W
W. eWatson
Win 7.
Does MSE needs to be installed,or is it on a PC when it's purchased?
If I use MSE,do I need McAfee.
Does MSE needs to be installed,or is it on a PC when it's purchased?
If I use MSE,do I need McAfee.
P
Paladin
If you are just now buying a Win7 PC, it could have anything on it.
When new, most PCs come with trial-ware([email protected],buy later).
Usually not MSE.
Use only one.
W
Wolf K
It's more complicated than that. You should have only one program
shielding your computer in real time. You should have three or four
additional programs, for regular scanning. No anti-malware program
catches everything.
IMO, MSE is better than McAfee. I use Vipre. Other people recommend
Kapersky, Avast, etc.
HTH
P
Paul in Houston TX
No telling what's on a store bought, ready made machine.W. eWatson said:
However, MSE may be installed during the first weekly update,
if you let it. Or it can be easily downloaded and installed.
MSE is free and fast. I would prefer MSE for a virus shield,
if I used one.
P
Paladin
Since you chose to respond to me, no it isn't.
I use one Security suite, only one, and have done so for many years.
I didn't buy a PC to run nonsense scans all day.
The user just needs common sense, don't click and install things willy-
nilly.
If you are going to risky sites all day, then by all means scan away.
Better still, do risky stuff on a "throw away" cheap PC that you keep no
info on ... a base OS, nothing else.
Then running 4 programs that don't catch everything does what?
Gives one a false sense of security.
Better to learn some computer basics.
It didn't help me.
Maybe the OP learned something.
W
W. eWatson
I'm actually asking this for a friend. I use on MSE and Malwarebytes. He
brought up the topic, since he runs MSE and McAffe. However, he thinks
McAffe is slowing down his PC.
P
Paladin
Your friend should pick one to keep, one to uninstall.
You can search the web for "AV comparisons" or "best AV" , but it will
boil down to a personal decision.
Depending on available cpu/memory resources, any AV you pick can have a
"speed" impact ... running two "live AVs" needs to be eliminated first.
W
Wolf K
On 2013-08-08 8:55 PM, Paladin wrote:
[...]
Oh my oh my, but don't we jump to conclusions! And don't we dispense
self-righteous advice to supposed sinners!
None of your assumptions about my computing experience and knowledge,
nor about my surfing habits, are valid.
[...]
[..][
Oh my oh my, but don't we jump to conclusions! And don't we dispense
self-righteous advice to supposed sinners!
None of your assumptions about my computing experience and knowledge,
nor about my surfing habits, are valid.
W
Wolf K
On 2013-08-08 10:20 PM, W. eWatson wrote:
[...]
reasons people over on alt.comp.anti-virus disrecommend MacAfee.
HTH
[...]
A common complaint, and apparently borne out by testing. One of the
reasons people over on alt.comp.anti-virus disrecommend MacAfee.
HTH
V
VanguardLH
Guess you've never heard about the Task Scheduler included in Windows.Paladin said:
Despite any claim you make, you do NOT use your computer every minute
of the day. So you're letting your computer sit idle for what? You
think not using it gives it a rest for your next use?
Considering that you can't be bothered to use the Task Scheduler to
run on-demand scans when you are not at your computer then it is also
likely that you don't bother to schedule daily or regular backups of
your computer or do file cleanup. Not everyone is keen on having to
go over to their computer when they could be doing something else just
to sit there watching a GUI run through a progress meter running a
scan or backing up their host.
User interaction is NOT required for infestation by all malware.
Social engineering works very well to get users to click on prompts in
dialogs. If users were all as intelligent as, say, your proclaimed
immunity wizardy then they wouldn't need security software at all.
There are lots of folks that claim they've never been infected and
have never ran any anti-virus, firewall, HIPS, or other security
software -- until it happens.
No single security program will catch everything while the computer
remains usable to the user, so it is not if but when you will get
infected when using a single program. Yep, not even using six dozen
other security programs will absolutely guarantee you never get
infected (mostly because the user remains in the equation). No one
claimed that. The point is to increase detection coverage, not to get
stuck with the level afforded by a single product.
Also, it isn't just about detection coverage. You will never achieve
100% coverage while leaving the computer usable to the user (the
populace of which have largely varying expertise). Some products are
better at eradication than others. Having high coverage detection
does not equate to having high thoroughness in pest eradication (and
without severe side effects). MSE doesn't have as high detection
coverage as, say, Avast but MSE is better at cleaning out a pest
(obviously only for those it knows about) than Avast.
Risky sites are not the only source of infection. Even you know that
so it was a vapours statement. Manual scans won't help in that case,
anyway, since obviously they would do no good before the infection and
may be too late after the infection. Since we're talking about
*manual* (on-demand) scans here, that won't catch malware behavior as
it occurs. That's why you want a good on-access (realtime) scanner
monitoring your host, and use 2 to 3, including the one in your own
very choice of security program, to up coverage detection.
