Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 6th Nov 2010 00:27 UTC
Privacy, Security, Encryption Well, this was to be expected: an anti-virus company complaining that Microsoft's Security Essentials - by far the best anti-virus tool for Windows - is anti-competitive. Microsoft recently began offering MSE as an optional download via the optional Microsoft Update service (which is not Windows Update), and Trend Micro (a patent troll) is going into boo-hoo mode over it.
Thread beginning with comment 448955
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
It Actually Works
by aust77 on Sun 7th Nov 2010 02:08 UTC
aust77
Member since:
2010-10-08

As a full time Linux user, I don't worry too much about anti virus software, but recently I installed MSE on a relatives computer (who does not have a broad knowledge of computers) via Windows Update and I find it to be a good program that does not pester you too much but gets the job done--to an extent.

Basically, if you treat your Windows install with care, MSE will help you ensure it is secure. For example, the PC I installed it on has been in use for a year, and MSE was able to detect 6 potential exploits and deal with them accordingly.

I appreciate Microsoft finally making anti virus software built with a insider knowledge of Windows--after all, they made it. Now I hope more people will not have to worry about the annoying nightmares we call Symantec, Norton, etc.

Good luck and safe computing to all!


aust77

Reply Score: 2

RE: It Actually Works
by lemur2 on Sun 7th Nov 2010 22:46 in reply to "It Actually Works"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

As a full time Linux user, I don't worry too much about anti virus software, but recently I installed MSE on a relatives computer (who does not have a broad knowledge of computers) via Windows Update and I find it to be a good program that does not pester you too much but gets the job done--to an extent. Basically, if you treat your Windows install with care, MSE will help you ensure it is secure. For example, the PC I installed it on has been in use for a year, and MSE was able to detect 6 potential exploits and deal with them accordingly. I appreciate Microsoft finally making anti virus software built with a insider knowledge of Windows--after all, they made it. Now I hope more people will not have to worry about the annoying nightmares we call Symantec, Norton, etc. Good luck and safe computing to all! aust77


The problem is not the six potential Windows exploits that you encountered which MSE successfully dealt with, but rather the unknown number (it might be zero if you are lucky) which you encountered that MSE did not successfully deal with, and which perhaps are now effectively installed on your system and hidden from view so that MSE cannot see them (even if MSE receives a database update it stiil may not see them).

After-the-fact security, such as any anti-malware scanner programmer such as MSE relies on, is doomed to fail in the face of ever-increasing numbers of malware threats. In a year, you say your own PC encountered (at least) six such threats. There were reportedly two million new pieces of malware written for Windows just this last year alone.

Every Windows PC connected to the Internet will encounter new malware threats at an ever-increasing rate. No after-the-fact anti-malware scanner can possibly keep up. Even if the successfult detection rate is a high as 95% (which is pretty good), that means that one is likely to encounter a threat that is not detected once in every twenty exposures.

I'd estimate that the avearge un-infected lifetime of a Windows PC connected to the Internet and used for browsing etc, even one protected by anti-malware such as MSE, is currently down to about 12 months or so. Maybe even less. Given the ever-increasing sheer volume of malware out there, this is only ever going to come down.

So when you say it actually works ... Hmmmm. I don't think so. It can't work IMO, no matter how well it performs, because of the nature of the problem it tries to address.

This is surely a losing battle if ever their was one.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: It Actually Works
by lucas_maximus on Mon 8th Nov 2010 13:30 in reply to "RE: It Actually Works"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Have you got any facts to back up your claims about a Windows 7 PC will be most likely infected after 12 months??

MSE or anti-virus program are the last line of defence. Not exposing yourself to risk in the first place, and keeping the your internet enabled programs and operating system up-2-date are preferrable.

Windows 7 regularly updates the default browser and the operating system and does it silently in the background. All the major browsers that run on Windows automatically keep themselves patched, and the firewall is turned on by default. Also the user is not running as root until prompted by UAC. How is this any worse than Linux or Mac OSX?

Lets not forget that the other major Desktop Operating system MacOSX comes with the firewall disabled as <a href="http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/snow_leopard_enabling_the_bu....

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: It Actually Works
by Bounty on Mon 8th Nov 2010 17:02 in reply to "RE: It Actually Works"
Bounty Member since:
2006-09-18


The problem is not the six potential Windows exploits that you encountered which MSE successfully dealt with, but rather the unknown number (it might be zero if you are lucky) which you encountered that MSE did not successfully deal with, and which perhaps are now effectively installed on your system and hidden from view so that MSE cannot see them (even if MSE receives a database update it stiil may not see them).

After-the-fact security, such as any anti-malware scanner programmer such as MSE relies on, is doomed to fail in the face of ever-increasing numbers of malware threats. In a year, you say your own PC encountered (at least) six such threats. There were reportedly two million new pieces of malware written for Windows just this last year alone.

Every Windows PC connected to the Internet will encounter new malware threats at an ever-increasing rate. No after-the-fact anti-malware scanner can possibly keep up. Even if the successfult detection rate is a high as 95% (which is pretty good), that means that one is likely to encounter a threat that is not detected once in every twenty exposures.

I'd estimate that the avearge un-infected lifetime of a Windows PC connected to the Internet and used for browsing etc, even one protected by anti-malware such as MSE, is currently down to about 12 months or so. Maybe even less. Given the ever-increasing sheer volume of malware out there, this is only ever going to come down.

So when you say it actually works ... Hmmmm. I don't think so. It can't work IMO, no matter how well it performs, because of the nature of the problem it tries to address.

This is surely a losing battle if ever their was one.


Well basically everthing you've said applys to all PC's and operating systems. I think 3rd party software is always going to make user data (the stuff that's important) vunerable. Basically there is a metric ton of $#!+ that users install on purpose.

Also, if you have 6 exposures per year and need 20 encounters to find the 1 that's not dealt with, your closer to the 3 year range, not 12 months. Which sounds closer to realistic to me.

Reply Parent Score: 3