Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Windows Defender?

[Yousuf Khan]

Is anyone using Microsoft Security Essentials as their
anti-virus/anti-spyware program? I used it briefly, within an hour it
"discovered" a trojan inside one of my AVI video files. So I figured
this program is about as dumb as algae, and I went back to Avira.
However, false positives aside, I'd like to know how it performs: is it
a resource hog, obtrusive, etc. I might go back to it eventually if
people find it is not too obtrusive, and Microsoft fixes its
brain-dead-ness.

Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Windows Defender - Security Tips &
Talk - Site Home - MSDN Blogs
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytip...-security-essentials-vs-windows-defender.aspx

Yousuf Khan

 

[Dick]

Is anyone using Microsoft Security Essentials as their
anti-virus/anti-spyware program? I used it briefly, within an hour it
"discovered" a trojan inside one of my AVI video files. So I figured
this program is about as dumb as algae, and I went back to Avira.
However, false positives aside, I'd like to know how it performs: is it
a resource hog, obtrusive, etc. I might go back to it eventually if
people find it is not too obtrusive, and Microsoft fixes its
brain-dead-ness.

Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Windows Defender - Security Tips &
Talk - Site Home - MSDN Blogs
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytip...-security-essentials-vs-windows-defender.aspx


Yousuf Khan

Yousuf,

I have been using Microsoft Security Essentials for about 9 months, now.
Before that I used Norton and I also tried AVG. I switched to MSSE
because the Norton and AVG were both resource hogs.

Using MSSE is like getting a new machine: the response is snappy and it
does the job of defending my machine against attacks. I have never had
a virus get past any of my programs (ie Norton, AVG, or MSSE). I use it
on two machines that run Windows 7 and One that runs XP.

At least, that's my experience. I really like it.

Dick

 

[Big Steel]

Is anyone using Microsoft Security Essentials as their
anti-virus/anti-spyware program? I used it briefly, within an hour it
"discovered" a trojan inside one of my AVI video files. So I figured
this program is about as dumb as algae, and I went back to Avira.
However, false positives aside, I'd like to know how it performs: is it
a resource hog, obtrusive, etc. I might go back to it eventually if
people find it is not too obtrusive, and Microsoft fixes its
brain-dead-ness.

I use MS Security Essentials on my Windows 7 desktop computer. Any AV
solution can get a false positive hit.

I use Nod32 on my laptop Vista, and it has gotten false positive hits.

http://blogs.sitepoint.com/microsoft-security-essentials-review/

I got no problems using MS Security Essentials. It may replace Nod32,
because I may not want to shell out the dollars.

 

[Dave \Crash\ Dummy]

Yousuf,

I have been using Microsoft Security Essentials for about 9 months,
now. Before that I used Norton and I also tried AVG. I switched to
MSSE because the Norton and AVG were both resource hogs.

Using MSSE is like getting a new machine: the response is snappy and
it does the job of defending my machine against attacks. I have
never had a virus get past any of my programs (ie Norton, AVG, or
MSSE). I use it on two machines that run Windows 7 and One that runs
XP.

At least, that's my experience. I really like it.

Me, too, and I'd rather have an occasional false positive (I've never
had one) than a missed Trojan.

 

[R. C. White]

Hi, Yousuf.

Like Dick, Crash and Steel, I've been using MSE a couple of years, since it
was in beta, and it has done an excellent job for me. And since it takes
over Windows Defender's duties, too, and disables Defender, the question in
your Subject is moot.

Ever since my subscription to Norton Internet Security 2005 expired (because
Norton never updated it or NIS 2006 for 64-bit Windows XP), I've been
"running bare" and loving it - until MSE came along. Except for an
occasional (about weekly) reminder to run a Quick Scan, I just about forget
that MSE is there.

Last week, for the first time in many years, I had a malware scare. My bank
had been using Trusteer's Rapport to validate its secure connection, and
Rapport's green logo stopped appearing. I tried re-installing Rapport, and
then MSE began to detect "PWS:HTML/Bankfraud" - and Removed it. After an
Internet search, I concluded that Rapport was more trouble - and risk - than
it was worth, so I had Win7's Programs and Features uninstall it. Then MSE
stopped complaining, and a scan with Malware Bytes came up clean, too. ;<)

MSE is free, its definitions are updated at least daily (silently, if you
choose), and I've seen nobody complaining of its ineffectiveness. (Dick's
report of a false positive is the first one I've seen.)

