Print 73 comment(s) - last by noirsoft.. on Jun 15 at 4:14 AM

  (Source: Microsoft)
Report says Security Essentials is most popular due to offering via Windows Update

A new report from OPSWAT has been published and it shows that the free version of the Microsoft Security Essentials is the most widely used antivirus software in the world. The latest version of Microsoft Security Essentials was released at the end of 2010. 

Microsoft notes that the free security software has been downloaded 30 million times so far. The OPSWAT report shows that 10.66% of the 43,000 computers globally that it surveys are running the Microsoft free solution. Second place in the report goes to Avira Antivir Personal with 10.18% and third goes to AVAST! Free with 8.66% of the market. In the Global market the numbers look different due in part to the larger number of offerings that other companies have.

The report said, "AVAST Software and AVG Technologies both top this quarter’s worldwide antivirus market with 12.37% each. AVAST shows a decrease from its leading 16.19% last quarter, which could be due to a shift in the percentage of data originating from various countries. Avira and Microsoft rank third and fourth with 12.29% and 11.24% of the market, respectively."

The report also explains that the reason that Microsoft's offering is so popular is that it offers the protection through Windows Update. In the North American market, Microsoft has a larger share with 17.07% with AVG being second at 15.63%, and Symantec third with 14.47% of the market.

Some AV manufacturers, however, complain that offering AV protection via Windows Update is a little too close to comfort to the Internet Explorer bundling that got Microsoft in trouble over a decade ago.

Microsoft first launched Security Essentials in 2009.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

All you need...
By quiksilvr on 6/13/2011 12:47:23 PM , Rating: 5
It really is one of the best out there. The fact that its anti-virus, anti-spam and works seamlessly with the Firewall, it's all 99% of the PC market needs to stay protected. Also it has a much MUCH lighter footprint than AVG.

RE: All you need...
By borismkv on 6/13/2011 12:51:16 PM , Rating: 5
AVG seems to have gone the way of Norton with its latest releases. It used to be so much better. And since you can't run ComboFix with it installed, I tend to avoid using it.

RE: All you need...
By jeepga on 6/13/2011 12:51:57 PM , Rating: 5
Better footprint. It's less invasive. And no nagging! And no odd effects on other applications unlike the commercial crap I have been forced to use in the past.

RE: All you need...
By Samus on 6/13/2011 1:30:15 PM , Rating: 5
MSSE & Malware Bytes' are the two best tools to protect and repair a computer. Both are free. Anything more would be a waste of resources or money.

Now if only MS wouldn't use the stupid Windows Installer engine and it could be deployed in safe mode like many other AV tools.

And somebody needs to license Kaspersky's TDSS anti-rootkit technology because they clearly have that cornered...but again, the (additional) tool is free and works fine.

RE: All you need...
By Nutzo on 6/14/2011 12:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
You just listed the 3 best tools for cleaning systems.

Only time Malware Bytes or TDSS hasn't cleaned something MSSE hadn't completely caught, was when the Virus/rootkit/etc had caused to much corruption to the OS to fix without a reload.

RE: All you need...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/2011 12:55:21 PM , Rating: 5
I agree. I think it's great. No software/firewall conflicts. No false positives. Small footprint. It's honestly one of the best, if not THE best, anti-virus out there. Plus it comes from Windows, so it gets updated like a gillion times. Let's be honest, who's had more practice than Microsoft at having nasty things thrown at them over the years? Nobody.

Too bad they couldn't bundle it with Windows or advertise it more because of "anti-trust" threats.

RE: All you need...
By kattanna on 6/13/2011 1:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
Too bad they couldn't bundle it with Windows or advertise it more because of "anti-trust" threats.

that is really a sad statement. yes.. how dare a company make their product better and a better value for their customer.

RE: All you need...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: All you need...
By niva on 6/13/2011 3:36:43 PM , Rating: 5
He was confirming what you wrote through sarcasm. It is truly sad when a company like MS is forced to reduce the value of the products they deliver because of anti-trust lawsuit fears.

RE: All you need...
By kattanna on 6/13/2011 3:52:36 PM , Rating: 2
He was confirming what you wrote through sarcasm


RE: All you need...
By omnicronx on 6/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: All you need...
By nstott on 6/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: All you need...
By Scabies on 6/13/2011 2:07:25 PM , Rating: 5
I use M$ $ecurity E$$ential$ on my Windows 7

you mean Window$ right

RE: All you need...
By nstott on 6/13/11, Rating: -1
RE: All you need...
By nstott on 6/13/2011 2:55:24 PM , Rating: 4
...the greater irony, of course, being that $ecurity E$$ential$ is freeware.

