RSSQ: How essential is Microsoft Security Essentials? A: Does your door have a lock?
By Joe Wilcox | Published September 29, 2009, 2:42 PM
Today Microsoft released Security Essentials for free. I've been testing the software for the last month, and I'm nearly at a loss how to really review it. Either the software doesn't really work and my laptop is a malware whore, or Security Essentials works so well you just set it and forget it.
The software has never warned of any malware infection. It works silently and doesn't hog resources -- typically less than 6,000k memory, according to Task Manager. Next to perhaps AVG 8.5, I've never used anti-malware software that asked so little of me or my computer (Read Scott Fulton's take on Security Essentials).
Security Essentials is another example of Microsoft improving software UX (user experience). Among Joe's six principles of good software design, Security Essentials embodies the two most important. Good software: Emphasizes simplicity and hides complexity.
By comparison, Windows Vista and Internet Explorer 7 violate these two principles at seemingly every opportunity. User Access Control prompts in Vista and security warnings in IE 7 demand too much from end users. Rather than drive 120km per hour, users must slow down for Windows Vista or IE 7 speed bumps. It's terrible product design because:
- End users get angry about waiting and they so develop bad feelings about the software and Microsoft.
- Most people don't understand enough about security or the prompts to make the best decision. Confusion makes some people feel stupid, and so they also feel unhapppy about the software and Microsoft.
- Numbness sets in, so that end users ignore the security prompts. They develop bad click-through habits, increasing risk from ignoring prompts or mindlessly clicking through a browser generated-malware pop-up.
Good security UX is about balance, by providing the best protection without being too intrusive. My favorite analogy is the street-side shop, where goods are displayed in the window and on the sidewalk. People need to see the goods to buy them. But as the economy has declined, sidewalk thievery has increased, so the shopkeeper moves the goods inside. That turns out not to be enough. Someone breaks into the shop through the big window and steals the goods, so the shopkeeper puts up bars and a gate. Each new security measure limits the shop's ability to conduct business with legitimate customers, just to keep out a few criminals. At some point, the security measures sacrifice commerce for safety. That's exactly the kind of security approach Microsoft applied to Windows Vista and IE 7.
Windows 7 and IE 8 reduce the security complexity, but there is still too much of it. That said, there is lots more balance than before. The defaults are just about right but security prompts still a few too many. Microsoft's approach is more like a car prompting when the driver hits the left-hand signal: "Remember to look over your shoulder for oncoming traffic before making the turn." Such audio prompts would drive drivers crazy. Hehehe, maybe it would be a good green tactic. Riding a bicycle would be preferable to the constant nagging while driving.
So, it is refreshing to find Security Essentials to be so silent and unassuming. Good security software should protect, not ask if you want to do something that might be risky or whether you really want to be protected. But this unassuming simplicity makes a review, other than perhaps purposely infecting my laptop, difficult because there isn't much to say.
An Essential Utility
As such, I'll talk strategy and what the software means for Microsoft's former security software partners. The question: Should Microsoft offer free security software to consumers? Absolutely. There is no choice, and Microsoft would do customers better by fully integrating security software into Windows 7. But Microsoft has enough antitrust problems in Europe to make including antivirus risky business.
Integrated or separate, I see four reasons why free security software from Microsoft is a must:
- Windows brand
- Customer safety
- Shadow ecosystem
- Corporate responsibility
Windows brand. Security problems have damaged the Windows brand. Who wants to drive an unsafe car? Apple has enjoyed much success by ragging on Windows security in advertisements, such as "Get a Mac" commercials. Additionally, offensive third-party anti-malware -- meaning annoying and resource hogging -- detracts from the end-user experience, which also hurts the Windows brand.
Worst of all: Malware infections, where people feel vulnerable and invaded before a torrent of porn popups or other malady. Who gets the blame? Microsoft and Windows. It's funny how little the criminals are accused. When the bank is robbed, despite its security measures, who do people blame? The bank or the robbers? You know the answer.