Do you even know why you should run manual scans? No security program
can catch every bit of malware. Some of it may get deposited but it
remains quiescent. It's just a file on your hard disk. Zero-day
malware won't be caught by your on-access scanner when the file gets
written onto your hard disk. Heuristics may not catch the pest WHEN
the file gets executed later. On-access scanners don't catch dormant
malware sitting in non-executed files on your host. You might have a
dozen scorpions crawling over your body but it's not until one bites
you when you'll have a problem. Why do you think that security
software you installed included its own on-demand (manual) scanning
function? Because a zero-day pest that lies dormant on your system
may have a signature later to detect it. Since no security software
can catch everything, and since overlapping of coverage has always
been recommended, you should be scanning using multiple products.
On-demand scans are to detect quiescent malware. On-access monitoring
is to catch them during transport or when active. Since no security
program's author would ever dare to claim 100% protection on a
general-purpose computer (due to legal liability), yep, you can get
malware deposited on your host that is quiescent. Sure, since it is
not active means it effects nothing malicious but do you really want
all those sleeping bugs laying dormant on your hard disk?
You are NOT using your computer all the time. Use the Task Scheduler
to run your own choice of security software's on-demand scanner. Run
that, say, on Monday morn at 3AM. On Tues morn at 3AM, run a manual
scan using another security program.
An idle computer is a useless computer.
Exactly, and that includes YOUR choice of security software. Did
anyone here claim that overlapped coverage results in 100% detection?
Nope, and you also cannot claim your single solution provides 100%
protection, either.
Unlike installating and running multiple active security programs may
result in conflicts between them, unwanted behavior in your
applications, or slowing of your computer, *passive* security software
has none of those deliterious effects while still affording increased
coverage protection.
Be aware that installing a security program and not having it active
(i.e., it isn't monitoring in realtime) does not mean it is total
passive. For example, SuperAntiSpyware installs a system hook they
claim is needed to ensure their program loads okay even in the
presence of many malwares. That system hook may conflict with other
security software. So while you might think the program is dormant on
your computer until you choose to run it, it may not be completely out
of the way. When I say passive, I means NOTHING of the program exists
or exhibits any type of presence in the active OS. That means the
only resource you loss by installing and keeping passive the
auxilliary scanners is some disk space. Considering the huge sizes of
hard disks over the last decade, anyone arguing about lack of free
disk space to afford themself overlapped on-demand scanning protection
has other garbage (almost always data files) that they need to get off
their hard disk, move to another partition, or put onto removable
media.
You weren't here to learn. You were here to prosyletize your
methodolgy. If just one security program has protected you (and you
really are protected and not simply blind to what pests you have
whether active or dormant because your security program doesn't detect
them) then be happy for yourself. If it works for you then great.
Many users don't want to manage multiple security programs but then
many users aren't forward looking to plan for security, reliability,
and recovery. They see their computers like they are appliances, like
washing machines, rather than understand how never completely closed
can be a general-purpose operating system.
Others are suggesting other security plans to improve detection
coverage. No matter what one security software you are using, it
doesn't catch everything -- not even yours. If it did then why does
it need to get updated? Yeah, explain that. Why does it need
signature updates? Why does it need program updates to add to its
heuristics detection? Why does it need input from the user to qualify
whether a suspect event should be allowed? Why might it need
reconfiguration to avoid undesirable side effects with your OS or
applications? Sorry, despite your desire for such, your choice of
security software is not perfect. None of them are. If any of them
were, they would offer you a 100% insurance plan free of charge to
recover ALL your data, re-setup your computer for free, and replace
any asset that was damaged. They don't. Instead they issue
disclaimers with their product because they, better than you, that it
won't catch everything and it might not eradicate anything it missed.
That you achieve your personal level of protection using a home alarm
system doesn't preclude that others might still want to put a can of
mace on a nearby shelf while others want more and put a loaded shotgun
in the closet. Depends on how safe you want to feel which is not
really the same as how safe you are.
P
Paladin
I'm not the OP.
Give advise to him, please.
I have no intention of running multiple, BS, "security" programs.
Doubt any of them run on Linux anyhow
You are reading a condescending response because you began with one.
P
Paladin
On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 23:07:11 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
<SNIP long winded,misplaced, condescending response.
Once again, I am not the OP, have absolutely no interest in all that
nonsense.
What I do has worked for me since the 90s, so I'm not likely to change.
You are welcome to convince the OP, though
<SNIP long winded,misplaced, condescending response.
Once again, I am not the OP, have absolutely no interest in all that
nonsense.
What I do has worked for me since the 90s, so I'm not likely to change.
You are welcome to convince the OP, though
W
Wolf K
Condescending? No, merely silly.I'm not the OP.
Give advise to him, please.
I have no intention of running multiple, BS, "security" programs.
Doubt any of them run on Linux anyhow
You are reading a condescending response because you began with one.
If you read my post as "condescending" you're a worse reader than I
inferred. You also assumed that my post was a response to you. It
wasn't. It was a comment on your response, and as such intended for the
OP, which is a common and legitimate method of expanding on advice given
to an OP. The initial phrase should have clued you in, but apparently
you're afraid that your superior wisdom isn't being acknowledged.