RE: All you need...
By adiposity on 6/13/2011 3:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
I like MSE because of the small footprint. However, I still can't understand why it (like all the AV out there) misses 75% of what Malwarebytes Anti-malware finds and removes? Is there some unwritten rule that "malware" cannot be detected by Anti-virus?

I don't get it, but I continue to use MSE and MBAM for all my needs (ok, Process Explorer + Hijackthis, and TDSS in dire cases).

RE: All you need...
By bobsmith1492 on 6/13/2011 4:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
I ran Malwarebytes and all it found and "fixed" were Windows options that I had changed myself. What it does is find registry tweaks that malware typically makes to a system and assumes it was done maliciously even if it wasn't.

So, it gets false positives which is one reason it finds things others don't.

RE: All you need...
By adiposity on 6/13/2011 5:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's strange...I have lots of registry tweaks and things that I do, but mbam has never changed any of them. I turn off UAC, etc., so I'm wondering what mbam is removing that you are putting on there...

I have seen MSE complain about VNC being installed, which I always find annoying.

RE: All you need...
By RjBass on 6/14/2011 9:55:20 AM , Rating: 2
Yup, MSE always hits me for VNC. I just choose to ignore it, or allow it, what ever it says and it usually stays quiet about it for 6 months or so.

RE: All you need...
By SandmanWN on 6/14/2011 8:22:13 PM , Rating: 2
VNC was a security risk for a while there. It wasn't updated by the developers and was targeted as an intrusion point because of the poor upkeep. Anyone who knew better removed VNC and went with something else. It was and still is banned at my company. Love the product but even the newly released version is now 5 months old with no updates.

RE: All you need...
By kmmatney on 6/13/2011 9:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yup - I had MSE installed on my wife's computer, but she still got a pretty nasty virus. It took over everything and wouldn't let you do anything without warning you about a virus and forcing you to pay money to remove it. I was only able to get rid of it by using a Malware Bytes boot CD. O

Otherwise, I haven't seen any issues with MSE, but keep a Malware Bytes Boot CD handy.

RE: All you need...
By akse on 6/14/2011 12:38:31 AM , Rating: 2
These are pretty common malwares or cheatware or whatever, they tell you have viruses in your computer and want you to pay money. Sometimes installed from a website banner or such that tells you have viruses in your computer "click this to get rid of them". After clicking you install the software.

It blocks pretty much everything. I've just used a system restore to get rid of them, with system restore you can just rollback to state before the software got installed.

RE: All you need...
By corduroygt on 6/13/2011 1:50:59 PM , Rating: 5
You forgot the biggest reason, it's FREE. I was a nod32 fanatic and I still think it's the best, but MSE is good enough and it's hard to compete with free.

RE: All you need...
By StevoLincolnite on 6/13/2011 2:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
Can't say I have used Microsoft Security Essentials... I've stuck with Nod32 for YEARS! (If it ain't broke, don't go fixing it...)

Nod32 was written in machine code, so it's programmed right down to the bare metal for great efficiency.

My Atom n470 + 2gb ram came with Norton, it felt stupidly slow, slower than an Atom based machine normally feels.
Removed it and whacked Nod32 on it and it's forgivable performance-wise considering the hardware.

When it comes to renewing my Nod32 license I might give Microsoft Security essentials a whirl. :)

RE: All you need...
By Etsp on 6/13/2011 5:26:36 PM , Rating: 1
Assembler is not machine code. It may only be one step away from machine code, but it's really a MAJOR step. Machine code is 1's and 0's. I honestly wouldn't want a product that was developed in machine code, as the costs would far outweigh any potential performance benefits. Nod32 was written in Assembler.

On top of that, compilers are getting better all the time.
I've even heard that some C compilers are getting very close to hand-made assembler performance, at a significantly reduced development cost. Now, I have no links or real world data to back up this claim, it's just something I remember hearing. If someone has info to affirm/refute this, I'd love to see it!

RE: All you need...
By karielash on 6/13/2011 6:06:18 PM , Rating: 3

Assembler is a mnemonic representation of machine code and has a direct relationship. The step is not huge at all.

