your question, you should look at the broader issue of PC security.

The "average user" will generally not wilfully expose themselves to harmul content. That is, they may not be people that, for example, deal with lots of different files from many, many different users. Think about your every day "Joe" : he surfs the internet, he receives emails with attachments, and occasionally downloads a free program off the internet. Now think of a software developer that needs to access lots of different code or files from many clients (usually personally unknown to him/her). You can see that their levels of risk are different, and so their specific security needs might also be different. It would be nice every bit of security system captured the same threats such that the developer and average "Joe" could rely on the same software, but of course, this is not the case. Thus, one person prefers one bit of software over another, and usually with good reason, and often from first-hand experience.

The third type of PC user might be someone that wilfully vists warez or other sites of ill-repute, is always attempting to download cracked software or keygens. Unfortunately, its hard for any software to protect such a person all the time : sooner or later something will slip past their security.

I consider myself to be an average PC user. I actually use Norton Internet Security, only because I wasn't even aware of MSE at the time However, I recently built two PC's for a friend, and when asked my recommendation, I firmly recommended MSE because I know his surfing/browsing habits are safe. Hopefully, you can start to see a link between what software is appropriate based on your habits.

My personal security philosophy, and thats really what it boils down to is:

1. Norton Internet Security (and eventually MSE once the Norton subscription ends)
2. Malwarebytes (I opted for the paid version so I could have it as set-and-forget, and at $20 odd its cheap at twice the price)
3. NAT router with all my ports in stealth mode
4. Good, safe browsing habits

I rely heavily on Point 4 : if I forgo that, then 1,2 and 3 are useless to me.

Try not to get worried about what is the "best". If it protects you, then it is the "best". MSE will do a good job if you don't go "looking for trouble".

I hope this helps,
Golden

 

[Lunarpancake]

Best Anti-Viruses / Anti-Malware Tools in order or Importance

1) Common Sense
2) Not visiting social networking sites
3) MSE
4) Malwarebytes
5) Combofix as last option virus/.malware removal

 

[EchoX860]

In my own opinion, MSE is for light PC users. I'm on my PC doing College work, music, Facebook, etc etc. I need something more than basic. (See Sig)

One could consider that light use. So tell me, of your list, what doesn't MSE handle? Facebook viruses? It blocks them. Music? Same deal. I use MSE to remove malware from my friends computers who still use Norton's older products. MSE is for PCs that are in use by users with common sense and good computing habits.

Forgive me if I'm taking things out of context. But are you saying I don't have common sense because I don't think MSE is good enough for people who use their PC a lot, whether it's for Music/Facebook/Torrent (for those that do it)/College/Warcraft and so on and so forth? I'm using my PC at least 10 out of the 24 hours of the day when I have to type up a report, and even then while I'm doing my report, I'll talk to my High School friends on Facebook, as well as friends from my state that I haven't even met yet.

I'm sure MSE has gotten good scores and that's fine for other people, but personally I'd rather have a much more reputable AV on my PC that is proven, rather than Microsoft's first (or second if you count OneCare) submission into the rocky world of Protection. Kaspersky (or currently Norton), Comodo Firewall, MBAM, and SAS are formidable.

In my opinion, I feel safer shelling out the 20-30 bucks for protection.

 

[EchoX860]

Hi Cheewogen,

The issue of the "best" anti-virus is a subjective topic as you will have seen by now. The reason is that different software test lots of different virus under different simulated conditions. In answering your question, you should look at the broader issue of PC security.

The "average user" will generally not wilfully expose themselves to harmul content. That is, they may not be people that, for example, deal with lots of different files from many, many different users. Think about your every day "Joe" : he surfs the internet, he receives emails with attachments, and occasionally downloads a free program off the internet. Now think of a software developer that needs to access lots of different code or files from many clients (usually personally unknown to him/her). You can see that their levels of risk are different, and so their specific security needs might also be different. It would be nice every bit of security system captured the same threats such that the developer and average "Joe" could rely on the same software, but of course, this is not the case. Thus, one person prefers one bit of software over another, and usually with good reason, and often from first-hand experience.

The third type of PC user might be someone that wilfully vists warez or other sites of ill-repute, is always attempting to download cracked software or keygens. Unfortunately, its hard for any software to protect such a person all the time : sooner or later something will slip past their security.

I consider myself to be an average PC user. I actually use Norton Internet Security, only because I wasn't even aware of MSE at the time However, I recently built two PC's for a friend, and when asked my recommendation, I firmly recommended MSE because I know his surfing/browsing habits are safe. Hopefully, you can start to see a link between what software is appropriate based on your habits.