And if you run on Linux, WTF are you doing offering "advice" to Windows
users?
And yes, if you infer condescension at this point, you're correct. FTR,
I run on Linux also, though not on this machine.
K
Ken Blake
Unless the vendor you bought it from installed it, no, it's not there.
It needs to be downloaded and installed.
Absolutely not! Three important points:
1. It's not a question of what you *need*, it's a question of what you
*should* have. You should *never* have more than one anti-virus
program installed. Having two or more running slows down the computer
and can cause problems as they interfere with each other
2. As far as I'm concerned, McAfee is one of the worst choices and
Microsoft Security Essentials is one of the best. You should
definitely dump McAfee.
3. McAfee is hard to completely uninstall, It's usually not as simple
as doing it from Control Panel. Read here:
http://www.pchell.com/virus/uninstallmcafee.shtml
V
VanguardLH
I wasn't responding to the OP. I was responding to *you* so my replyPaladin said:On Thu, 08 Aug 2013 23:07:11 -0500, VanguardLH wrote:
<SNIP long winded,misplaced, condescending response.
Once again, I am not the OP, have absolutely no interest in all that
nonsense.
What I do has worked for me since the 90s, so I'm not likely to change.
You are welcome to convince the OP, though
was not misplaced. It specifically addressed your proclamation of
your particular security setup and stating that a single security
product is sufficient and as protective as the overlapped scheme
mentioned. You're citing one sample as though it heralds what would
work for everyone. I don't care what you use (that you didn't divulge
here) but I have yet to find any security product that has not
eventually been circumvented resulting in infection. Makes me wonder
what has infiltrated onto your computer that your one product solution
never detected.
I *do* understand threading in Usenet posts. My reply was to YOU.
You want to proselytize that your scheme is the best. Instead it is
sufficient for your particular level of comfort in believing you are
sufficiently protected.
There are folks that drive around in their cars without a spare tire,
too. Many, if not most, don't have even a basic toolbox in their
trunk. There are folks in winter states that don't have jumper cables
stowed in their car or a towing strap or an emergency kit. Tis great
for them but they're the ones pleading for help from someone else that
was smart to prepare. There are computer users that don't install any
security software. When it starts misbehaving (for only them since
they don't care about others) then they just reimage and start anew
without the malware that has accumulated over time on their computer.
For them, that's their comfort level without any prompts, slowdown, or
other nuisance by having to use security software. They don't care if
their computer is a host to a bot used in DDOS attacks as long as
their computer works okay for them.
Your one-product solution does leave you vulnerable to what that
product does not detect. That your one-sample history has not been
compromised makes you lucky or you just don't realize that not getting
prompted is because your one product doesn't detect the malware you do
have. Not knowing is not the same as being clean.
S
s|b
You don't need either. I use a combination of things:
- avast! Free Antivirus
- SpyBot - Search & Destroy
- SUPERAntiSpyware Free
- Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Free
- changed HOSTS file (mvps.org)
- Mozilla Firefox
NoScript, Adblock Plus, HTTPS Everywhere, ...
All freeware.
S
s|b
I forgot a very important one:
- Secunia PSI
(Personal Software Inspector)
G
Gene E. Bloch
VanguardLH, you wrote a cogent essay covering several concepts well and
convincingly.
Unfortunately, the energy you expended to compose it was apparently
wasted on its ostensible target.
Anyway, thank you - I learned a bit from it on top of my prior
knowledge.
B
Buffalo
"W. eWatson" wrote in message news:[email protected]
You received quite a few good answers.
MSE can easily be found in Google, it free and installs easily.
I, personally, would get rid of McAfee for the reasons others mentioned. You
may need to use the uninstaller that Ken Blake referred to (
http://www.pchell.com/virus/uninstallmcafee.shtml ).
As some others suggested, it is usually recommended to only run one
anti-virus in 'real-time'. You can have others installed, but only use one
in real time and the others as 'on-demand' while the real time one is shut
off.
I would also suggest you dl and install the free versions of
SuperAntiSpyware (SAS) and MalwareBytes AntiMalware (MBAM) and run them
occasionally. They will detect and disinfect just as well as the paid
versions.
"W. eWatson" wrote in message
You received quite a few good answers.
MSE can easily be found in Google, it free and installs easily.
I, personally, would get rid of McAfee for the reasons others mentioned. You
may need to use the uninstaller that Ken Blake referred to (
http://www.pchell.com/virus/uninstallmcafee.shtml ).
As some others suggested, it is usually recommended to only run one
anti-virus in 'real-time'. You can have others installed, but only use one
in real time and the others as 'on-demand' while the real time one is shut
off.
I would also suggest you dl and install the free versions of
SuperAntiSpyware (SAS) and MalwareBytes AntiMalware (MBAM) and run them
occasionally. They will detect and disinfect just as well as the paid
versions.
D
Dominique
OT from the main subject but my ISP, Bell.ca now offers McAfee Security
Suite (or something like that) to all its internet customers according to a
recent email I've received. They even say it's the best on the market!!!...
I guess computer's troubleshooters will have more work soon.