AV Solutions
- Thread starter Robert
- Start date
Kaspersky will almost certainly provide better detection than MSE, but the question is whether you need anything above and beyond Defender to justify the performance cost.
Is it a particularly high risk machine? Are user accounts set up correctly? Do you have Java installed?
Is it a particularly high risk machine? Are user accounts set up correctly? Do you have Java installed?
Stick with what you have.
Don't forget to keep everything up-to-date. http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/personal/
Use Firefox or Chrome because they both block out-of-date plug-ins and have enhanced security features such as click-to-play plug-in mode.
Don't forget to keep everything up-to-date. http://secunia.com/vulnerability_scanning/personal/
Use Firefox or Chrome because they both block out-of-date plug-ins and have enhanced security features such as click-to-play plug-in mode.
I got the same 98%, my Python needs updating according to Secunia.
Yet, when I clicked on the button, as you need Internet explorer, I get this message on the web page, "There is a problem with this website’s security certificate". Does`nt sound very encouraging.
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,062
Stick with Windows Defender it's built into the OS and good. I don't get the "most not use Microsoft" attitudes and end up paying for something that at best is only just as good usually,or use a freebie with lots of adverts. MSE/Defender has now been around a long while and well developed.
theheyes, do yo have any evidence of that? Viruses are changing or appearing all the time and the scanners are constantly changing too and results from each are probably immeasurable. The best test would be to test each one long term and throwing viruses at each constantly as they appear in the real world but nobody would want to do that. Instead they do a short term test, and probably with backhander from a company to help decide which one is best
If you're unlucky enough for your PC to get a new virus none of them will protect you.
If we use our brains we're unlikely to have a problem with viruses anyway.
theheyes, do yo have any evidence of that? Viruses are changing or appearing all the time and the scanners are constantly changing too and results from each are probably immeasurable. The best test would be to test each one long term and throwing viruses at each constantly as they appear in the real world but nobody would want to do that. Instead they do a short term test, and probably with backhander from a company to help decide which one is best
If you're unlucky enough for your PC to get a new virus none of them will protect you.
If we use our brains we're unlikely to have a problem with viruses anyway.
Last edited:
Microsoft has recently released a statement advising users not to rely on MS Essentials. It appears that MS haven't actually been supporting Essentials since 2011 but forgot to mention that little gem to the millions of us that had been blissfully relying on the product for AV protection.
MS are now say there is a plethora of products on the market and they see their role as sharing security breaches information with their competitors which should ensure protection for everyone.
One could also read into that statement that MS were concerned about another law suit from the EU.
MS are now say there is a plethora of products on the market and they see their role as sharing security breaches information with their competitors which should ensure protection for everyone.
One could also read into that statement that MS were concerned about another law suit from the EU.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 8,732
- Location
- sawley/ long eaton
that's a strange one, if they haven't been supporting it why are there updates every day for it
MSE struggles to detect a lot of garden variety malware, even over 12 months old. I honestly don't know why it continues to be recommended on here as its detection rates are simply awful. On the latest real-world protection tests from AV-Comparatives MSE came LAST out of all the tested AVs, and by a huge margin. It's practically useless.
Edit: Here's the link. Pack-leader Kaspersky blocked 1820 samples and missed 0 samples. MSE blocked 1674 samples and missed 147 samples, leaving it the worst of the 22 tested products (both free and paid for) by a huge margin. This is repeated time and again so I'm at a loss as to how people still recommend it.
Edit: Here's the link. Pack-leader Kaspersky blocked 1820 samples and missed 0 samples. MSE blocked 1674 samples and missed 147 samples, leaving it the worst of the 22 tested products (both free and paid for) by a huge margin. This is repeated time and again so I'm at a loss as to how people still recommend it.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2008
- Posts
- 6,062
How did each stand up against system resource usage? Personally, even if Defender it isn't as good at detection, I will stick with Windows Defender (in Windows 8.1). Most of us know which types of files, websites etc to avoid, having something as a second defence that just works seamlessly is fine.
Last edited:
I still feel Avast is better ie free ,better detection rate and also lighter on resources then MSE/Defender so no brainer really http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18115179&page=31 .
MSE uses quite a lot of RAM actually, easily into the 100s of MB. Compare that to products that actually do detect malware such as Webroot (1MB to 2MB usage total and includes a full AV and firewall!) or Comodo (10MB to 12MB average, and includes a full firewall, AV, HIPS and sandbox). I don't see the point in keeping an AV because you perceive it to be light but low on protection... It'd be lighter still to just have no AV.
Given that even sites like the BBC are not immune to serving up drive-by malware after being compromised, thinking you only visit 'safe' sites isn't really an ideal way to defend yourself. For the sake of 1-2MB RAM you can have fantastic protection and a decent two-way firewall rather than something thats heavy and works 'sometimes'. So again there's no real case for MSE.
