| Author |
Message |
AFryia
Joined: 09 Mar 2006
Posts: 965
Location: S.E. Michigan VPH-G70Q
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 5:56 pm Post subject: MS Security Essentials |
|
|
I need to get off the AV subscription tread mill and nag boxes.
According to Norton my PC is at risk and I must act now. I'll act alright I'm dumpping them.
how reliable is Microsoft Security Essentials for AV/Malware?
Has anyone had issues with it?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dturco
Joined: 06 Feb 2009
Posts: 3778
Location: Eastern Shore Maryland
TV/Projector: Runco DLP VX-3000i Marquee 9500 parts doner
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am running MS Security Essentials, I have had no virus attacks that it did not just delete since it's install.
But I also switched from IE Explorer to Firefox at the same time. Would one be as good without the other I can't say.
In combination though I have been very pleased, no more daily, stop you in your tracks, attacks from the porn sites.
The attacks still happen, they just don't take hours to deal with now.
_________________
Firefly rules. Can't stop the signal.
http://www.hulu.com/firefly
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm running it, too, on the wife's computers and laptop.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2010 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've read only good things about MSE, and I'm running it on my laptop. Be aware you have to add in exclusions to prevent it from going nuts for frequently-changing but safe files -- including the files in the MSE directories themselves!! Duh.
It can be a bit of a pig but it's manageable if you add the right exclusions.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WayneB
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
Posts: 113
Location: Victoria, BC
TV/Projector: Marquee 9500LC Ultra
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 24, 2010 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am still using Norton Internet Security 2010. It expires in 16 days and they have been bugging me every day.
I intend to renew, because I really like NIS since they changed to doing things in the background and with the option of running scans ONLY during idle periods on the computer.
However, I won't click the "renew now" default. That costs $70 CDN.
Instead I will buy a 3-PC license of Norton Internet Security 2011 from Staples on Boxing Day for only $19.99, and install the fresh copy. At that price, I can protect 3 PCs and ignore the 21 days of being bugged.
...Wayne
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The problem with Norton, and maybe some other AV products, is that once they are installed you will always be their bitch. No way of truly uninstalling them. Go ahead, give it a try. I dare you! There will always be something remaining and attempts to thoroughly remove it will cause the Windows OS to fail. Its deliberate so you don't try it.
The only way I got rid of it was to reinstall Windows.
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angus_rg
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 339
Location: A planet far, far away..... Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've found MSSE catches more viruses than most commercial versions and you can't argue with the price. I look at it as, they know their OS better than anyone, so their software should be tuned to run on it.
_________________
It's good to be the king.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garyfritz
Joined: 08 Apr 2006
Posts: 12088
Location: Fort Collins, CO
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Angus_rg wrote: | | I look at it as, they know their OS better than anyone, so their software should be tuned to run on it. |
Remember they're also the ones who wrote all the buggy security holes into it in the first place...
But they do seem to be doing much better these days.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AnalogRocks
Forum Moderator
Joined: 08 Mar 2006
Posts: 26706
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
TV/Projector: Sony 1252Q, AMPRO 4000G
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2011 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nortons is truly terrible. I have seen it take a snappy 3600MHz PC and slow it down to sub 200Mhz "performance"
_________________
Tech support for nothing
CRT.
HD done right!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WanMan
Joined: 19 Mar 2006
Posts: 10270
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Norton makes no claims to not impacting system performance, does it?
_________________
Trust no one. Absolutely no one. Advice of the board.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Angus_rg
Joined: 16 Dec 2007
Posts: 339
Location: A planet far, far away..... Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2011 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: |
Remember they're also the ones who wrote all the buggy security holes into it in the first place...
But they do seem to be doing much better these days. |
But they had nothing to do with Sendmail, Apache, or any of the other Posix based software that has had more holes over time. Viruses are geared towards the most common targets. You can argue preference for systems until your blue in the face, but the most common used system will be the number one target for researchers and virus writers.
http://www.ghacks.net/2010/07/23/apple-leads-in-security-vulnerabilities-microsoft-third/
Keep in mind, the bones of OSX is FreeBSD, which is highly secured and the greatest work horse on the web. There's a reason many manufacturers base their appliances off of it. The question you have to ask is, did Apple's vulns jump because they hired a bunch of lousy coders, or because their market share has increased dramatically?
The big problem is legacy software. 15 years ago, no one cared about writing secure code. It's easier to write secure software from the start than to secure old stuff. Prior to Vista, every MS kernel had remnants of Windows 3.1/MS Dos in it. They scrapped the whole Kernel for Vista, and based Windows 7 off of Vista. No matter what you think of Vista/7, they are a lot more secure because security was not an after thought.
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | Nortons is truly terrible. I have seen it take a snappy 3600MHz PC and slow it down to sub 200Mhz "performance" |
But they are the most effective anti-virus ever because the compy becomes a door stop after installation. I use to work there and always got blank stares whenever I made recommendations regarding efficiency. Needless to say, frustration is why I am not there anymore.
I typically use MSSE and Winclam(Clamav) at the same time and it finds more with a lot less impact than Symantec does.
_________________
It's good to be the king.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg_mitch
Joined: 03 May 2006
Posts: 5320
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garyfritz wrote: | I've read only good things about MSE, and I'm running it on my laptop. Be aware you have to add in exclusions to prevent it from going nuts for frequently-changing but safe files -- including the files in the MSE directories themselves!! Duh.
It can be a bit of a pig but it's manageable if you add the right exclusions. |
Downloaded...installed...updated...scanned.
Haven't done anything else on four computers all with W7. I don't even know what you are talking about when you reference exclusions...must be a setting difference.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fredrik
Joined: 03 Jul 2007
Posts: 49
Location: Stockholm
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 04, 2011 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AnalogRocks wrote: | | Nortons is truly terrible. I have seen it take a snappy 3600MHz PC and slow it down to sub 200Mhz "performance" |
As of 2010 the Norton security suite, is almost completely rewritten, so if you tried them before that then I would agree with you but it has been much approved. I run the "corporate" version of it (SEP) on my current computer and I don't notice it at all.
But as always YMMV 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
