Proof that MSE SUCKS!

[HeXen]

its still worse to not have one. best to go with multiple layers of protection. I like Threatfire as an addition to AV. I also like keeping a couple of online scanners handy for manual scanning.
But these days i just do my online stuff in Linux and not have to think about malware.

 

[NickelPlate]

They all suck, if you run Windows the only real choice is how badly the A/V you choose kills performance of your PC.

You know, you've got a point. Antivirus software for the most part is pretty useless these days for "protecting" your PC. Most times that people I know get themselves into trouble by downloading and installing programs from dodgy websites or file sharing, surfing porn, clicking on everything that pops up on screen and getting infections from other peoples dirty flash drives etc.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

I've never understood the fanboyism behind anti virus software, particularly the free versions

heck, there was a time when MSE was actually the best amongst the free AVs and Avast amongst the worst, these things change with time and they all seem to trade places, I just pick whichever one has the least headaches and then practice actual safe computing to compliment

 

[RU482]

If the only sites you go to every day is say Anandtech, you will never catch any viruses.

thats not quite true

 

[Hugh Jass]

If the only sites you go to every day is say Anandtech, you will never catch any viruses.

With that attitude, I hope you will at least enjoy your malware.

 

[tommo123]

They may have varying levels of suck, but every infection I've seen has been on a PC with A/V installed. IMO they're worthless and cause more harm than they do good.

i don't quite agree with that. if nothing else then some will at least inform you somethings up - even if it can't fix it. they are annoying with false positivies though, especially ones that only trigger based on file names

AV, firewalls etc are not going to work if the user is the type (like my dad) to just go "ooh, let's install that and see what happens. popups? why yes i will click onto that - more popups? i know i'll call my son"

 

[Nothinman]

i don't quite agree with that. if nothing else then some will at least inform you somethings up - even if it can't fix it. they are annoying with false positivies though, especially ones that only trigger based on file names

AV, firewalls etc are not going to work if the user is the type (like my dad) to just go "ooh, let's install that and see what happens. popups? why yes i will click onto that - more popups? i know i'll call my son"

It may be a bit of hyperbole, but not much IME. Most of the infections I've seen haven't been the user's fault, they've been the automatically installed or at leaset partially installed and are usually one of the fake A/Vs and/or some rootkit. The last one's only indication that something was up was the fact that Outlook stopped connecting to their Exchange server, everything else looked fine.

 

[Skel]

I have said it many times but noone believes, MSE is one of the worse antivirus programs out there! Yes it is light on resources but it sucks big time in protection!

I have had 2 viruses crawl twice on to my system even though I am a safe user. Furthermore, it sucks in deleting any threats

AV-TEST - The Independent IT-Security Institute: Jul/Aug 2012

Avast! Free Antivirus FTW!

What’s interesting to me is I installed Avast AV on a machine that’s been problematic with viruses. Avast was kind enough to install Google Chrome for me even when I didn’t ask for it, and I did a custom install and unclicked everything but the English language. This AV was the third and only planning on giving the computer a quick scan before uninstalling it. I found a few posts on the subject where I read that there’s a “glitch” in the installer that may or may not allow you to opt out of installing Chrome. How am I supposed to trust an AV when it installs spam and won’t let me opt out of it?

 

[wilson0416]

I have said it many times but noone believes, MSE is one of the worse antivirus programs out there! Yes it is light on resources but it sucks big time in protection!

I have had 2 viruses crawl twice on to my system even though I am a safe user. Furthermore, it sucks in deleting any threats

AV-TEST - The Independent IT-Security Institute: Jul/Aug 2012

Avast! Free Antivirus FTW!

You are right brother... but it is free... nothing to complaint...

 

[Nothinman]

You are right brother... but it is free... nothing to complaint...

Huh? Just because something is free that doesn't mean you can't critique and criticize it.

 

[cheez]

1. XP is much more vulnerable to virus's than Win 7.
2. Most of the world is still running XP
3. Are there any Win 7 exclusive virus's?