There is no compiler made that can produce code anywhere close to well written native assembly language (note the well written). So I am guessing you heard wrong.

RE: All you need...
By Master Kenobi on 6/13/2011 6:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
He is quite right, the performance advantage between compiled C and Assembly is not what it once was. While Assembly still has its uses it is largely obsolete by modern C compilers. Who really cares about 5% extra effeciency when you need to spend 75% more time writing, debugging and paying niche developers for a dead programming style.

RE: All you need...
By Etsp on 6/13/2011 6:35:51 PM , Rating: 2
Assembler is a large step up from Machine code from a development point of view. I should have been more clear on that.

I've been doing some searches in google, and the general consensus is that you are correct, assembler is much faster than compiled C. But the only site I found that gave a specific example was somewhat conflicted about it.

RE: All you need...
By kmmatney on 6/13/2011 9:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
We write a lot of complicated math routines at my company, and this used to mostly be an assembler, but now we've found the benefits to not be there any more. It's just so much cheaper fror use to vectorize our calculations, and use the Dew Research MtxVec library (optimized for the Intel Kernel Math library, making use of the SSE3 and SSE4 instruction sets). We gained a lot of speed from the assembler code, and it was much easier.

RE: All you need...
By Omega215D on 6/13/2011 5:42:21 PM , Rating: 2
I use ESET Smart Security along with SuperAntiSpyware and Malwarebytes and my machine is clean as a whistle. I only fire up the latter two when I want to make sure.

My parents computer run MS Security Essentials along with Superantispyware and Malwarebytes. It seems MSE is quite good despite being free and I don't have to pay $60 a year to renew the license. Malwarebytes is usually finding false positives while Superantispyware and MSE find nothing.

RE: All you need...
By runutz on 6/13/2011 5:21:37 PM , Rating: 2
So now that it's the BIGGEST perhaps it's time to change protection.

Becuae it's only a matter of time until somebody finds a way to hack the living $hit out of it.

Vested interest
By Silverel on 6/13/2011 12:58:29 PM , Rating: 5
I've been using MSE since a little before launch, and I'm totally hooked. Unlike these other AV companies, Microsoft actually has a vested interest in keeping your PC clean of viruses and as highly functional as possible. Doing this makes their operating system better and reflects very well on their bottom line.

The bottom line of the AV companies is the perception of fear from viruses in the wild that need to be stopped. Their profits are made directly from viruses existing and being propogated. It's not too far a stretch to imagine some of these less reputable companies outsourcing viruses or even developing them in-house as "research".

For years I've had to recommend non-profit AV applications based on these principles, but since MS finally has a very good AV product that uses windows update (as many other application updates can use too if they go through proper channels, my AMD GPU Drivers arrive from WU as an example), my mind can rest easier.

Their growth is hardly from being included as a Windows update, it's due to the sysadmin community embracing a product and pushing it to the consumer. The faster we get away from bloatware and scare tactics deployed by profit driven AV companies the better.

RE: Vested interest
By borismkv on 6/13/2011 1:36:48 PM , Rating: 2
The only big downside I see to MSE is its lack of a centralized management and reporting solution for Enterprise environments. If MS ever comes out with something that can collect and report on virus outbreaks on a network, I'll be all over that.

RE: Vested interest
By Taft12 on 6/13/2011 1:48:50 PM , Rating: 2
They already have the product you're asking for:

Security Essentials will never be allowed for business use - the EULA allows 10 copies for small business

RE: Vested interest
By ertomas on 6/13/2011 1:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
Their enterprise AV solution is called Forefront...

RE: Vested interest
By Donkeyshins on 6/14/2011 1:21:43 AM , Rating: 2
Their enterprise AV solution is called Forefront...

And MSSE uses the same AV engine as Forefront. Another reason I like it.

And in regard to the earlier comment about MSSE sometimes missing malware, try running a Full Scan as opposed to a Quick Scan.

RE: Vested interest
By jabber on 6/14/2011 10:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
If the Quick Scan is missing what could be important malware infections then really it has little point being there.

Really should be full scan or nothing IMO.

Quick Scan could be giving a false sense of 'cleanliness'. It needs to maybe widen its remit, a little longer scanning wont hurt anyone.

Dont get me wrong, I love MSSE and use it on all my PCs but this is one of my pat niggles. Same as the default settings for what MSSE does when it finds something bad.