My personal security philosophy, and thats really what it boils down to is:

1. Norton Internet Security (and eventually MSE once the Norton subscription ends)
2. Malwarebytes (I opted for the paid version so I could have it as set-and-forget, and at $20 odd its cheap at twice the price)
3. NAT router with all my ports in stealth mode
4. Good, safe browsing habits

I rely heavily on Point 4 : if I forgo that, then 1,2 and 3 are useless to me.

Try not to get worried about what is the "best". If it protects you, then it is the "best". MSE will do a good job if you don't go "looking for trouble".

I hope this helps,
Golden

Does MBAM come with Realtime protection? I thought it'd be bad to have 2 Realtime protections on 1 PC?

 

[jimbo45]

Best Anti-Viruses / Anti-Malware Tools in order or Importance

1) Common Sense
2) Not visiting social networking sites
3) MSE
4) Malwarebytes
5) Combofix as last option virus/.malware removal

Hi there
social Networking Sites *should be* ok --although I'm of an older generation who cannot understand the total fascination the younger people have with mobile phones --even in Restaurants they seem to be more concentrated on "twiddling with their thumbs" rather than eating the food they've ordered.

Otherwise SAFE surfing is your best bet -- I can't say I've never used torrents but for me it's usually AUDIO BOOKS that I download -- so no chance of infecting the host computer even if the download is riddled with viruses which they rarely are from better known sites. Anyway once you transfer the mp3 / audio file to your music player any "extraneous" data (such as viruses etc) is rejected as noise so your music / audio transfer is 100% safe..

However running / playing these directly on a HOST computer might be a problem but if you then copy the downloaded file BACK from your music device to the computer you should be able to remove any "nasties".

The SAFEST way of using the internet is to only surf using a VIRTUAL MACHINE and then only transfer to your main machine after you've checked your downloads.

If you use MSE you don't need malwarebytes either --what extra does it do that MSE doesn't do other than consume cpu cycles.

Cheers
jimbo

 

[pparks1]

But are you saying I don't have common sense because I don't think MSE is good enough for people who use their PC a lot, whether it's for Music/Facebook/Torrent (for those that do it)/College/Warcraft and so on and so forth? I'm using my PC at least 10 out of the 24 hours of the day when I have to type up a report, and even then while I'm doing my report, I'll talk to my High School friends on Facebook, as well as friends from my state that I haven't even met yet.

No, I don't think that is what is being said here at all. People who use their computer heavily, and put themselves into risky situations "should" probably invest in some higher end software and a complete suite.

With that said, i don't always believe that the suites are necessarily better than the freebies. I too am a user of MSE and it's worked fine for me. In all fairness though, i cannot remember the last virus, trojan, malware that I got on my machine. It could be argued that I don't need an AV scanner at all, but i feel taking that chance would be silly.

At the end of the day, it's whatever you feel comfortable with. I don't feel it's worth spending $20 or $30 for anything more than MSE...your feelings might be completely different. Nothing wrong with that...that's why there are multiple apps out there.

 

[Golden]

Does MBAM come with Realtime protection? I thought it'd be bad to have 2 Realtime protections on 1 PC?

Yes, the paid version of MBAM (around $20 odd) comes with real-time protection.

No, having MBAM resident won't conflict with an anti-virus program that is resident : the two are different bits of kit altogether. Having two ant-virus programs resident may cause issues, but not a anti-malware and anti-virus program.

 

[Wishmaster]

Depends on the Security Suite.

Norton for example, has its own Real Time Anti-Spyware. So the paid version of Malwarebytes very well may cause issues, as it can interfer.
The on-demand version is fine though.

Granted this may not be the case for all AV's.

 

[Golden]

Depends on the Security Suite.

Norton for example, has its own Real Time Anti-Spyware. So the paid version of Malwarebytes very well may cause issues, as it can interfer.
The on-demand version is fine though.

Granted this may not be the case for all AV's.

I have NIS2011 resident as well as MBAM 1.50 resident, and have had no issues whatsoever.

 

[marsmimar]

Seems like the OP is missing one fairly important "fact". The failure was recorded during the tests conducted during the 3rd quarter of 2010 using Windows XP. MSE scored only 11.5 points out of a required 12 points for certification. But if you look at the test results from the 2nd quarter of 2010 using Windows 7, MSE scored 14.0 points and did pass the certification test.

View attachment 122233

View attachment 122234

So does this particular testing protocol prove MSE is no good, or does it mean 7 is more secure than XP, or does it mean something else entirely? FWIW: I started using MSE 1.0 in Sep 09 when it was released to the public. I've been using MSE 2.0 beta since Jul 2010. I haven't had any malware infect my machine.