Microsoft Security Essentials 2.0 Released 175
Greg writes with this excerpt from Ars Techica: "Following a four-month beta program, Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) 2.0 has been released. The new version significantly revamps the heuristic scanning engine, adds Windows Firewall integration as well as network traffic inspection. The update unquestionably makes MSE, which has already become very popular due to its quiet but effective ways, even more of a must-have for Windows users. MSE has always been very good at finding and removing malware, but it has relied mainly on antimalware definitions. The improved heuristic engine makes it even better at detecting threats; at the same time, we expect the number of false positives to slightly increase as well. The new Windows Firewall integration is a minor improvement: it lets you tweak Microsoft's firewall from inside MSE."
Nice and Easy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nice and Easy (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, it should nag you to update off IE 6.0...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No it shouldn't, since MSE only runs on XP and above and IE7 and 8 were automatically pushed out via Windows Update to OS's that supported beyond IE6, which is XP and above. That is unless you knew about and employed the blocking tool for these updates. So for MSE to nag about IE6 would be inappropriate on an internal LAN, and pointless for someone who's turned off updates or is intentionally running unsafe.
Re: (Score:3)
No it shouldn't, since MSE only runs on XP and above and IE7 and 8 were automatically pushed out via Windows Update to OS's that supported beyond IE6, which is XP and above. That is unless you knew about and employed the blocking tool for these updates. So for MSE to nag about IE6 would be inappropriate on an internal LAN, and pointless for someone who's turned off updates or is intentionally running unsafe.
MANY businesses manually update because of the annoyance of rebooted machines that are doing long-term work overnight. MANY businesses are stuck on IE6 still, because of "compatibility changes" in later versions that make their web apps not work (because they incorrectly believed a Microsoft solution would be long term, instead of obsoleted whenever MS felt like changing things around to stop it from working).
Re: (Score:3)
And what exactly would be the point of nagging the desktop users in those businesses?
"Your ancient browser is not secure. Please update the trashware you are running with a real browser, or failing that, with at least Internet Explorer 8. If you fail to do so, your computer may explode or do other bad things."
It's ALL a matter of writing the correct nag screen. Push em to replace their outdated software implementations AND their browser all at once...
;-)
Re: (Score:2)
And nagging to the desktop users being held back by the IT department does what? Or do you just not read the posts that you are replying to?
Re: (Score:2)
And nagging to the desktop users being held back by the IT department does what? Or do you just not read the posts that you are replying to?
(1) It was meant to be somewhat humorous.
(2) They will hopefully nag MANAGEMENT - you know, the ones who made the bad decision to go with a proprietary solution for something that's supposed to be open standard.
Any decent IT department will want something that is easy to maintain, cross platform, standards compliant, etc. Since the MANAGEMENT will be getting these nag screens, it will hopefully push them to letting the IT team do their job properly.
Though my comment was meant as mostly humor (ummm, didn
Re: (Score:2)
In most cases that I have seen, management would tell IT to block the nag screen in some way and business would continue as usual. IE6 will prevail until great robot uprising destroys us all. Of course, the great robot uprising will have been caused by a worker-bot stuck using IE6 contracts a piece of malware and it spreads amongst the other worker-bots.
Re: (Score:1)
MSE is not free, it is only free for individuals and not for companies.
Re:Nice and Easy (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hmm... from what I could find it starts at $8.64 US per user or per device, per year and goes DOWN from there. How is that "insanely expensive"?
http://www.microsoft.com/forefront/endpoint-protection/en/us/pricing-licensing.aspx
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't Forefront also require you have a Windows Server 2003 or later with Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010 server and System Center Configuration Manager 2007? That'd end up being $$$$
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
It's really great, I'm not sure how long 3rd part antivirus can survive, especially when this is free.
There's always marketing and brand loyalty.
Re: (Score:3)
I've been wondering about that for Windows in the light of Linux as well.