RE: Vested interest
By TypeS on 6/13/2011 3:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
MSSE is a great free tool but it has one big drawback that most other free AVs, and even some paid ones, do. It doesn't uses heuristic scanning engine/algorithm to pick up malicious programs/files/code that aren't already in it's signature database, or otherwise known was "0-Day Viruses".

I wouldn't really recommend MSSE to a heavy internet user. If its basic usage, sure, why make a person who doesn't use their computer more much else than basic web use pay $30+/year for AV.

RE: Vested interest
By corduroygt on 6/13/2011 5:36:14 PM , Rating: 2
Sure, but it's updated pretty much daily.

RE: Vested interest
By Smilin on 6/14/2011 10:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
You are incorrect. It has done Heuristic scanning since version 2.

I would absolutely recommend it to a heavy internet user. It's basically a free copy of Forefront.

Microsoft Security Essentials is a Memory Hog
By FlyBri on 6/13/2011 2:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Microsoft Security Essentials a memory hog compared to a lot of the other free AV programs out there? That's at least what I have read. Also, it seems it takes longer to complete a full scan compared to some others. I know it is praised for it's low false-positives, but I rather have an AV program that isn't eating up my RAM.

By deathwombat on 6/13/2011 2:49:14 PM , Rating: 2
I hadn't heard of that. How much memory does it use? I have 4 GB of RAM (and my next system will have 8 GB), so I really haven't noticed or cared how much RAM it's using.

By Cherish on 6/13/2011 4:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
It does use quite a bit more than Avast. I saw a difference of about 100 MB, but that was on an old 256 MB RAM Windows XP machine. :)

By akse on 6/14/2011 12:41:08 AM , Rating: 2
msseces.exe is currently using 6352K of memory.. antimalware service 63704K

By piroroadkill on 6/14/2011 5:25:47 AM , Rating: 2
No. Sophos uses 100~, MSE 70~.

By StraightCashHomey on 6/14/2011 11:52:54 AM , Rating: 2
Is memory usage even an issue anymore?

I'm not going to lump the OP in with these people, but some people get so worked up over memory usage. They buy machines with 8GB of memory and freak out when something is consuming 100MB. What the heck did you get all of the memory for if you don't want your computer utilizing it?

By ekv on 6/14/2011 3:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. Busted.

Sweet 16 ... and I still get worked up over that 100MB 8)

I don't really agree
By omnicronx on 6/13/2011 12:55:29 PM , Rating: 3
The report also explains that the reason that Microsoft's offering is so popular is that it offers the protection through Windows Update.
Its an OPTIONAL Windows update.. Most people never even look at let alone apply optional updates. (In fact I didnt even know it was there until I saw it at a friends house as it was not initially offered over Windows Update at all)

Like it or not, MSE is the fastest and least intrusive anti virus software on the market. I find it to be successful because it works very well and has a tiny memory footprint, and I recommend it to others because of such.

Furthermore, 30+ million users had downloaded the software before it was even offered via Windows Update..

Just seems like normal anti MS rhetoric to me, they have done something successful so they MUST have done something borderline illegal to do it..

RE: I don't really agree
By jeepga on 6/13/2011 12:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying it is offered as a new install on Windows Update? To date I haven't seen it as an option on people's computers that aren't running it.

RE: I don't really agree
By omnicronx on 6/13/2011 1:17:22 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure about now as I have not tried it since last fall, but at some point MS surely did roll it out as an optional update, but only if it did not detect other AV software on your PC.

RE: I don't really agree
By dragonbif on 6/13/2011 1:48:39 PM , Rating: 2
It only shows up as a Optional Windows(7) Update if you do not have an AV on your computer or an AV that Windows does not know about. You have to go to Windows Update in order to see optional updates. It will not show up in your normal auto updates.

Also in Windows 7 if you do not have AV installed you get a flag and when you click on it, it will take you to a Microsoft site with alot of AV options to download and not just MSE.

RE: I don't really agree
By Omega215D on 6/13/2011 5:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder what the EU's reaction will be when they catch wind of this. Another lawsuit even though it's not bundled? Maybe there will be a ballot box for AV suites.

In this day and age it's not wrong to bundle security software and it should be in everyone's best interest to have one installed by the OS maker from the get go.