My main malware protection is ME - and "practicing safe hex". Your mileage
may vary, of course. ;^}

RC
--
R. C. White, CPA
San Marcos, TX
(e-mail address removed)
Microsoft Windows MVP (2002-9/30/10)
Windows Live Mail Version 2011 (Build 15.4.3508.1109) in Win7 Ultimate x64
SP1


"Yousuf Khan" wrote in message
Is anyone using Microsoft Security Essentials as their
anti-virus/anti-spyware program? I used it briefly, within an hour it
"discovered" a trojan inside one of my AVI video files. So I figured
this program is about as dumb as algae, and I went back to Avira.
However, false positives aside, I'd like to know how it performs: is it
a resource hog, obtrusive, etc. I might go back to it eventually if
people find it is not too obtrusive, and Microsoft fixes its
brain-dead-ness.

Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Windows Defender - Security Tips &
Talk - Site Home - MSDN Blogs
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytip...-security-essentials-vs-windows-defender.aspx

Yousuf Khan

 

[Chet]

Is anyone using Microsoft Security Essentials as their
anti-virus/anti-spyware program? I used it briefly, within an
hour it "discovered" a trojan inside one of my AVI video files.
So I figured this program is about as dumb as algae, and I went
back to Avira. However, false positives aside, I'd like to know
how it performs: is it a resource hog, obtrusive, etc. I might go
back to it eventually if people find it is not too obtrusive, and
Microsoft fixes its brain-dead-ness.

Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Windows Defender - Security
Tips & Talk - Site Home - MSDN Blogs
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytip...-security-essentials-vs-windows-defender.aspx


Yousuf Khan

I'll add my 2cents for what it's worth!

I've been using MS Security Essentials as my realtime protection
for some time now on my six machines (2-Win7 Home Premium x64
laptops, 2-Win7 Pro x64 desktops, 1-WinXP Pro x86 desktop & 1
WinXP Home x86 desktop) and haven't had any problems.

I was a *long time* user of Norton's Anti-Virus from the Win95
days (installed it from floppies!) and later their Internet
Security suite; but over time got tired of the expense and
especially the noticeable overall system slowdown - even on a
fairly powerful machine.

I also use Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and SUPERAntiSpyware (both
free versions) for weekly scans and since switching to MSE they
haven't found a single threat. When using Symantic's product
occasionally one or both would detect a possible threat that
Norton had missed. When researching the possible threat further
and with additional scans (online and local) Malwarebytes and/or
SUPER would always be correct with Norton just plain missing it!

In fact, my additional weekly scans have become more like
bi-weekly (and sometimes monthly) as I tend to trust MSE more -
hopefully this won't come back and bite my in the a**!

Just my thoughts!

 

[relic]

I use MS Security Essentials on my Windows 7 desktop computer. Any AV
solution can get a false positive hit.

I use Nod32 on my laptop Vista, and it has gotten false positive hits.

Do you know what triggered it? (I've used NOD32 for 11 years and haven't
seen one yet.)

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I have been using Microsoft Security Essentials for about 9 months, now.
Before that I used Norton and I also tried AVG. I switched to MSSE
because the Norton and AVG were both resource hogs.

Using MSSE is like getting a new machine: the response is snappy and it
does the job of defending my machine against attacks. I have never had a
virus get past any of my programs (ie Norton, AVG, or MSSE). I use it on
two machines that run Windows 7 and One that runs XP.

At least, that's my experience. I really like it.

Dick

I agree with you about Norton and AVG, both are huge hogs. AVG used to
be quite lean and mean, but it's been slowly getting as bad as the big
boys. That's why I had switched to Avira. I started using Avira on my
laptop, which is much older and less powerful than my desktop, because
AVG was just stopping it dead in its tracks. Then eventually I found
even my desktop was getting bogged down by AVG, so the switch happened
across the board.

I really appreciate low-intrusion anti-virals.

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I use MS Security Essentials on my Windows 7 desktop computer. Any AV
solution can get a false positive hit.

I use Nod32 on my laptop Vista, and it has gotten false positive hits.