Guess there are features that people are looking for that they don't get in the free stuff.
ok on 8 year old laptops? (Score:3)
We have loads scattered around for rdp clients / light browsing w/ XP and MSE 1 has been great. Is MSE 2 under XP more of a hog/same/faster?
Re:ok on 8 year old laptops? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
MSE is the best I've ever used in terms of resource usage. If you don't know its there, it's honestly hard to notice.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a little beefier than that on Vista. 4.6 meg for the executable(msseces.exe), and 55 meg for the anti-malware service(MsMpEng.exe). Plus any other things related that are buried in the bowels of the system.
Re: (Score:2)
I put it on a netbook with Win 7 Stater and its pretty lean. I saw most netbook users in my forum recommending it as well (and they usually advise Avira or something like that for bigger computers).
Re: (Score:2)
My (mid-range) laptop is only a year old, but I can say that I notice no difference between MSE 2 and MSE 1 for speed, either while scanning or while lurking in the background. So, I'd say go for it.
v2 has been giving me crashes. (Score:1)
First I want to say I love the first version of MSE.
Light weight, no nagging, and for most part just stays out of the way.
The new version seems more of the same, except it's been freezing my PC since I upgraded yesterday. I currently have it un-installed to see it's the problem, and so far my PC is rock solid like it has always been.
Any ideas or suggestions? I'm "flying blind" right now.
PS: don't ask me to install Linux (it seems more trouble than it's worth half the time, no offence) or get a mac (I'm brok
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Really though, have you tried a fresh download and a new install?
Re: (Score:1)
Yupe.
After a couple of crashes+restarts from the upgrade, I redownloaded, uninstalled followed by fresh re-install.
I even upgraded my video drivers - the crashes I have been getting involves my screen just totally freezing (mouse cursor still works though; just can't click anything), similar to the ones I get during WoW when I use to play it.
Maybe I will reinstall in a week or so, see if anything changes.
Re: (Score:1)
I do hope I don't get to work tomorrow to find MSE has updated itself to V2.
I'm in the process of taking over responsibility of our entire IT and it's a nightmare of mis-matched, outdated hardware and utterly pathetic security policies (lack thereof). There are Win 2000 machines on the network with no AV installed and there are XP machines with MSE installed, a terminal services server (Win 2008, the 'Vista' version) with AVG on it.
Oh, and the company I work for is an insurance broker. Security somewhat ess
Re: (Score:1)
Well, you could just report them to the BSA and get it overwith...
It is not licensed for companies bigger than 10 employees or some such..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not in the US. Also, sarcasm.
Not only am I going to look after their IT, I'm going to be jointly responsible for writing and enforcing their compliance policy.
Personal data is currently secured by dint of everyone using Remote Desktop to get into the Win 2008 server, where the full-on policy, claims, accounting and document management software resides. They're still going through a transition to this new software, away from a Citrix Metaframe accessible remote provider (which was utterly debilitating, h
Re: (Score:2)
Heh.
MS FTW (Score:5, Funny)
Linux desperately needs something like this, or it will never be able to compete on the Desktop.
The problem goes even deeper; there is a serious lack of malware written for Linux. It just isn't profitable enough for malware-developers to target the platform. And mainstream adoption will sadly remain a dream until that changes.
Kudos to MS for showing how it's done.
Re: (Score:1)
Forefront analysis (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know of any really good analysis, but it's supposed to use the same engine and definitions as MSE, just with enterprise management tools and business licensing. That may be enough of a basis.
The other option, of course, is to simply ask Microsoft. You'd have to take what they say with a grain of salt, obviously, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't know where to find some great reviews and/or case studies. After all, they would have plenty of motivation.
Corporate adoption (Score:1)
So is there anything stopping its adoption in the enterprise and Fortune 500 companies, replacing the likes of Norton? How about managed updates, LAN update server, policy based scanning settings etc?
Re: (Score:1)
you should really use forefront for that. The licensing prohibits use with more than 10 clients.
If you work @ a F500 company you probably use sccm, the new version of forefront, just RTM:ed, uses sccm for everything.
Re: (Score:2)
For larger companies and not-for-profits (more than 10 computers), you're supposed to license Microsoft Forefront. For many, that means adding it to your corporate or campus license agreement. It's a pretty good deal.
Microsoft SpyNet (Score:1)
Next, on the left of the Settings tab page, click on Microsoft SpyNet. You might find it interesting that you have been opted-in.
Re: (Score:2)
It does always ask you before phoning home. Usually it pops up when I install a new version of iTunes that it isn't sure about.
Re: (Score:3)
While this is true, it's true of plenty of other software, and they make it pretty clear what's going on and what they send. Hell, they named it SpyNet!
For those not able to check right now, it sends: Where the malware came from, what you chose to do or what MSE did for you, (ignore/quarantine/delete), and whether it worked. Yes, sending that info might get personal data as collateral damage (they'll know you downloaded preteenbj.exe, and probably the file path), but that is by no means a new level of infor
Re: (Score:2)
Checking within the app to 'Upgrade Security Essentials' didn't find a new version; so I grabbed the 2.0 installer and ran it. It prompted me during the upgrade if I wanted to opt-in or not. I unchecked the box for now. Still need to reboot for the update to finish; finishing up some other things first before kicking that off :-D
MSE vs Forefront Client Security (Score:1)
i have on my uni provided laptop forefront client security. it seems to be identical to MSE. the only problem is that these idiots have made it impossible to change the auto scan schedule. does anybody know of a good reason not to uninstall forefront and install MSE?
Re: (Score:2)
i have on my uni provided laptop forefront client security. it seems to be identical to MSE. the only problem is that these idiots have made it impossible to change the auto scan schedule.
"These idiots" usually do that kind of thing because it's the only way to ensure that "those other idiots" (ie. you) don't either disable it altogether or otherwise turn down the settings so much that you may as well disable it altogether.
Re: (Score:1)
yeah well i hate it when i wake my lappie up in the morning, and realize after 15 minutes that 25% of the 6 hour battery has been consumed by a full system scan. i wouldn't have minded a once a week scan. but this thing performs a full scan every day and partial scans every fucking 8 hours. the worst part is that it doesn't care about being on battery power. imo, auto scans should be done only when connected to ac power.
so, if you can tell me of any difference between forefront and mse i'd be very thankful.
Re: (Score:2)
Afraid not, I don't use MSE.
Don't really see the point in periodical scans, either. Most modern malware is perfectly capable of hiding itself from such a scan, you need to have the AV product actively running in realtime against everything and block at the perimeter of the PC.
Re: (Score:2)
^This.
The difference between Forefront and MSE is the corporate management back-end. MSE is Forefront's client with that feature removed.
(If its really removed, I don't know; maybe just disabled? Would be interesting if its Group Policy capabilities were still there...not that there is much to change in the way of settings)
Re: (Score:2)
Good, but there's room for improvement still (Score:2)
MSE fails genuine check, no install, on validated (Score:3, Funny)
Avast! (Score:1)
Security Essentials has made it easier for me to convince a lot of people to stop paying for Norton AV because the MS brand eases their mind (the bitter irony).
It's not that i have a qualm with paying for software, it's just that i don't think Norton does a better job than any of the free AV options.
no server support... (Score:1)
Not seeing or forcing upgrade / restart? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is not on the update servers yet. I guess it gets rolled out gradually to stop a huge surge in traffic. You can download it from microsoft.com, google or bing "microsoft security essentials" to find it
Re: (Score:2)
It's a staged release, just in case there's a horrible flaw in it somewhere. (Maybe you've been asleep the last year, but there have been a couple incidents with AV software killing people's computers; you can imagine why they would want to be careful.)
You can either wait a few weeks, or install it manually. The definitions are the same either way.
So long Avast! (Score:1)
Is being successful a bad thing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
A software monoculture of any kind (including Windows itself, though it helps that there are three major versions out right now) is more likely to be subject to widespread attack. In fact, this applies to most monocultures; too many of one type of crop will generally spawn a disease that destroys that one crap, for example.