RE: I don't really agree
By noirsoft on 6/15/2011 4:14:18 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, if you do not have an AV program installed with Win7, you get a prompt with something much like a ballot screen - a link to several free and paid AV solutions. MSE included but in no way given preferential treatment over the others.

By natehow on 6/13/2011 3:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
Am I the only person who doesn't use AV at all? I simply have a router and adblock running never visit weird sites and have no problems.

By deathwombat on 6/13/2011 4:02:08 PM , Rating: 3
That's like saying, "I don't wear a condom because I never sleep with girls who get around." You can absolutely minimize your risk by being smart about the sites you visit and the attachments you download, but there's always a chance that you'll pick something up anyway. Even trusted websites get hacked.

And, to continue my STD analogy, if you don't have an antivirus program, how do you know that you don't have a virus? Many STDs (including HIV) have no symptoms for years, so any sexually active person who doesn't get tested is potentially infected everyone he sleeps with. People who aren't responsible about STD testing are a menace to society. Likewise, your computer could be attacking or infecting other computers without your knowledge. People who don't have antivirus software are a menace to society. Your computer won't be swapping any bytes with mine until you get an antivirus program and run a full system scan.

By priusone on 6/13/2011 4:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
On older machine, which are limited to a select few websites (for the kids to use), I don't have AV protection. I have Norton Ghost discs for those machines for the times when something goes catastrophically wrong.

By bobsmith1492 on 6/13/2011 4:57:30 PM , Rating: 2
Same here, I've never used antivirus and the only problem I ever had was after I moved into a college dorm freshman year (2003). I didn't even have a firewall and picked up a network worm that constantly restarted my computer. After wiping it out (sneaking onto the 'net for a few seconds at a time between reboots) and turning on Windows firewall I've never had any other issues.

Here are some basic rules for internet safety:

1. Don't download and install or run programs unless you know where they come from
2. Never click on any links to ads
3. Never punch a URL into the browser (use search instead).
4. Never touch anything in an email unless you are expecting it and it is from someone you know (wedding photos, etc): especially avoid anything with V-gra or anything free, particularly capitalized and with exclamations (FREE!!)
5. Ignore any window that proclaims loudly (caps, exclamations) that you have a virus: use Alt+F4 to close it and don't click on it

By Just Tom on 6/14/2011 2:29:29 PM , Rating: 2
All good practices. But they still won't keep you from getting viruses. Mainstream websites have been infected in the past and will be so in the future.

ALT+F4 does not always work for closing those obnoxious windows.

Misleading Comment
By jeepga on 6/13/2011 12:49:45 PM , Rating: 2
It's misleading to say that MSE is delivered by Windows Update. You cannot get MSE unless you specifically go and download it. Once installed the updates go through Windows Update.

That just makes good sense. Why would you develop a separate updating system for different products? That's not even close to the bundling issues with IE. And if it is then Adobe better develop separate update programs for Reader, Flash, Photoshop, et al.

RE: Misleading Comment
By kleinma on 6/13/2011 1:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
Actually MS does offer it via Windows Updates now if you dont have an AV software reporting its status to the security center. It will NOT ever just be installed without user consent though.

That being said, I think it is a good AV, but certainly not perfect. However no AV software is perfect, and I have seen every anti virus software out there on machines coming into me with viruses on them.

Cleaning the most stubborn of infections usually I end up using a combination of MSE, Malwarebytes, and ComboFix, along with other utilities like autoruns and procexp to weed out entries and hooks to disable the malware.

Most of the time, it is just annoying that the malware is able to make so many changes to the system. So once you clean it out, you have to revert tons of settings back to how they were. There is a new infection that instead of telling you that you are infected with viruses, it tells you your hard drive is failing, and runs attrib.exe across your entire drive, marking all files as hidden (and even actually deleting all your shortcuts from the all users startmenu folder). If the user doesn't have restore points prior to the issue, there is no way to get all those shortcuts back. It is a big mess.

AV products need to do a better job of stopping that type of behavior from happening, not just scanning for known signatures.

RE: Misleading Comment
By tlbj6142 on 6/13/2011 1:36:22 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot get MSE unless you specifically go and download it.
I've used it for nearly a year and I work for a AV company, but I find it hard to believe 30M users have stumbled upon MSE on their own. It is tough enough to get that many idiots to watch a crappy YouTube video.

MSE is not that easy to find even if you are looking for it (plus IIRC it seemed to take a few too many mouse clicks to even reach the download link). At least it wasn't when I built my Win7 box last year.

