Username or EmailPassword
I loaded the beta on my laptop a little while ago, and it was not bad.
you guys are killing me. Yes, all of you who voted this up to 4
Tell me, are you running an anti-virus lab? Yes? No? How do you know it is "good"? It is good if the detection rate is good, and in NO OTHER circumstance. But of course you have no clue about that simply by installing it. omg...
It is good when competent sources test it and find it to be good, certainly not because you guys think so.
yeah, and avg and other 'free' AV are consider good? i never said it was "good" I said it was "not bad".
as for how i came to that, i did not do massive testing. i said i loaded on my laptop. and played with it. The AV engine is no worse then sophos or avg.
when, i scaned it aganist some old archives it found stuff neither avg or sophos was able to find.
and, when surfing "bad" sites it blocked stuff That sophos or avg never did. so, yea, my impression so far it not bad probley at least as good as sophos or avg.
Lightweight HIPS systems are better... like Eeye Blink (Home or Small Business level) or Triumfant Resolution Manager (Enterpise level).
Signature based prducts can't prevent zero-day attacks and they are becoming more abundant.
As far as I know, Live OneCare is still around (I am using it).
Also, this Ars Technica article (http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/09/first-look-microsoft-...)claims that MS will be pushing Live OneCare upon installation instead of MSSE to avoid antitrust problems.
Should I discontinue subscribing to Live OneCare and switch to MSSE?
I’m going to be ditching AVG and installing MSE on my customer’s computers to see how well it holds up for regular use and abuse. I install probably ~1000 copies of AVG a year, if not more. If things go good or bad with MSE, I’ll write a follow-up article in a month detailing my findings. My own personal use of the product doesn’t really put it to the test in real life scenarios.
There is no reference in the Ars article regarding MS pushing Live One Care after you install MSE. You are misreading.
The fact is that Live One Care will go away and MSE is the one to stay.
Could this be based on the AV they bought a few years back?
.. if the reviews are to be believed, and it really does force Automatic Updates on, then it's just malware. A trojan to get enforced "updates" onto machines.
I kinda like it. It's actually lightweight and works well on my 3 year old lap with WinXP running in VirtualBox on Ubuntu 9.10.
they need to fix the software so it doesn't pull updates through the windows update site. At my company we have a corporate level group policy that restricts access to download updates directly from the windows update server (they push selected updates directly to us but they won't add updates for stuff like this). I installed this to try it out on a test box that was joined to our domain, and it downloaded the initial update, but when I tried to get it to update again it kept failing with an error. I had the same behavior for windows defender so I knew immediately it was because it is trying to pull definition updates through the windows update site.
seems like decent software other than this. I'll probably install it on my personal system at home, just so I can get rid of the nag screens for avira free edition antivirus.
Is the program even meant to be used in a commercial machine?
Not really. That's what Forefront is for.
I didn't see anything that stated that it couldn't be used in a commercial environment. But I wanted to try it out for evaluation purposes on a test box that I routinely reimage it wasn't a production machine.
Sounds reasonable enough, having said that, if it's meant for home users, then MS update IS the site to get updates from.
With that said, if you can push the updates out via WSUS it would suffice in a corporate environment also assuming the software is up to par with other offerings. Time will answer that latter for us.
Nice move from Microsoft. If this is as successful as it sounds it could bring a whole new generation of antivirus software, where taking over your pc isn't the norm.
I just have one question: If Microsoft is competent to release what most seem to think is a decent AV and security sweet, why not just redirect that competence into plugging up your os in the first place? They have all those security features in the NT kernel, but rarely are they ever used and instead Microsoft waste time with things like UAC while giving their own programs a backdoor through it. Now, they develop an av solution... why not just fix it in the first place? Keep on top of the os with windows update while keeping this as a way to clean viruses that already have taken root, but when the av finds something immediately put it on the list of things to investigate and plug up for good. They did it with conficker after all, so they are capable of it. Conficker spread because of millions of outdated computers, and if users can't use windows update due to pirated copies of Windows or whatever reason, then this av software updating through windows update isn't going to help them either.
So you are one of the believers that other OS are immune to viruses?
Keep dreaming fool! It is all about market share!
Why isn't Photoshop release for anything but Windows? Do you think that Adobe would not make a Linux version if they could make money with it? Like I told you earlier, it is about marker share.
True, but don't forget about the other route infections make it onto a machine - thru security holes/bugs in 3rd-party software, such as java, flash, video players, all the browser add-ons and extensions, etc. etc.
We'd still need a good AV to stop those, unless a complete re-architect of the OS is done to sandbox every single application/plug-in that runs on it...
Lots of malware doesn't rely on holes/flaws in the OS.
For example, I recently got hit by the "Delphi" virus. It's a virus that affects the Delphi development environment, and infects any program compiled by that Delphi environment. I happened to use a Delphi-built program and my anti-malware program detected it. I had to get an update from the developer to get a virus-clean version of the program. This virus doesn't rely on any OS holes at all. As it turns out, all the virus does is spread, and only spreads if it finds a Delphi environment on the system. If the virus code actually tried something nasty, then it might rely on an OS hole to do so (though, something like trashing the user's home directory wouldn't require any holes).
Here's a description of the Delphi virus, discovered just last month:
Other malware rely on holes that have been plugged by security updates, but people haven't applied the updates.
Also, if I read what you're saying correctly, Microosft already does what you're suggesting. When a hole is discovered, a security update is issued with the next month's scheduled update, or an out-of-cycle update is released if the problem is urgent enough. And each schedulted security update runs a malware quickscan that cleans out viruses that are on the system. Edited 2009-09-30 17:13 UTC