However, I don't see Symantec, McAfee, or the rest (including the free alternatives) disappearing any time soon, especially not down to Linux or even OS X-level market shares. MSE may eve
Re: (Score:2)
Some questions (Score:2)
Some questions:
1. Is it less resource-intensive than 1.0? I know that the general view is that MSE is light on resources but my (admittedly old) single-core AMD 3500+ sometimes pauses for several seconds with MSE maxing out the CPU usage.
2. Does it integrate with 3rd-party firewalls as well? I happen to run Comodo.
3. Is it available from outside the US? I had to get 1.0 from a 3rd party host.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great news! But... (Score:5, Funny)
"Posted as AC so as to not incur the wrath of the Linux Youth."
Not posted AC.
Piss on the Linux Youth. They do for Linux adoption what pedo priests do for Catholic recruiting.
I can't wait until they become the BSD Youth and someone else has the benefit of their enlightened advocacy. :P
maybe they can read (Score:2)
Re:too much of a target (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd expect McAfee and Norton to be much bigger "bulls eye" targets, since they're heavily deployed in corporate environments. MSE isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
You're running Windows, so you're already a big target. Do you really want to try to find something that will go below the radar, or do you want to use what works? MSE is quite good at what it does.
Ummmm (Score:5, Insightful)
How's that any different from any other major AV programs? Some viruses shut down AV software. They know how to get most of the major ones, and perhaps all of them (AV software tells Windows it is AV software, they could use the same sort of thing). So unless you want to change all the time to lesser known AV softwares, from companies that you don't know about (and remember that fake AV software is big) then this isn't an issue.
What's more, the power in AV software on a system isn't virus elimination, it is virus prevention. The whole reason to run an AV program all the time, rather than something like a scheduled task, is it scans files as they come in to your computer, as they execute, and so on. So, if a virus tries to sneak in, the AV software can block it. The virus has to chance to do anything to the AV software as it is not running. It is a "position of primacy" sort of thing. Whoever is there first has the advantage as it can stop the other guy at the door. This is also why when a system gets infect, it is sometimes necessary to do an offline scan, boot from a CD or take the HD to a new computer, because the virus can prevent AV software from being loaded since it is already running.
Virus authors try to defeat any and all virus scanners. It is their business to get on systems. MSE has no special place in that. What matters is how well your virus software is able to pick up on them as they come in (and also how fast it runs as to not slow your system down). MSE isn't the best out there, but it is quite good.
Re: (Score:2)
That is a totally unfair assessment.
Just what has Microsoft released over the years to win your loyal defense, other than the most security impaired OS ever invented by human kind?
Seriously, I have a hard time even contemplating removal of my existing anti virus choices in favor of anything released by Microsoft.
I'd like to test it, but its sort of like testing a parachute made by the a cheese-cloth manufacturer. It requires a leap of faith that the company simply hasn't earned yet.
better! (Score:1, Troll)
Even better to be without malware for 10 years now! Thanks Debian and Ubuntu!
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Why the Troll mod?
If you take a step back, the whole idea of needing (CPU, $ expensive) external programs like virus checkers and firewalls to protect your OS is ridiculous. Microsoft should be deeply ashamed that such a massive industry has grown up around their failure to build a secure OS.
Maybe if they paid more attention to their engineers and less to their reputation managers, they wouldn't need to manipulate social ne
Re: (Score:3)
I would say it is partly due to their bad OS design (administrator by default), partly due to third party software (doesn't work if user doesn't have administrative rights, often not for valid reasons) and partly due to their success (a massive amount of relatively clueless users, who click on any [OK]/[Yes] button that is presented to them).
If some of these clueless users were to move to Debian and Ubuntu, the same problem might happen there. (Popup to fill in sudo password, user gives admin rights to 'tha
Re: (Score:2)
If you take a step back, the whole idea of needing (CPU, $ expensive) external programs like virus checkers and firewalls to protect your OS is ridiculous.
