Kaspersky or Microsoft security essentials

[ICIT2LOL]

Also, there is another factor that ICit2lol missed, the ability to predict if it's malware BEFORE it's registered in the database. The ability to call on other PREVIOUS malware and decide if it may be harmful or not, this, I believe, is what makes a good AV, and that, also, is what improves detection rates.

OK mate if you read my post in #17 you will see I said and I repeat
"Yes mate and what I think we all tend to forget is that every day new malware is put out which means that it has to be developed (thought of) written and distributed before any of the security programs can detect it - a bit like driving along a normal smooth road and not knowing there are potholes in certain places until you see them so next time you avoid them"

So what did I miss?? Just because it may resemble a former malware base does not mean it is going to be recognised by any security company the nano second it hits the floor running and their database updated. My Kaspersky uses heuristics for that sort of stuff and will pull up incoming data and lets me know if it is suspicious and gives me the chance to use it or not! THat doesn't mean the Kaspersky is right or does it - you seem to have all the answers.

Furthermore for your information I would rather think that by now the writers of said malware know this already and if you think they have not cottoned onto this by now amended their techniques and coding or whatever it is they do because I have no idea how they do it nor do I care as long as the security I use picks it up reasonably quickly - then I am under the impression you think I am not capable of making statements like I did and perhaps should keep my thoughts to myself.
Perhaps I should as certain people give me that impression already:sarc:

 

[acme12]

MSE

I'm amazed people still recommend MSE! Sure it has a light footprint but, in every review I've seen over the past year or two, MSE has one of the worst detection rates. My own experience with it supports those findings. It will automatically update virus definitions only if you run a scheduled scan; other wise you have to manually update it.

Avast free is much better. It uses more resources than MSE but it much more customizable and works much, much better. It also updates virus definitions automatically and you can control how often. Modern computers are more than capable of handling the extra resource load without bogging down.

Going back to the OP's choices, I would pick Kaspersky in a heartbeat if those were the only two choices I had.

I use MSE with Emsisoft antimalware Pro (real time) and Malwarebytes Pro (real time), both excluded from MSE scanning and real time and each other and my room mate tried all the 'R' and 'XXX' rated sites and MSE found malware before Emsissoft and MalwareBytes did. My combo with Win 7 firewall with TinyWall keeps a lot of malware off my computer. MSE finds most of the viruses by it's self. I tried other software, but always come back to MSE. I'll keep looking for a better combo.

Well acme usually we do not recommend running more than tow real time AV's at once as I said earlier my Kaspersky doesn't like Malwarebytes at all real time it tolerates it free version and frankly I wouldn't use MSE unless it was an emergency.
If you want to see some other free alternatives look here Probably the Best Free Security List in the World

I know about only running one 'Real-Time' scanning, I saw other people run with Emsisoft and MalwareBytes and they had no problem with MSE, so I tried and it works :shock:. If it didn't, I wouldn't do it. Some so-called experts recommended running it, so I took a chance. Even running MSE by it's self I never had any problems with Malware or Viruses. If my PC blows up, then I'll buy another one......







>

 

[ICIT2LOL]

It's a free well almost free world LOL!! so go for your life!

 

[d00p98uy]

Also, there is another factor that ICit2lol missed, the ability to predict if it's malware BEFORE it's registered in the database. The ability to call on other PREVIOUS malware and decide if it may be harmful or not, this, I believe, is what makes a good AV, and that, also, is what improves detection rates.

OK mate if you read my post in #17 you will see I said and I repeat
"Yes mate and what I think we all tend to forget is that every day new malware is put out which means that it has to be developed (thought of) written and distributed before any of the security programs can detect it - a bit like driving along a normal smooth road and not knowing there are potholes in certain places until you see them so next time you avoid them"

So what did I miss?? Just because it may resemble a former malware base does not mean it is going to be recognised by any security company the nano second it hits the floor running and their database updated. My Kaspersky uses heuristics for that sort of stuff and will pull up incoming data and lets me know if it is suspicious and gives me the chance to use it or not! THat doesn't mean the Kaspersky is right or does it - you seem to have all the answers.