Horses for courses and all that I suppose.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Jun 2003
- Posts
- 8,732
- Location
- sawley/ long eaton
I still found it hard to believe people go on about resources these days, its not like the old days when you had 1mb and it mattered
we have gigs with most of it free
we have gigs with most of it free
Resources doesn't just mean active RAM though. It's the CPU cycles, disk I/O, file transfer slowing and especially internet slow down. The wrong AV can knock loads off a 120 meg connection just in being bloated and slow. Plus not everyone has a high end system. Pentium, Core2 and even Celeron systems are still common, and the difference between a 1MB RAM suite and a 150MB suite on overall system performance can be debilitating.
MSE uses quite a lot of RAM actually, easily into the 100s of MB. Compare that to products that actually do detect malware such as Webroot (1MB to 2MB usage total and includes a full AV and firewall!) or Comodo (10MB to 12MB average, and includes a full firewall, AV, HIPS and sandbox). I don't see the point in keeping an AV because you perceive it to be light but low on protection... It'd be lighter still to just have no AV.
Given that even sites like the BBC are not immune to serving up drive-by malware after being compromised, thinking you only visit 'safe' sites isn't really an ideal way to defend yourself. For the sake of 1-2MB RAM you can have fantastic protection and a decent two-way firewall rather than something thats heavy and works 'sometimes'. So again there's no real case for MSE.
Other than synthetic style tests and reports that you usually see online, what are the real world usage stats for MSE failing so badly? I can't see any?
Considering it's the standard AV on Windows 8 and the product of choice on Windows 7 among the majority of people, if it was as bad as some people here and on other forums make out then there'd be a big stink about it on the internet and I'm not seeing that either.
Truth be told I've been using MSE since day 1 and do regular monthly scans with multiple other on demand scanners and maintenance tools to keep my system in good shape. Nothing has ever been flagged as infected and on occasions MSE has popped up telling me that there's something sinister on the webpage I am currently browsing and that it has quarantined it safely.
Above all that, going back to what you said about it uses lots of RAM, looking at my task manager right now after almost 6 days of uptime, the MSE engine executable is using 82MB of RAM and the UI interface is using 17MB so combined it's not even using 100MB and the CPU utilisation is also low, not even worth writing about it's that low.
Edit*
Just seen the November AV Comparatives report, still don't know what to make of it mind!
Edit 2*
Brilliant, activated my KIS license in the software itself and it tells me the license is invalid, go into the KIS website account area and that code is for KIS 2009.
NICE JOB BARCLAYS.
Last edited:
theheyes, do yo have any evidence of that? Viruses are changing or appearing all the time and the scanners are constantly changing too and results from each are probably immeasurable. The best test would be to test each one long term and throwing viruses at each constantly as they appear in the real world but nobody would want to do that. Instead they do a short term test, and probably with backhander from a company to help decide which one is best
Over many years I've watched how MSE/Defender has evolved as an antimalware product, and during that time I don't think it's ever bested the top ranking AV suites for detection rates. And by 'watch' I don't skim all the link bait articles like most people, I mean actually read the reports. Microsoft themselves have semi publicly admitted their detection rates could be better.
But the Microsoft methodology is different from the rest of the pack. Defender is a core component of the operating system, and its priority is to protect the platform i.e. the majority of users from the majority of threats. A herd immunity of sorts.
Contrast that with your third party applications. Their marketing campaign pretty much begins and ends with their detection score performances and so engines are tuned and resources applied accordingly.
The question is do you fall into the 'good enough' category, or would you benefit from the more aggressive packages? There is an arguable case on both sides, but I would say Defender is 'good enough' as a component of an otherwise properly secured computer.
I am admittedly biased as I have negative experience of MSE. One of my boxes was infected by a drive-by trojan which MSE completely missed. I upped it to virustotal and the malware was actually over 12 months old, yet STILL not detected by MSE.
I duly submitted the file to MS and said the product had missed it despite it being very old news, and their actual reply said 'Our enterprise protection has detected this malware for 11 months now. MSE is a consumer product and doesn't have the same detection rates. If not becoming infected is important to you we suggest you purchase one of our endpoint products'.
Fo' serial?! As you can imagine I've swerved it ever since. Real world fail, plus corporate admittance of its inefficacy means it's not something I want 'protecting' (read: bloating) my machines.
I duly submitted the file to MS and said the product had missed it despite it being very old news, and their actual reply said 'Our enterprise protection has detected this malware for 11 months now. MSE is a consumer product and doesn't have the same detection rates. If not becoming infected is important to you we suggest you purchase one of our endpoint products'.
Fo' serial?!
As you can imagine I've swerved it ever since. Real world fail, plus corporate admittance of its inefficacy means it's not something I want 'protecting' (read: bloating) my machines.The question you should be asking yourself is, why was my computer able to be exploited in the first place?
Switching to a different AV product won't make any difference if you fail to address the basic issues such as software patching.