You don't. That software isn't protecting the OS, it's protecting the user. The OS can protect itself just fine, it's just the users insist on bypassing or ignoring that protection.
Microsoft should be deeply ashamed that such a massive industry has grown up around their failure to build a secure OS.
When you can come up with a way to protect an OS a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Presumably, Comodo doesn't care if Windows is pirated? (
I ask not for me, I only use linux, but for friends who are filthy windows pirates whom I still fail to ditch as non-paying computer support customers.(I think I will teach them about google next time I'm called upon.))
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, but any software calling home without me first of all asking for permission and second of all telling me honestly what it transmits is malware. Period.
Re:Let the bloating begin...? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Let the bloating begin...? (Score:5, Funny)
There's two processes: The Front end GUI and the backend service (MsMpEng.exe) which usually consumes about 40MB, which is about average for AV products.
I know it doesn't matter when my desktop has 8GB and my nettop has 1GB of RAM, but I'm old enough statements like that make me cringe.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Why? You can get a brand new netbook for under $300, and that has 1GB of ram and 160GB drive, and runs windows 7.
Re: (Score:1)
DDR1 RAM is expensive. Many machines still use it.
The answer isn't always 'just buy a cheap ', especially when someone is short of cash but has an old PC in the loft.
Re:Let the bloating begin...? (Score:5, Funny)
Cool. Sell the 256MB of expensive DDR1 ram you have, and use it to buy a new netbook.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can have terabytes of RAM, and performance will be still determined by how often few megabytes of L1 and L2 CPU cache are updated from your giant but slow RAM.
Re: (Score:2)
You can have terabytes of RAM, and performance will be still determined by how often few megabytes of L1 and L2 CPU cache are updated from your giant but slow RAM.
Which is a million times better than back when we had too little RAM, and if you... hit.... swap... everything.... would..... go...... extremely......slow.......and......you'd...... go..... crazy..... waiting...... for...... the....... smallest....... thing........ to.......... finish.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the effect is surprisingly similar, thanks to complete disregard for memory footprint of frequently performed operations in modern desktop software. Fear of swapping kept developers from writing things that used cache inefficiently.
Re: (Score:2)
Worth noting that MsMpEng is truly just "sitting there", unlike Norton or McAfee (or even the good guys like Avast) where there's random, unneeded churn. The only time so far I've seen it have any CPU usage was when I tried to close it with Task Manager and MSE popped up a warning asking me to restart the service.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who knows?
Very few people here actually run linux, they just say so to fit in.
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, what does this have to do with Wikileaks?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What happens is that the MS's Messenger installer and windows updates will sneakily replace your firefox's default search engine with bing instead of Google.
[citation needed]
I recently installed Live Messenger and am fully up to date with Windows Updates, but my Firefox search engine is still Google. It's never changed. Heck, Bing doesn't even show up as a search engine in Firefox!
Re:Cannot find MS malwares (Score:5, Informative)
You might be a troll, but if not, you are certainly over reacting.
I run windows live messenger and pay attention to the install options which allow me to choose *not* to install things like the Bing Search bar.
Really, you should check your install options with any *free* package, any person who just presses next, next, next without reading what they are doing is simply a fool.
Yes, one could argue that it's evil to have such things ticked by default, but in Microsoft's defense, if you are upgrading messenger, it remembers your previously selected install options and will not by default ask you again to install Bing toolbars and stuff.
Re: (Score:3)
Pity I have no modpoints.
I am no MS fanboy, but I agree with what you say. I liek that Live DOES remember you deselecting it last time, and doesnt nag you on further updates. Microsoft is obviously going to peddle Bing, but they do make it quite clear, and do it in "the right way".
On the other hand.... take recent versions of Java, and its Yahoo bar... grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Re: (Score:1)
Good Lord Man
You are not saying we should trust Google?
For a lot of people they are the enemy!
Re: (Score:1)
Talk to Europe about that one.
Re: (Score:2)
For the same reason code pattern matching and heuristics in operating system are "security" in Microsoft world.
It's bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)