Industry


Ads by TechWords

See your link here


Preston Gralla's picture
Preston Gralla

Seeing Through Windows

Microsoft Security Essentials: Free is great, but is it effective?

I've put the final version of Microsoft Security Essentials through its paces, and have found it a solid, simple-to-use anti-malware tool that takes up little RAM and system resources. Less clear, though, is how effective it is against all threats you might face.

The final version is essentially unchanged since the beta release. In my review of the beta, I concluded that the program is a clear success because of its set-and-forget simplicity and its lightweight operation that makes sure your PC takes no performance hit.

In that review, I noted that the software "shares the same engine and signatures as other Microsoft anti-malware products, including OneCare, the enterprise-focused Forefront and the monthly Microsoft Malicious Software Removal Tool."

OneCare was one of only three tools given the top Advanced+ designation by the AV-Comparatives Web site in May tests.

However, since then, OneCare has not been so successful. In August tests by AV-Comparatives, it didn't do nearly as well, and was only given the "Standard" designation --- below Advanced+ and Advanced, but above the merely Tested designation. It trailed behind 12 of the 16 products tested. It did poorly in that test because it missed a higher percentage of infections.

Those tests were done more than a month ago, on August 10, so Microsoft may have well improved the product since then. And Microsoft has discontinued OneCare, while still developing Microsoft Security Essentials, so it may be that Security Essentials will do far better than OneCare did in the next round of tests.

In addition, when Security Essentials was released as a beta, AV-Test GmbH tested the beta and told Computerworld that "All [viruses] were properly detected and treated by the product. That's good, as several other [antivirus] scanners are still not able to detect and kill all of these critters yet." That's certainly a seal of approval.

In the coming months, more lab results will come in about the effectiveness of the shipping version of Microsoft Security Essentials. But I've learned over time that you can't go by the results of only one test. After all, OneCare was rated a top performer in May by AV-Comparatives, and then in August rated poorly.

I've been using Microsoft Security Essentials since its beta, and have found it effective -- it's caught several nasty pieces of malware. Now that it's shipping, I'll continue using it, and keep checking lab results to see how well it fares.

What People Are Saying

Testing MSE and the Hosts file

Addressing the issue of just how well Security Essentials works, I just tested how it protects users from malicious modifications to the hosts file. It wasn't impressive. See

Testing Microsoft Security Essentials and the Hosts file

AV Issues

No one’s touched on the two big AV issues – does it ‘play well with other programs’ and does it turn your PC into cement during normal operations. Strong AV / security is a must, although it would be nice to see one that doesn’t weigh down your computer in the process.

works fine on the test files

works fine on the test files i've thrown at it. runs pretty much silent in the bg. what's the big deal? oh, right whenever ms is mentioned everyone's panties gets in a bunch, i forgot.

my question is do you have

my question is do you have to remove an already existing anti virus program / or con you use both. i use nod 32.

Remove existing AV

@DJI: Yes you will want to remove any existing AV software. I would not recommend using two, as it adds to your overhead, and conceivably one could detect the other as a problem.

MSE does not scan email

I wonder how come this important fact is always under reported? MSE does not scan email for incoming malware, so it's effectiveness to really protect against malware is limited.
DISCLAIMER: We sell VIPRE antivirus + antispyware so I'm professionally involved.

The bare minimum system

The bare minimum system requirements say 1 GB of RAM.

I have a fairly expensive computer, just 2 years old, that barely meets this requirement.

I have a slightly older computer, still working well and running WinXP SP3, than has just 736 MB of RAM.

Microsoft is telling us to go to hell.

You bought a fairly

You bought a fairly expensive barely meets requirements to install MSE ? than buy an extra 1GB expensive RAM cost you another expensive $25

No, what they're telling you

No, what they're telling you is that if you bought a "fairly expensive" system 2yrs ago with 1GB of RAM you got ripped off. Sport the $30 and double up the RAM - it will breath new life into that box with value way beyond the AV issue.

Oh, and also, MS isn't making you do anything; they're offering a new FREE product that you didn't have before so stop wining. Stay with AVG FREE if you'd rather - it works just fine.

Minimum

I have to question the thought processes of anyone who has purchased a PC in the past three years and equipped it with only 1GB of RAM. One, even Windows XP barely performs satsifactorily on a PC with a modern multi-core processor and only 1GB of RAM; by far, 2GB provides a much more satisfactory experience with XP, and 4GB (the motherboard will recognize it, but 32-bit OS only use 3.25GB) should be considered minimum for Vista. Second, over the past 3 years, the cost of RAM has been so reasonable that going with a minimum configuration has been, by far, penny wise and pound foolish.

That being said, the belly aching needs to stop, and the wallet needs to let loose of $20-$30 per PC to add another gigabyte of RAM to your machines. It will give them a needed performance shot in the arm, and more longevity by helping them quit thrashing your hard drive from constant memory paging activities.