That's true, and I've gotten false positives on both AVG and Avira
before. But really, getting a false positive on what is obviously an AVI
video file, is a bit brain-dead. It has no business scanning something
like that at all.

Secondly, if there is a false positive, how easy is it to get to the
developers to report the false positive? I've had good success with both
AVG and Avira in being able to easily upload the false positive file to
their email account or a website repository, and they've sent back
reports to me stating that they did indeed find it to be a false
positive, and they made alterations to the scanning signature right
away. That goes a long way for me towards establishing a good opinion of
the product -- everybody makes mistakes, but do you correct it quickly
and without hassles?

Yousuf Khan

 

[Yousuf Khan]

I also use Malwarebytes' Anti-Malware and SUPERAntiSpyware (both free
versions) for weekly scans and since switching to MSE they haven't found
a single threat. When using Symantic's product occasionally one or both
would detect a possible threat that Norton had missed. When researching
the possible threat further and with additional scans (online and local)
Malwarebytes and/or SUPER would always be correct with Norton just plain
missing it!

In fact, my additional weekly scans have become more like bi-weekly (and
sometimes monthly) as I tend to trust MSE more - hopefully this won't
come back and bite my in the a**!

Just my thoughts!

Sounds good, but I still don't trust it as my primary security software,
not after that completely stupid false positive. But I wouldn't mind
using it as a scheduled task to scan for spyware. I'd rather not keep it
loaded in real-time. I'll use the Avira for that, and use MSE
occasionally. Is this possible to do with MSE keep it installed but not
real-time?

Yousuf Khan

 

[Ken Blake]

Do you know what triggered it? (I've used NOD32 for 11 years and haven't
seen one yet.)

I haven't used NOD32 for as long as you, but it's been three or four
years now. Not to say that a false positive isn't possible with any
anti-virus, but I've never gotten one from NOD32 either.

 

[Big Steel]

That's true, and I've gotten false positives on both AVG and Avira
before. But really, getting a false positive on what is obviously an AVI
video file, is a bit brain-dead. It has no business scanning something
like that at all.

You do know you can exclude that file type from the scan. But what's to
say that the file type has been faked and it is a virus?

Secondly, if there is a false positive, how easy is it to get to the
developers to report the false positive? I've had good success with both
AVG and Avira in being able to easily upload the false positive file to
their email account or a website repository, and they've sent back
reports to me stating that they did indeed find it to be a false
positive, and they made alterations to the scanning signature right
away. That goes a long way for me towards establishing a good opinion of
the product -- everybody makes mistakes, but do you correct it quickly
and without hassles?

I don't think it's that big of a deal. It's certainly something I
wouldn't give it much thought and haven't.

 

[Big Steel]

I haven't used NOD32 for as long as you, but it's been three or four
years now. Not to say that a false positive isn't possible with any
anti-virus, but I've never gotten one from NOD32 either.

I got the hits many years ago using Nod32, but it got a couple of them
over the years.

 

[Ken Blake]

Sounds good, but I still don't trust it as my primary security software,
not after that completely stupid false positive.

Bear in mind that *no* anti-virus program is perfect, and a false
positive is always possible. If you get *many* of them, then your
anti-virus is poor, but I wouldn't stop using a product for a single
false positive. Microsoft Security Essentials is an excellent product.

I'd rather not keep it loaded in real-time. I'll use the Avira for that.

Avira is also an excellent product. I don't think it's any better than
Microsoft Security Essentials, though.

 

[Chet]

Sounds good, but I still don't trust it as my primary security
software, not after that completely stupid false positive. But I
wouldn't mind using it as a scheduled task to scan for spyware.
I'd rather not keep it loaded in real-time. I'll use the Avira
for that, and use MSE occasionally. Is this possible to do with
MSE keep it installed but not real-time?

Yes, you can turn MSE's realtime protection off. From the
Settings tab click Real-time Protection; you'll see you can
uncheck it.

hth

 

[Flint]

Is anyone using Microsoft Security Essentials as their
anti-virus/anti-spyware program? I used it briefly, within an hour it
"discovered" a trojan inside one of my AVI video files. So I figured
this program is about as dumb as algae, and I went back to Avira.
However, false positives aside, I'd like to know how it performs: is
it a resource hog, obtrusive, etc. I might go back to it eventually if
people find it is not too obtrusive, and Microsoft fixes its
brain-dead-ness.

Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Windows Defender - Security Tips &
Talk - Site Home - MSDN Blogs
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytip...-security-essentials-vs-windows-defender.aspx


Yousuf Khan

It's not too bad, ad of course it plays nice with Windows Defender
better than most others, but as you say, its detection is a tad
froggy/jumpy on some things.

One is better off with the "A" brand stuff (Avast, AVG, or Avira), AFAIC.

 

[Flint]

Bear in mind that *no* anti-virus program is perfect, and a false
positive is always possible. If you get *many* of them, then your
anti-virus is poor, but I wouldn't stop using a product for a single
false positive. Microsoft Security Essentials is an excellent product.




Avira is also an excellent product. I don't think it's any better than
Microsoft Security Essentials, though.

I was an AVG user for nearly 10 years, and I've occasionally run
across a few false positives with it as well as every other antivirus
I've ever used. The worst offender I ran across for this was F-Prot.

AVG, as noted by another poster (as well as several other techs I
know) has become bloated and sluggish in the same manner as Norton and
McAffee, so I switched to Avast!. Avast is a bit sluggish too, but
one can easily disable any of its "shield" (real-time) components, and
it offers excellent parameter fine tuning. The feature that finally
got me to switch over to it was its email scanner handles SSL
connections much easier and w/less hassle w/more email clients than
AVG's "127.0.0.1" 'two step shuffle' config process.

Overall, I tend to prefer a combination of:

Avast!, (active real time shields)
weekly 3AM Sunday disk scans,

Malwarebytes, (scheduled weekly, Sundays 5AM)

Windowe Defender (daily 2AM scans, & active real time)

Spybot Search & Destroy - manually run, tea timer disabled in
Vista/W7, but active on XP systems.

 

[Big Steel]

I was an AVG user for nearly 10 years, and I've occasionally run across
a few false positives with it as well as every other antivirus I've ever
used. The worst offender I ran across for this was F-Prot.

AVG, as noted by another poster (as well as several other techs I know)
has become bloated and sluggish in the same manner as Norton and
McAffee, so I switched to Avast!. Avast is a bit sluggish too, but one
can easily disable any of its "shield" (real-time) components, and it
offers excellent parameter fine tuning. The feature that finally got me
to switch over to it was its email scanner handles SSL connections much
easier and w/less hassle w/more email clients than AVG's "127.0.0.1"
'two step shuffle' config process.

Overall, I tend to prefer a combination of:

Avast!, (active real time shields)
weekly 3AM Sunday disk scans,

Malwarebytes, (scheduled weekly, Sundays 5AM)

Windowe Defender (daily 2AM scans, & active real time)

Spybot Search & Destroy - manually run, tea timer disabled in Vista/W7,
but active on XP systems.

What? Are you serious? Why don't you toss the sink in there too?

 

[Jeff Layman]

Is anyone using Microsoft Security Essentials as their
anti-virus/anti-spyware program? I used it briefly, within an hour it
"discovered" a trojan inside one of my AVI video files. So I figured
this program is about as dumb as algae, and I went back to Avira.
However, false positives aside, I'd like to know how it performs: is it
a resource hog, obtrusive, etc. I might go back to it eventually if
people find it is not too obtrusive, and Microsoft fixes its
brain-dead-ness.

Microsoft Security Essentials vs. Windows Defender - Security Tips &
Talk - Site Home - MSDN Blogs
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/securitytip...-security-essentials-vs-windows-defender.aspx

Just been trying it on an old XPH machine. Seems OK, but I find it
annoying that I can't turn automatic updating off, and update only when
I want to. And that is an issue, because like all downloads from MS
sites, it takes an age to download the latest definitions.

 

[Yousuf Khan]

You do know you can exclude that file type from the scan. But what's to
say that the file type has been faked and it is a virus?

Most other anti-virals know to exclude these files by default. If a file
has been faked, then it won't run, it'll simply be considered a data file.

I don't think it's that big of a deal. It's certainly something I
wouldn't give it much thought and haven't.

Well, I've done it before, and therefore I find it useful.

Yousuf Khan