New
#130
Leaked: Microsoft Security Essentials (codename Morro)
-
-
-
New #132
If you go here LINK REMOVED you can read about MSE and download it.
I have been using it since Friday and quite like it.Last edited by Airbot; 26 Jun 2009 at 11:45.
-
New #133
thx Tiber, links are working fine! x86 and x64 versions...
-
New #134
I will admit the results are a little... shocking, even for Microsoft's standards.Digital Soapbox - Preaching Security to the Digital Masses: Microsoft Security Essentials: Road TestVirusTotal uses stripped down versions of the "Anti-Malware" tools. So, pitting them (the 40 or so stripped down versions) against a fully installed anti-malware suite (I use the term loosely), makes the facts even worse.
anti-virus rants: possible downsides to morro
-
New #135
The digital soapbox article (post 135) is bunkum. I have posted there that the whole premise that keygens and cracks are by definition malware is wrong.
In fact by their very nature they will often flag as malware (inserting code in an exe, "reverse engineering" an exe) whereas this is a false positive as beyond finding or inserting a registration they are doing nothing else.
In which case MSE may actually be getting it RIGHT by not identifying files as malware. They may be malware but the absurd tests done on that blog quite leave us in the dark on that question!
-
New #136
Yes of course, the small tests done by enthusiasts are by definition not definitive.
Nevertheless, it is interesting that MSE did not pick up 4 out of 10 that were picked up by the large majority of the engines on Virustotal.
I am not sure what people expect of MSE.
I have seen post claiming it is "small" and "lightweight" - in reference to what?
I compared it for size on my machine to Avast - and it was certainly not small or lightweight compared to that.
It appears to be OneCare with some parts removed. Since, as far as I can gather, that was not generally thought to be particulaly good - why should MSE be any better?
MS have said it is for those who do not have an AV - e.g. the ones who think they are still protected when their trial AV runs out.
They have made no claims they will be investing heavily in making it substantially better.
If people who would otherwise be unprotected end up using it - clearly that is a good thing.
I see no evidence , or indication, that it is any better , or even as good as , some of the already popular free solutions.
-
New #137
MSE picked up things that my AVG Free did not.
I so far have had no issues with it. Seems to be "lightweight" based on the amount of RAM it uses when it's sitting in memory and scans are fast.
Seems to me Microsoft has done a bang up job giving us a free product like this, but that's just my opinion.
-
New #138
I'm glad it picked up something AVG did not - it may be the other way round in a different case. How can you be sure they weren't false positives?
Are you using them both together?
On my machine MSE used more Ram than Avast - doesn't matter much , what's a few mb of Ram nowadays.
I don't expect there is anything wrong with MSE per se. I just see no reason to expect it to be any better than OneCare was.
I suspect it is getting an enthusistic reponse from some people , because thay are enthusiastic about 7 - they immediately assume everything MS is fantastic.
They are not giving it away free out of the goodness of their hearts - they are doing it because they think it is good for MS.
-
New #139
Think you are making a lot of assumptions there SIW2.
I am by no means a huge supporter of Microsoft per se, but you almost sound like you are "anti" Microsoft.
AVG was installed on my system. It had been for quite some time. MSE was installed when it was leaked and AVG uninstalled. MSE found a few things that AVG never did during scans. They were indeed viruses from what I could tell.
Regardless of why MS released this FREE product, it is free, it works and it seems to be something that many people will use and will appreciate. I say good on MS for doing it.
Quote
Related Discussions