Replies

>> Huh. So it IS good for something, after all!

> From what I've heard and read, it's probably better than the better known virus and anti-malware packages out there.

Depends on what you're trying to catch/avoid. It's very good at fixed-pattern matching and other lightweight techniques. It doesn't have the advanced processor=intensive heuristic algorithms of the big packages, that give them such a bad reputation for slowing your machine down.

I really like Defender and its predecessor Security Essentials. But that's because all I'm looking for is lightweight protection. If I needed the more intrusive algorithms, it wouldn't be as attractive.

> MS has decided to enter into the virus/malware business with all guns blazing

If that means they make Defender smarter, without making it slower, that's fine.

If that means that the default MS antimalware offerings are going to become top-heavy, bloated, lumbering messes like the competition, I'm not interested.

Depends on what you're trying to catch/avoid. It's very good at fixed-pattern matching and other lightweight techniques. It doesn't have the advanced processor=intensive heuristic algorithms of the big packages, that give them such a bad reputation for slowing your machine down.

[...] I really like Defender and its predecessor Security Essentials. But that's because all I'm looking for is lightweight protection. If I needed the more intrusive algorithms, it wouldn't be as attractive.

I hear you - and likewise would have agreed not long ago.

I would also add that MSE tends to be quite good with rootkits - not best, mind you, but it is good at it. MSE's offline/rescue scanner is competent.

But, I am a computer tech, serving residential and SOHO - My bench serves as a good study of real time 'in the wild' infections, and also by inverse extension, the effectiveness of various AV's.

By far and away, infected boxen tend to be running Norton. Second place would be a tossup between McAffee and Microsoft MSE.

Now, that is somewhat a matter of ubiquity - one would expect more of the above brands, just simply because of their wide distribution - but within my own ecosystem, that should be offset by my recommendation(s) to my customers:

I recommended F-Protect for many years, so I probably see more F-Protect protected boxes than the average, because of the effect of my recommendation (and I do, or at least, did) - Likewise, for a free solution, in a light to moderate threat environment, I had been recommending MSE (ever since AVG turned into a fat pig).

But, about a year ago, I started seeing a preponderance of MSE protected boxes coming across my bench... By about 6 months ago, I had stopped recommending it altogether. I now recommend Avast or AntiVir (Avira) as free solutions... And really, I encourage people to avoid free anti-virus...

As an aside, one might also consider that which doesn't come across my bench - My highest recommendation goes to Kaspersky Anti-Virus, with nearly as high praise going to Eset's Nod32... If people can afford it, or if they are in an high-risk environment, or if they require high security, these are the AVs I recommend.

I *never* see a KAV or Nod32 box come across my bench. And I have a lot of folks on KAV.

My own benches and server - probably the highest risk - run KAV.

Depends on what you're trying to catch/avoid. It's very good at fixed-pattern matching and other lightweight techniques. It doesn't have the advanced processor=intensive heuristic algorithms of the big packages, that give them such a bad reputation for slowing your machine down.

When it comes to Windows, which company would understand the code better than the Windows writers themselves? True that, the code has allowed too many viruses and other malware to infect the system, but, the reality is that, Microsoft is now in the business of providing security software, and going forward, I doubt that anybody is going to understand the code and the potential exploits better than the Microsoft analysts/developers/coders.