Windows Server 2003 beats both OSes. It is hard to get infected. I tried going to all kinds of sites including lots of porn sites a while back but I couldn't get the damn thing infected.... That DEP does some amazing things. Get the server OS.

 

[Nothinman]

Windows Server 2003 beats both OSes. It is hard to get infected. I tried going to all kinds of sites including lots of porn sites a while back but I couldn't get the damn thing infected.... That DEP does some amazing things. Get the server OS.

XP and Win7 have DEP as well, in fact Win2K3 should be on par with XP since they're basically the same software.

 

[cheez]

XP and Win7 have DEP as well, in fact Win2K3 should be on par with XP since they're basically the same software.

Sounds like you are talking after installing all sorts of updates and install a third party software for XP to increase security. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking straight out of the bare OS. Win server 2003 is just superior.... in every way.

I used to browse porn sites (a long way back, I have grown up now) for a few years, I'm talking massive..... Server 2003 still survived. If it was Windows XP it would have gotten nuked in less than a week, maybe even a few days.

 

[Nothinman]

Sounds like you are talking after installing all sorts of updates and install a third party software for XP to increase security. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking straight out of the bare OS. Win server 2003 is just superior.... in every way.

I used to browse porn sites (a long way back, I have grown up now) for a few years, I'm talking massive..... Server 2003 still survived. If it was Windows XP it would have gotten nuked in less than a week, maybe even a few days.

No I'm not, but comparing a decade old bare OS to anything is just plain stupid. XP has more services running like the theme and audio ones that Win2K3 ships disabled by default, but that's about it. The core system, kernel, etc are all the same between the two except for licensing. Same with Server 2008 and Vista and Server 2008 R2 and Win7.

The only thing that should have had an affect on your porn browsing would be the IE Enhanced Security mode which is on by default in Win2K3, however it's so restrictive you can't even get through Google without it popping up a dozen errors. So there's no way you would be able to see any porn with it unless you added them to your trusted sites which would be incredibly stupid.

 

[Ryland]

I also had multiple machines become infected while running MSIE so I switched over to AVAST. I do find it surprising that people think MSIE is great.

 

[Skel]

I also had multiple machines become infected while running MSIE so I switched over to AVAST. I do find it surprising that people think MSIE is great.

A lot of people don't do much with their computers and never really expose them to viruses in the first place. It's easy to believe the AV works awesome when there's nothing for it to do.

 

[SPBHM]

I'm still satisfied with MSE,
the PCs I have here being used for let's say, less informed users are always working fine, without infections, from time to time I can see on the history that MSE caught something,
it might not be perfect, or the best, but it certainly works, and it's easy on the resources and easy to use,

 

[Dstoop]

...how are you going to detect a virus without ANY antivirus to detect it with?

Honestly, the AV software is exactly what I use to detect 99% of infections that *arent* caught by the AV.

More often than not, they do get right past the AV, but at the same time the virus is designed to *disable* the AV entirely or prevent updates. When someones toolbar is yelling at me that Mcaffee hasn't updated via autoupdate in 48 days and the launcher doesn't open, it's a pretty clear indicator that there's an infection present. Without having an AV for the malware to maliciously break, it'd be much harder to detect that something is wrong.

 

[NickelPlate]

I've used a variety of AV software both free and commercial over the years and all them at one time or another have had false positives, been unable to remove a known infection, or missed something that another one caught.

Running AV is a just one small step in keeping your computer clean and gives alot of people a false sense of security. The reality is that none of them I would wager is able to keep pace with the number of viruses/trojans and malware garbage that's being created on a daily basis. The best defense is to practice safe computing IMO and run AV, antimalware programs periodically to make sure you haven't picked anything up.

But no amount of security software is going to ever be 100% effective.

 

[0roo0roo]

I use no anti-virus, for the reasons mechBgon brought up ^.

unwise.

even something that only works half the time is better than nothing.