Customer safety. Windows is Microsoft's product. The primary responsibility for protecting it from marauders should be Microsoft's, not third parties like McAfee or Symantec. Microsoft's first obligation is to the customer who buys Windows with the reasonable expectation of using it safely. Microsoft must do everything possible to ensure customers' privacy and identities are protected from criminals. Who wants to move into a bad neighborhood, where muggers and murders roam the streets and house to house? Just one worm, Conficker, has infected millions of PCs. But experts dispute the number, which could be as low as 3 million or as high as 10 million, when considering variants.
A second obligation: The PC manufacturer who sells a computer with Windows. Security problems tarnish brands like Dell and HP, too. There, many OEMs have failed their customer responsibilities, by shipping consumer PCs with anti-malware software that typically expires in 30-90 days. Microsoft is doing right by both customers -- OEMs and PC buyers -- by taking more security responsibility.
Shadow ecosystem. OK, this is going to start the flamethrowers. Calm down, commenters for what you are about to read. I assert that Microsoft has got an undeserved bad security rap. Windows XP is pretty secure from Service Pack 2 onward. Windows Vista and 7 are even safer, mainly because of changes to user rights privileges and the hardened kernel. IE is still a bugger, but it's safer today than two versions ago.
Microsoft's security problems are more a byproduct of its success than poorly written code.
Microsoft describes its Windows partners and their products and services as an ecosystem. Third parties greatly profit from this ecosystem. But there is what I call a shadow ecosystem that profits from exploiting Windows rather than extending it. Third-party anti-malware providers operate in the shadow ecosystem fringes, by fixing security bugs rather than exploiting them; their assistance is vital to Microsoft and its customers and partners.
But the shadow ecosystem is mostly made up of parasites. They attack the Windows ecosystem and would destroy it by profiting from it. Microsoft can't escape the shadow ecosystem. The ecosystem of developers, resellers and other partners make money from Windows platform strengths. The shadow ecosystem profits from the platform's weaknesses. Because both ecosystems come from Windows, Microsoft must take responsibility for them.
Corporate responsibility. But Microsoft's security responsibility is bigger, because most PCs connecting to the Internet run some version of Windows. Microsoft's responsibility to protect then is about 1 billion PCs and the commerce that takes place on them.
Every botnet puts the entire Web community at risk. For years, I've recommended that companies should provide all employees with free anti-malware software. Actually, use of the software on personal PCs should be a requirement of employment. If your employee's personal PC is infected by malware and participates in a botnet spewing spam or other maladies, he or she is the enemy. To Microsoft I say this: You should make free security software available for personal use a part of corporate volume-licensing contracts. Competitors will cry antitrust fowl, but they could offer similar option. Microsoft, do the right thing.
Security Essentials' release isn't enough, however. Microsoft should take a bigger risk of offending third-party anti-malware developers and even European or US trustbusters: Advertise. Microsoft should make Security Essentials a part of Windows advertising, as the company has done with Windows Live Photo Gallery. Microsoft should build brand awareness like it has with Bing. "There's a safer Windows. Windows 7. It's safer still with Microsoft Security Essentials. It's so simple. Set it and forget it. Security Essentials will remember to lock the Windows so you don't have to."
For the consumer market, Security Essentials is the kind of product Microsoft should have released long ago. Is it good enough? That's the question millions of users will answer over the coming months.
the title of this post is
"How essential is Microsoft Security Essentials? A: Does your door have a lock?"
it would of been nice to have some relevance to the topic subject,
the whole thing as gone on to some kind of mission statement, further more, there is quite a lot of assumptions in the above post,
i like the end sentence,
"For the consumer market, Security Essentials is the kind of product Microsoft should have released long ago. Is it good enough? That's the question millions of users will answer over the coming months."
