Microsoft Security Essentials

The huge flaw: It forces Windows Update into auto mode, and I'm not sure that can be over ridden. I like to pick and choose what gets updated, and not forced to accept certain updates.
 
Hi,

I've been using it on one of the boxes here at home since it was released for beta test last month, (Vista Home Premium). It works fine for me. But when I only go to a few boards like this, it's pretty hard to get into trouble.

Is it better than 3rd party software? I'd say it's better than McAffee or Symantic. But no better than Avast! or AVG free editions. I think it will simply be just another viable option to use.

dalee
 
dano said:
The huge flaw: It forces Windows Update into auto mode, and I'm not sure that can be over ridden. I like to pick and choose what gets updated, and not forced to accept certain updates.
Click to expand...

I agree - I read that in various articles on the web too.

However I have trial installed Microsoft Security Essentials (MSE) and called up Microsoft Updates - yes, it is set for "Automatic Updates" - which was my previous setting anyway - but my chosen option of "Notify me but don't automatically download or install them" is still an option and checked.

So perhaps Automatic Update is forced and is for MSE (which makes sense) -
but being able to choose what other updates and when to download and install option appears to be still open,
and Update is automatic only for notification may still be active?

==============================
EDIT to Add: here's a more definitive answer over at the MSE support forum -

List of Changes Made to System when Installing MSE?
===============================

Another thing I've read on the web is the claim for a "small footprint" of resources - and at first sight it appears to be really small.

There is a resident program called msSecEs.exe and its working set size is 3,824Kb and Peak Working set was 9,460Kb - which seems amazing.

BUT it is NOT the only resident process - while doing a scan I discovered a whopping processing called MsMpEng.exe - Working Set size = 61,876Kb (while idle), and the Peak Working set = 188,904Kb.

So combined this footprint is not that small -
but might be just a bit smaller than all the other security software I used to have installed.

More Edits to Add: Here are a couple of informative replies over at the MSE forum to my direct questions -

MSE - Automatic Updates and footprint?

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos
 
Last edited:
you'll have to excuse me if if I'm skeptical of anything with the words microsoft firewall,anitvirus,etc. As a Computer Engineering student who aims to specialize in IT security, there is no such thing as a secure windows system. Don't ge me wrong, I do like windows for some programs, but for running a linux system with windows installed in a virtual machine is way more secure then any standalone windows box.
 
jtauke said:
you'll have to excuse me if if I'm skeptical of anything with the words microsoft firewall,anitvirus,etc. As a Computer Engineering student who aims to specialize in IT security, there is no such thing as a secure windows system. Don't ge me wrong, I do like windows for some programs, but for running a linux system with windows installed in a virtual machine is way more secure then any standalone windows box.
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as a truly secure system.

Microsoft has a lot of malware against it -
simply because it is the most popular and prevalent system out there so it's worth the hackers' while to produce the malware.

Linux may well be a "better" system -
but if it were as wide spread as Windoz -
then I would hazard that there would probably be plenty of problematical malware for it too.....

So yes, it would be safer to use a less popular system - but then one has to face some incompatibilities when visiting websites.

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos
 
UnknownVT said:
There is no such thing as a truly secure system.

Microsoft has a lot of malware against it -
simply because it is the most popular and prevalent system out there so it's worth the hackers' while to produce the malware.

Linux may well be a "better" system -
but if it were as wide spread as Windoz -
then I would hazard that there would probably be plenty of problematical malware for it too.....

So yes, it would be safer to use a less popular system - but then one has to face some incompatibilities when visiting websites.

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos
Click to expand...

very true, but linux isn't all about the famous "security through obscurity" (majority of the internet is supported by linux servers in some fashion). The way programs are executed is fundementally different between the two.

Most windows boxes allow users to run programs with admin level privileges (giving access to pretty much whatever the program wants)

linux os's however rely on the concept of least privilege (programs can only be executed as the current user and require the user to login as root and without root priveleges the only thing that can be broken is your users home folder) this makes it much harder for a hacker to write effective malware for linux platforms

I'm also curious as to what incompatibilities you've come across? I've never run into an issues with Arch Linux on my laptop
 
jtauke said:
Most windows boxes allow users to run programs with admin level privileges (giving access to pretty much whatever the program wants)
Click to expand...

Yes, I heard that - does this mean under Windoz if I create an user without admin privileges and use that to surf the net and receive e-mail (and only ever use the admin user for admin type stuff) - that I would mitigate most of the malware problems - so that I would not need a firewall or anti-malware security stuff?

jtauke said:
I'm also curious as to what incompatibilities you've come across? I've never run into an issues with Arch Linux on my laptop
Click to expand...

I have a thread FireFox 3.5.1 that outlines some of the browser incompatibilities or lack of features when visiting some websites

--
Vincent

http://picasaweb.com/UnknownVincent?showall=true
http://UnknownVincent.Shutterfly.com
http://UnknownVT.Shutterfly.com
http://unknownvt.multiply.com/photos
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top