Furthermore for your information I would rather think that by now the writers of said malware know this already and if you think they have not cottoned onto this by now amended their techniques and coding or whatever it is they do because I have no idea how they do it nor do I care as long as the security I use picks it up reasonably quickly - then I am under the impression you think I am not capable of making statements like I did and perhaps should keep my thoughts to myself.
Perhaps I should as certain people give me that impression already:sarc:

no, no, you thought are fine! See in your statement, you show no sighn of predicting where new potholes may be created, like at a partcular crack, lets say. And -- heuristics, thank you, that's the word --as you said, are not always correct, as you made to point out, but are very usefull. I myself use no AV, but scan every month as needed, not that I'm not cautious. I was just simply stating, that in your well written statement before, that you had not mentioned Heuristics, and whichever has the best detection in Heuristics, in my opinion, is the best AV, but, they also must be popular and have a large database, such as Kaspersky--which, if I had the money, would use in a heartbeat

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Hmm well I thought by putting it that way that it would nice and simplistic but you have to remember that not all members in this forum may know what heuristics are or if they are running a real time security system that it is using that method of detection. I would even go do far as to say that I doubt if some really care that much as long as it picks up malware.

Now as for the cracks that develop into potholes it must be realised that these malware "writers" go looking for vulnerable points or the slightest flaws in any software or system as it is released. That is when they find the cracks to turn into potholes but there is no way known to man that a security system can pick up those cracks before they are turned into potholes because they simply would not know what the bad guys are looking for or how the bad guys are then turning the cracks into potholes.
I do know that a lot of the security companies use "honeypots" that attract those types who develop the malware and use techniques that they can identify some of the ways that the malware writers use and in doing so can go some way to predicting what may be targeted for the malware.
But to ID the pothole before it is in place is as you will agree far too open ended a page ie the methods of code writing are infinite and the odds of hitting on the solution very very slim indeed.

Now having said that and sorry to all (and the mods) for going OT you mention you would have Kaspersky in a moment if you could afford it well I am very sorry that you find yourself in that position but think of it like this. My KIS costs me $0.13 a day which would probably be a sip of coffee if that so for the cost (out here) of ten cups of coffee I can buy Kaspersky for a whole years use which I should add does special offers all the time ie two year licence for the price of one and two machines on one licence.

I don't know about anyone else but I think running without any security you are risking all of your data and possibly the machine OS and there are plenty of good free ones that you can use as per this - Probably the Best Free Security List in the World
Have a browse through and see for yourself.
I am probably biased as if you wouldn't know anyway but I would not go near AVG Trend McAfee

 

[soulfood]

sorry to butt in here does anyone have a comment about how kaspersky and MSE compare to Bitdefender, which in just about all the reviews on paid anti-virus software out there rates the highest?

 

[ICIT2LOL]

Well from my point of view soulfood Bitdefender and Kaspersky are about on par if you look at the AV Comparatives site I have tested out Bitdefender and it is fine a bit "naggy" for my own liking and I have yet to come across a program that has anything like the safe money feature in Kaspersky - but I stand to be corrected of course.
Matousec also have a good rap on both

http://www.av-comparatives.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/avc_factsheet2013_08.pdf

Results and comments - www.matousec.com

 

[dwarfer66]

I was using AVG (paid) until a few months ago, I stated on here what was the point of MSE, BUT I got a virus that only MSE got rid off, so now I only use MSE. (with malwarebytes, spybot SD, SUPERantispyware). I would recommend MSE after that in a heartbeat.

 

[ICIT2LOL]

I was using AVG (paid) until a few months ago, I stated on here what was the point of MSE, BUT I got a virus that only MSE got rid off, so now I only use MSE. (with malwarebytes, spybot SD, SUPERantispyware). I would recommend MSE after that in a heartbeat.

Yes well I think most folks I know are not great fans of anything AVG in fact I would recommend anyone stay well clear of it.

As for MSE it's ok and like I keep repeating ad nauseum ad infintum - no security software is infallible not MSE, Kaspersky, Bitdefender Norton whatever there is no way known to man that a malware can be defined as malware until it is put out is subsequently picked up recognised as such and added to the updates for any particular security suite and I think people just lose track of that fact. It just is not as simple as picking a security software and thinking it is going to save you. Plus it depends on what you do on and go in the net surely - well I suppose there are people who think they are bullet proof - do and use reckless surfing habits and end up usually on a site like this looking for help.