well i say, windows XP is the kind of product that should of came out instead of windows 95, well yes. talk about stating the obvious, in fact i felt that all this mission statement has done,
it's very easy standing aside, throwing stones over the fence,
one could argue given the fact that there early flagship products like (win 95, and 98) were in heinside, a disaster, and if at that point microsoft released a statement about protection software,
we as a consumer would demand that they focus all there attention on sorting out there main products before attempting to enter another market,
it goes on to say that microsoft should protect there product from malicious attacks,
yes, and dvd's should be NOT be copied, police should stop all crimes from happening, and children all over the world should not be hurt in any way. well welcome to the real world. we can all say things like that,
it's all s***, Microsoft will never ever be able to stop there operating system from being damaged, hell with all the software that's available to protect operating system's, operating sysems still get damaged, everyone knows that the hole world is basically a cat and mouse game, defenders will design something new to protect, attackers will find a way to beat or get around the new defense, on and on we go,
to be honest with you, like i said the above statement is just that, a mission statement that had nothing to do with the title, and goes on about what microsoft should of done and what not, who is he anyway to talk about what they should be doing,
we buy a product for what it is, it's only human nature to get a product and become disappointed over time at it's failings, that's life, my PC takes about 2 minutes to boot up, how long, oh and my kettle takes 3 minutes to boil, big deal, that's life,
banks have been around for what, hundred... two hundred years, and guess what, they still get broken into, why because criminals get smarter too, kind of obvious really,
we blame the bank, well of course we do, why, human nature, we have to blame some one right!!!
and as we don;t have the gits that did the bank, well then we shout at the ban instead.
Score: -2
|We've been using Norman (on Vista Business) at work and I use Avast (on Win 7 Ultimate RTM) at home, both with MS Defender for anti-spyware. I installed MSE on one machine at work and on my home machine. It found two instances of trojans that both Norman and Avast missed and an instance of spyware that Defender missed. I'm scrapping both older AV programs and installing MSE ASAP.
Score: 0
|What did it find, on what files?
Again, I can't stress this enough, Defender is useless for realtime protection of malware.
Score: 0
|Well I'm been using MSE since the first beta + Avast anti-virus and so far I have no problems. It's not that I don't trust the MSE as standalone security system, it's you know.... I think It's good step from Microsoft to get involve in security because we the costumers deserve it.
Score: 0
|"and I'm nearly at a loss how to really review it. "
Then don't. People have been reviewing, testing, and running AV programs through their paces for decades now. If you are that far out of the loop....stay out.
"Either the software doesn't really work and my laptop is a malware wh***, or Security Essentials works so well you just set it and forget it."
Gee.... you could run an online scan? Disable it and run another scanner? The options are limitless. What? Do you want it to pop up every 5 minutes and say, "Hey, I'm really working my a** off here and not finding anything! You must have really good browsing habits!"??
Please...
Nah, you don't get flames from me for saying Windows is a target because of it's install base. You get them for playing like you don't have the first clue how to review an AV product. Even I don't believe that. Why the lame excuse? You call it a viewpoint...isn't that enough?
Score: -1
|They're a much friendly crowd reviewing this over on the other thread. We all like it over there, and have arranged to have a drink when the forum closes, you lot are welcome to join us if you want ?
Score: 0
|I can tell you 100% that it works and works really well. I had a couple bring me a PC with problems. Of course it has viruses and malware on it. I first installed Malwarebytes and did a scan. It found 247 issues. So I decided to not fix them and install Security Essentials. It found everyone that Malwarebytes found plus 4 more. This software is awesome.
Score: 1
|I have just installed MSE on one of my laptops and have left AntiVir on my other. MSE is noticeably less featured than AntiVir or AVG but I will be giving it a good trail run for the foreseeable future because it is the new guy in town and security is not all about features. If MSE detects and disinfects as quick and effectively as commercial software like Norton and McAfee (I already consider AntiVir to do so) then I'm happy to use and recommend it.
My only gripe is that MSE uses Windows Update for its definition updates; I personally think this is wrong in security software of this type. I think there should be an option to schedule updates in security software like this as frequently as the end user wishes even when there is a button to do an update now.
AntiVir and MSE compared
http://www.brighthub.com...ity/articles/50055.aspx
The article linked above sums up a lot of what I noticed when comparing AntiVir and MSE. I currently install AntiVir on my customer’s machines if they do not already have Anti-Virus/Anti-Spyware installed and have found it to be excellent.
Unless my customer expresses a desire for commercial security software I usually suggest to them not to bother renewing their subscription of Symantec or McAfee and configure AntiVir or AVG along with another package like Spyware Terminator for them. If they want a commercial security suite I usually recommend Kaspersky or Sophos as I have found them both to be excellent and far better than Norton or McAfee.
I have seen more customers that are using Norton being infected with viruses than I see with people who run AVG and AntiVir.
Score: 0
|This is excellent software regardless of those who do not like Microsoft. It works well and you barely notice it working if at all, I rather like that. It is not intrusive.
ONE thing I do not care for is NOT being able to turn off spynet (can that be done?) and it reports back to Microsoft. But in all reality, this problem is not new, many software makers do that. Every time it checks for updates, it leaves a footprint from any software request, not just Microsoft. But still we should be given the option to turn it off if we wish.
So far so good...I like it..
Score: 1
|I've used this since the very first beta release and have had no problems what-so-ever. I've even tested some intentional infections that were caught and stopped immediately. I see no reduction in performance on either of the two systems on which it runs. One a Core 2 Duo T7200 running at 2 Ghz with 3 GB RAM and the other a Phenom II 940 running at 3.6 Ghz with 8 GB RAM.
And after my forced infection tests I have been impressed enough to use it exclusively on my personal workstations.
Score: 1
|what happend to Onecare? what happend to WindowsDefender (giant)?
Score: 0
|Microsoft discontinued OneCare on June 30. This is the replacement.
Score: 0
|" IE is still a bugger, but it's safer today than two versions ago."
Really, have you even looked at the numbers on this, or have a clue what you are saying?
1) Security Reports - IE since version 7 is ahead of Safari, Firefox, and Chrome in the same time period. Did you really miss this?
2) Vista/Win7 IE Protected mode. When running IE7 or IE8 on Vista or Win7, it runs in protected mode, which means it has less access to the computer than the login user level.
In theory, and in practice BOTH, IE7 or IE8 on Vista or Win7 is the safest way to currently browse the internet because of protected mode.
This is why the recent series of exploits for Flash and Java and even specific IE flaws, the ONLY browser immune to all of them was IE running on Vista or Win7 because of protected mode that sandboxes the browser in a very low security mode.
(This is also why Chrome/Googles retarded IE injection concept is dangerous as it pops a hole in the IE security mode by cross threading to the Chrome rendering process that runs at a normal user level of priveledges, and is far less secure than IE.)
Maybe if you hadn't spent so much of your time bashing Vista and actually used it or looked at some of its technologies, something this important would not be lost on you.
Score: 3
|Internet Explorer is a bugger for two major reasons: 1) According to Net Applications, IE 6 usage share is higher than either IE 7 or IE 8. 2) Many businesses continue using ActiveX controls for legacy applications. One major way Microsoft reduced IE 7's security risk footprint: Turning off many ActiveX controls, by default. But these controls don't necessarily stay off.
Score: -1
|Activex controls that work on IE6 should work on IE7 and IE8. The issue is that many businesses bought products that only SUPPORT IE6, so they cannot migrate until they get off those versions.
Score: 0
|Sorry, but this is not about IE6, there are very few businesses with Intranet software that needs IE6 rendering mode.
As for the ActiveX thing, No... You have no understanding of what the ActiveX problems were based on your comments.
Additionally, I will repeat, the safest way to browse the internet is IE7 or IE8 running on Vista or Win7, as they are further sandboxed to a lower security level, so that even their ActiveX controls running cannot access or harm the system or even the Users own files.
This is something NO other browser on ANY OS does and it has proven to be a very good model.
This also should be the standard security model all browsers should adapt to on all OSes so that they relegate the security level at wich they run to below the user, so that unknown exploits still would not be able to harm the OS or the User's data.
Yes on Linux it is a bit more of a trick than on Windows to artificially create a lower priveledge process, especially with the ACL FS issues that would be associated with pulling this off, but it could be 'partially' done.
The biggest problem is that even the lowest security levels on any XWindows based *nix can easily be shoved to gain root access via XWindows itself that is running at root, which is a caveat of any GUI/XWindows based application.
The whole IE is insecure Myth really needs to die. Microsoft shoved for compatibility with XP and also IE 6.0, and in doing so left the consumer systems at a security level equivalent to Windows98 even with a very robust NT kernel that offers lots of security, and left it unused/not-enforced.
These days are long gone, and it is time for people to notice this an pay attention and quit with the IE6 of several years ago was bad arguments, as they are really futile.
Score: 0
|"But as the economy has declined, so has sidewalk thievery, so the shopkeeper moves the goods inside."
The shopkeeper moves the goods inside because sidewalk thievery has declined?
Score: -1
|Haha, fixed that. Thanks.
Score: -2
|I'm sorry but I have to say you're absolutely right, you don't know how to review security software...
Yes, you need to try and purposefully infect machines of the different supported OS types with different scenarios! Shut off MSE, infect the box, turn it back on and see if it can remediate, etc, etc... Otherwise you haven't been "testing" it; you have merely been "using" it...
PS. as Prospero424 points out, no it doesn't just use 4-6MB of RAM. Plus - as the initial release of Symantec Endpoint Protection proved - crowing over low memory consumption is moot if CPU usage is high...
Score: 0
|This post isn't a review. It's not tagged as one.
I found CPU usage to be near zero during active protection. When scanning, total CPU usage jumps to between 30-40 percent, even though the application shows up much lower in task manager (That probably reflects the background service, which as Prospero424 points out is much higher; I missed that). This is running on Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit.
Score: -2
|Thanks for the reply and the CPU info.
Fair enough about it not being tagged as a review.. (although terming your usage testing is still a bit of a stretch...)
Score: -1
|Actually, only the FRONT END of the software uses 4-6MB of RAM. The background service (MsMpEng.exe/MsMpSvc), which was used previously for Windows Defender and is now used for Security Essentials, takes roughly 130MB of physical memory! Avira and Avast used about 80MB total (both background services and front-end applications) and AVG used around 40MB total.
So far, I'm not yet willing to switch back to Avira, but if it comes out that the detection and false positive rates are significantly worse, I'll be switching back.
Still, it integrates nicely with Windows 7. That alone is worth some credit.
Score: 0
|What sort of guarantee do we get? If we run this and get infected, can we sue MS? Will there be a class action lawsuit if some botnet army gets past this and infects millions of computers? I imagine the legalese is pretty strong in the EULA, but still seems a bit risky for MS to take this on.
Score: -5
|Not to defend MS but does any AV vendor provide any meaningful warranty? Most AV vendors don't even make any real claims about their effectiveness. Any claims made in their ads tend to be marketing gibberish that doesn't really mean anything.
Score: 3
|AV is just a tool in the toolkit, you get no warranty... lol
one infects their system, thats pretty much your own fault to begin with
what you could think of as a warranty are the updates, with paid products some if not all updates stop once your sub runs out? thats about all you get with a paid product
Score: 0
|The Security Essentials program seems to provide fairly hefty security if you set the settings up correctly on it. Ill give this product a 4 star rating for now until I forsee a deduction.
Score: 0
|Seems pretty good so far. Will be interesting to see AV comparatives give it a spin.
Score: 2
|Wins: interface (in use and in taskbar), install, footprint, performance, cost
Iffy: default actions, detection rate(?, time will tell)
All-in-all it will be the first choice I will recommend to MS home users that don't want to pay anything for Antivirus.
Score: 2
|Score: -4
|I like this software and it seems to work very well. I have had no problem with it so far and is not intrusive at all. I think Microsoft has done a good thing with this and offering it free as well. I use Vista and I have no problem with that either. I am soon to upgrade to windows 7 and I am sure that will be fine also. It would seem, that no matter what Microsoft does or how good they are, someone is not pleased.
Well I ignore foolish people like that, there is no reason to listen to them. As far as I am concerned, this is good software that can only get better and who better to make it than Microsoft, after all, they know their OS better than anyone.
So all you crabby people who find fault with everything, go and get a life, no one cares about your opinions.
Score: -1
|and STFU about Vista, you take every opportunity to bash it don't you Joe? odd thing is, i've had Vista on my primary PC forever now, no speed bumps have ever slowed me down or stood in my way
its called setting your software to work for you...
Score: 2
|Vista is garbage. Why do you think Microsoft is in such a hurry to release Vista 7? But let me guess you probably thought Windows Me was great too?
Score: -12
|Yeah, didnt really see the need to talk about Vista when you are talking about an Antivirus release...
He really does take every opportunity :) Oh well, whatever makes him happy I guess :P
Score: 2
|He does that because it gives him the appearance of not being a Microsoft shill while actually being a good shill. Every new Microsoft OS release is preceded by careful marketing positioning the current (old) release as inadequate and driving people to think they need to pay Microsoft $299 for a re-skined, bug fixed version of the same OS...Vista to Vista 7 for example.
Score: -5
|dumped avast! for MSE, i never got any security alerts with avast either, why? because i use common sense
i didn't beta test the software but i'll see how it goes, like that fact that it took 2 seconds to install...
unchecked automatic actions and put it to work on wednesday ;)
at least it works with test files
http://imgur.com/Aojde.png
i think this software is nothing but a positive development from Microsoft, if they keep putting work into it
an AntiVirus app is essential if you're running Windows, you're part of a huge target demographic, key word being target... some say they don't need to run such apps any longer, they have outsmarted the virus writers lol... clue the f*ck in, AV apps are essential
Score: 5
|I've been using the beta for a couple of months now and have been very pleased. It replaced Windows Defender with a morec complete malware solution. I typically don't require a malware scanner (in fact I don't run one on my Win7 media center) but this one is ok since it is truly lightweight.
Score: 3
|Oh no.. AV vendors are going to freak out.. Like the web browser and media player M$ is going to put everyone out of biz? Right?
Score: -1
|well, it was going to happen sooner or later. Microsoft has a history of stabbing "partners" in the back and making their software "irrelevant". Of course, this will be modded down for stating the facts.
Score: -15
|I have only used this a few hours and agree it has a small footprint. Programs are running better and I agree, Microsoft does have a responibility to offer these services.
They are not stabbing 'partners' in the back - the target market is for folks who do not run a AV'
Why am I not surprise fatso would dream up another fat useless story.
Get a "life" fatty!
Score: 3
|Now now fatty, stop eating those sweet rolls, your getting crabby, seems your this way all the time about Microsoft, what a shame. You need to get a life away from a computer.... You have become a real cream puff... :)
Score: 1
|LOL the other AV vendors will get over it, may as well start getting over it now, it ain't going to go away.. LOL :)
Score: 3
|If the scanning engine is anything like what they used with OneCare I don't think that most existing AV vendors have much to worry about. OneCare generally didn't do very well on some of the tests that were done by third party tests like the ones done by AV Comparatives.
Score: -6
|guess you missed this
http://www.av-comparativ...ondret/avc_report22.pdf
OneCare kills every other AV, beating all but one, AVIRA (May 2009)
Score: 4
|VirusTotal results http://is.gd/3OBWm for
http://search.twitter.co...=megasecuredownload.com (do not execute)
12% detection rate across AVs, MSE among those on top of things
http://imgur.com/F11Fa.png ;)
Score: 2
|"AV vendors are going to freak out..."
Sorry, but I have no sympathy whatsoever towards companies that base their entire success on the failures of others, and then cry foul when those failures are addressed and improvements are implemented.
They should expect and prepare for the day to come when their products are no longer required due to Microsoft finally getting their act together and addressing design flaws and releasing more stable and secure software.
Granted, the need for many 3rd-party security applications is primarily a monster of Microsoft's own creation, but they do not have to live with it, and they have every right to eliminate the need for it in the long run.
People fuss about Microsoft's shoddy security track record of the past, and then fuss when Microsoft tries to do something about it.
Score: 0
|