Are any of the system integrator type folks including it without the end-user's knowledge? Hardware vendors? Whitebox?

Switched back to Avast 6 from MSE 2.0
By zero2dash on 6/13/2011 2:23:18 PM , Rating: 1
Saw this and switched back.

I've seen at least 3 computers with an up to date MSE recently get hosed by TDSS which MSE does not even report a blip about.

Plus now that Avast Free includes the sandbox feature - I see no reason not to use it over everything else.

By The Imir of Groofunkistan on 6/13/2011 2:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
pick an AV and handpick a virus that is able to get through - that's not much of a test. All AVs are susceptible to a particular virus they don't know about at a given point in time. What you may want to show is that a particular AV does better than MSE at detecting an assortment of virii over time and temper that with general system responsiveness. The anecdotal my machine got a virus and it was running MSE doesn't really get us very far.

I like it but...
By GatoRat on 6/13/2011 5:28:31 PM , Rating: 2
like every other anti-virus software, MSE doesn't seem to pay much attention to the ignore feature. I have some directories which require heavy processing (like video editing) and have to turn the entire thing off to get full speed, even though I've told MSE to ignore the directory AND the file types.

(Symantec, Avast, AVG, etc. all do the same thing with Symantec being the worse of the lot.)

RE: I like it but...
By piroroadkill on 6/14/2011 5:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
I thought McAfee was the worst of the lot. Maybe that's so bad people don't like to remember it?

It works great
By PitbulI on 6/13/2011 1:34:18 PM , Rating: 2
I've been using it for a while now and it's great. I went for a long time without using any sort of AV protection because of the resource hogging nature of AV programs. Perhaps it's the the computer I now have or Windows 7 or just the MSE itself but I don't see any real performance drop.

To Cupertino boys:
By Pirks on 6/13/2011 1:40:48 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't it about time to start your photocopiers?

Mac Defender

Not surprised
By deathwombat on 6/13/2011 2:42:03 PM , Rating: 2
MSE just quietly does its job and, unlike AVG, doesn't false positive my power tools (it's not a trojan if it does what it says it does!) and has never rendered my OS unbootable. I left AVG after one of their updates hosed my Windows 7 x64 rig, and I switched everyone in my family to MSE.

That said, I still occasionally do a full system scan with MBAM free. MSE is good, but it hasn't been around long enough to earn my unquestioning trust.

MSE is not that good..
By Gnarr on 6/13/2011 3:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
I had been running avast for years and decided to give MSE a chance when I upgraded my laptop. It was running alright for two months, but suddenly everything started slowing down and in the end my computer was barely usable.
After trying to find out what was wrong for a day or so I decided to try to uninstall MSE and setup Avast to check if something had slipped past them, and indeed that was the problem! Avast instantly found 5 processes running that it reported as malicious and on scanning it found a bunch of crap that had gone past MSE.

I'm not giving MSE another chance for some time now.

Is it just me...
By ie5x on 6/14/2011 1:57:16 AM , Rating: 2
.. who wants Ezio to climb on top of the tower in the picture and grab that flag!!?

Back to the topic... MS Security Essentials is definitely one of the best AV product for Windows. After you install it, you won't even notice it unless it kills a virus and tells you about it!

fastest code...
By croc on 6/14/2011 2:02:09 AM , Rating: 2
I was once in a position making custom ASICs. That meant taking machine code and further reducing it to TTL. The process took forever, but the end result ran faster than the proverbial stripe-d a$$ ape...

Malwarebytes - Good but needs work.
By jabber on 6/14/2011 6:52:59 AM , Rating: 1
I always remove the HDD and put it in a eSATA dock to disinfect it on another PC.

The first scan is always with Malwarebytes. However, it misses quite a bit of stuff that MSSE finds but thats not the issue here.

Malwarebytes will find some stuff on the pass and delete it. All well and good you think.

Try running it again. You could be in for a shock.

Then a third time.

Using just the one product doesnt cut it. I use four.

Initial scan with Malwarebytes with MSSE auto finding anything it misses.

Then a scan with Clamwin, usually finds a few more bits.

Then HDD back in PC and a run of Combofix to find the last few scraps and put right any re-routed registry entries.

Takes ages but it gets the job done.

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson
Related Articles
Microsoft Security Essentials Now Available
September 29, 2009, 11:50 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki