Microsoft releases free Security Essentials 2.0

Topic

New Reply

The latest,Security Essentials is out of beta.You can read more here;Cnet

Reply | Quote

Replies

I already had version 2. I wonder if the newest update is for new installations and that this update was included in a past update.

Reply | Quote

I think version 2 was a beta until yesterday. This one should be the release version.

Reply | Quote

I think version 2 was a beta until yesterday. This one should be the release version.

Fred’s comments are pretty aware and accurate for anyone who was not beta testing for MSE.

Reply | Quote

Fred’s comments are pretty aware and accurate for anyone who was not beta testing for MSE.

I agree. I was thinking the same thing.

John

Reply | Quote

Good morning chowur.

>>> The latest,Security Essentials is out of beta.

Tough one. How to know which version is working here ? I went to C: -> Programme Files -> Microsoft Security Client -> Setup ( Properties ), it showed v2.0.0657.0 ! Is this it ?

A Merry one to you………Jean.

Reply | Quote

Jean, That’s the latest I believe.

Reply | Quote

Indeed, that’s the latest.
It’s a weird thing that there is no way to check which version you are running other than checking a file or process properties.

Reply | Quote

Yes, there is. Open MSE and click on the “down arrow” next to Help (obvious – not) !

Reply | Quote

Oh, you are right. You better be sure to click the arrow and not the Help word, which is what I did before. Talk about good user interfaces!

Reply | Quote

The graphic below shows the latest version numbers. I tried using the upgrade option on the MSE Help menu and it said my wife’s computer was already using the latest version…not so! Looks like you have to manually download this one for now. However, you can just install over the old version it will recognize it as an Upgrade and proceed accordingly.

Update: One quirk of the update is that if you had configured the Notification area to show the MSE Icon you’ll have to do it again as the update hides it.

May the Forces of good computing be with you!

RG

PowerShell & VBA Rule!
Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

The latest,Security Essentials is out of beta.You can read more here;Cnet

chowur,
It amazes me how willing everyone is to trust MSE …when it provides a “backdoor” of information directly to MS…I guess cause it’s “Free” go figure Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

Fred,

You are not forced to join SpyNet:

Personally, I have no problems contributing to SpyNet. It’s a case of contributing to better malware protection for all.

I think people use MSE because it is a really good AV app, as so many reviewers, some even from Windows Secrets, have found.

Reply | Quote

Perhaps THIS is the one you were looking for Fred?

But then that simply wouldn’t coincide with your endless and tiresome tirades against anything Microsoft, would it? But then why post information that might be in opposition to your “opinions”.

It’s really getting quite boring Fred!

Reply | Quote

Rui, Rebel,
Hello.. Thanks you for your responses as i don’t use “Mickey MSE” i wasn’t aware … so i stand corrected .. Just don’t have any trust in MS when it comes to some things. Rebel ( Ouch !) Sorry if i bore you with my “tiresome tirades” Just think that there should be “both sides” presented, and every one should have as much information as possible…. even if you don’t like it…Does this mean that you won’t be coming to my Christmas Party ? Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

Rui, Rebel,
Hello.. Thanks you for your responses as i don’t use “Mickey MSE” i wasn’t aware … so i stand corrected .. Just don’t have any trust in MS when it comes to some things. Rebel ( Ouch !) Sorry if i bore you with my “tiresome tirades” Just think that there should be “both sides” presented, and every one should have as much information as possible…. even if you don’t like it…Does this mean that you won’t be coming to my Christmas Party ? Regards Fred

Well, if you were not “aware”, then why bother posting inaccuracies?

As far as “both sides being presented, and everyone should have as much information as possible. ….” – you are absolutely correct. But “information” (at least in most cases) is based on facts – not personal, biased, and in many cases – uninformed opinions. I find it sad that as a relatively new “moderator”, you seem compelled to continually bash Microsoft at every possible opportunity. But then, you’ve been doing that ever since you first joined the old “Woody’s Lounge”. And no Fred, I won’t be coming to your Christmas party. I’m afraid I might find some Hemlock in my eggnog.

Reply | Quote

I find it sad that as a relatively new “moderator”, you seem compelled to continually bash Microsoft at every possible opportunity. But then, you’ve been doing that ever since you first joined the old “Woody’s Lounge”.

Rebel,
Hello… Yes your correct ..about holding MS’s feet to the fire (bashing) … Someone has to .. Not that “Windows” has a bad OS… just don’t like being told what i can and can’t do with my own PC. I guess that i would like MS to be more like Linux …and Linux to be more like MS..Go figure …. So… for now (and until the powers that be have had enough of my “tirades”) i will continue to point out things about MS that i don’t like …As you say… “at every possible opportunity” Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

Fred,

I wouldn’t pretend to tell anyone how they should behave, but I would think members stand to benefit the most from experience. It’s rather risky to comment on something you have no experience with, cause then your advice may not be that valuable…

Reply | Quote

Rui, Rebel,
Yes you are both correct … My information was “out of date ” but nevertheless it was correct . Just that MS has at some point decided to change their policy about “opting out” of joining “Spynet” The point being it probably bowed to pressure placed upon them ( by people like me screaming) for not giving the owners a real choice… Not opt out or …Not opt out.. At the risk of being incorrect again doesn’t MS change your settings for Updates and Patch downloading (PU’s) when you agree to have “Mickey MSE ” installed ? Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

Fred,

My Windows update settings were never changed by MSE. Updates to MSE use Windows update for download, but the settings remained the same – I have them set to be informed when updates are available and they remained so after installing MSE.

MSE is one the best AVs for Windows OSes available now. Don’t take my word for it, take Fred Langa’s. Not sure why you would call it “Mickey MSE”.

Reply | Quote

MSE is one the best AVs for Windows OSes available now. Don’t take my word for it, take Fred Langa’s. Not sure why you would call it “Mickey MSE”.

Rui,
Hello…. Why i call “MSE” ..”Mickey MSE” It’s because when you compare it against a “pay for ” 3rd party security program ,such as “Norton Internet Security 2011” it’s not even on the same page… as far as what can be done with the program. See this post for more detail http://bro.ws/778580L Sure….it’s free, but i would rather have a security program that i can tailor to my requirements …and not have something forced on me that i don’t want or need.I have never said that it didn’t work in it basic function ….just that is is “Mickey Mouse ” in comparison .Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

Rui,
Hello…. Why i call “MSE” ..”Mickey MSE” It’s because when you compare it against a “pay for ” 3rd party security program ,such as “Norton Internet Security 2011” it’s not even on the same page… as far as what can be done with the program. See this post for more detail http://bro.ws/778580L Sure….it’s free, but i would rather have a security program that i can tailor to my requirements …and not have something forced on me that i don’t want or need.I have never said that it didn’t work in it basic function ….just that is is “Mickey Mouse ” in comparison .Regards Fred

Hi Fred,

Is comparing MSE to NIS a reasonable comparison? Isn’t NIS everything but the kitchen sink, regarding security, including even a firewall, which MSE does not? Shouldn’t MSE be compared with other AV products and just those? From an AV point of view, what criteria should be used to evaluate a program in comparison with others? Shouldn’t effectiveness as an AV product rank high on that list? Or you’d rather prefer an AV that includes everything but the kitchen sink and then fails to be reasonably effective detecting malware?

Everyone is free to choose the apps they want to use on their PCs, bloated or not, but having used AVs in the past and having paid for them, I fail to see how MSE is that lacking compared with other AV apps. I still own a site license for Vipre, the version of it that does not include a firewall and it pretty much offers the functionality that MSE offers, IMO.

I’ve used full scale integrated security apps, including NIS. I stopped using NIS long ago, as it was a resource hog and comparative tests with similar apps showed how faulty it was security wise. Changed to ZoneAlarm, until it took a turn for the worse. Back then I decided I would use different apps for different things. I don’t regret taking that decision.

Regarding AV apps, as I said, respected industry members, just as Fred Langa or Paul Thurrot have opinions that confirm my own experience with MSE. Being an effective AV (and isn’t that what we should expect from an AV app, that it is effective protecting against malware?) is my main criteria, together with not being an intrusive resource hog for an AV app. From that criteria, IMHO, NIS is beaten hands down by MSE.

Regards

Reply | Quote

Is comparing MSE to NIS a reasonable comparison? Isn’t NIS everything but the kitchen sink, regarding security, including even a firewall, which MSE does not? Shouldn’t MSE be compared with other AV products and just those? From an AV point of view, what criteria should be used to evaluate a program in comparison with others? Shouldn’t effectiveness as an AV product rank high on that list? Or you’d rather prefer an AV that includes everything but the kitchen sink and then fails to be reasonably effective detecting malware?

I stopped using NIS long ago, as it was a resource hog and comparative tests with similar apps showed how faulty it was security wise.

Rui,
Hello… Fair enough questions ..Answering them..

Yes .. As i consider “security” an important function, It is absolutely required that you compare the “kitchen sink” against the “just as good as freebie” .. after all your choosing one or the other to “do the job” why wouldn’t you?

As far as the ability of one or the other to detect and protect against “malware” you can read a zillion different results as to which is better ….Just depends on who’s paying for and scripting the tests.

“Resource Hog” as i use only Norton 2011 and Malwarebytes (no MS stuff ) i have not found that i have had any noticeable problems on “system resources” As I’m not in collusion with NASA helping to calculate “space shuttle launches” What difference does it make even if it does take a few more Msec to do something?

When it comes to the “kitchen sink ” argument .. I want my security to do everything EX:
Tell it what to scan , when to scan, how aggressive of a scan to do, how often … Boot time scan.. what level .. what things to ignore.. do i want reports ,or not on and on. I can make a boot recovery disk.. in the event something “gets by” etc., etc. What can your “Mickey MSE” do? Oh thats right ….not much. Regards Fred

Reply | Quote

I don’t know whether it is possible to track what actually is sent to Microsoft, but infected documents (e.g., PDF, DOC, JPG, scripts) or archives (e.g., ZIP) are far more likely to contain personal information than executable-based malware (e.g., EXE, DLL, MSI, PIF, BAT). I suspect Microsoft would try to limit its potential liability by avoiding collection of documents and archives, but a broad notification certainly makes sense from a legal perspective.

Reply | Quote

Fred, You are not forced to join SpyNet

My screen looks similar to Fred’s posting. There is no way to opt out.

Well, if you were not “aware”, then why bother posting inaccuracies?As far as “both sides being presented, and everyone should have as much information as possible. ….” – you are absolutely correct. But “information” (at least in most cases) is based on facts – not personal, biased, and in many cases – uninformed opinions.

As far as being “aware” … is my screen accurate?
Here is what my screen looks like for SpyNet …..

Maybe something will change with the new version of MSE, but that is how my MSE looks right now..

Fred,My Windows update settings were never changed by MSE. Updates to MSE use Windows update for download, but the settings remained the same – I have them set to be informed when updates are available and they remained so after installing MSE.

My MSE updates on its own, even though I have Microsoft updates set to “notify” before updating. Currently, I have this week’s Microsoft updates waiting to be d/l and installed, however my MSE definitions were auto updated this morning. As far as I am “aware”, this is an “accurate” pic of my MSE. Please note in the pic below the word “automatically” appears several times on the tab named “Update”.

Possibly a terminology issue between the terms Update and Upgrade?

PS: Not sure why the SpyNet pic is not showing up where I posted it.

Reply | Quote

Tim,

I ran the Beta 2.0 for a while and now I am running the 2.0 release version. As far as I could read, you will need to visit the MSE site to download the new version, as it won’t update automatically, at least not for now.

Regarding virus sigs updates, it was with the 2.0 beta that the sigs started being downloaded through Windows Update. Previous versions, which I believe to be your case, downloaded updates on their own.

Reply | Quote

Regarding virus sigs updates, it was with the 2.0 beta that the sigs started being downloaded through Windows Update. Previous versions, which I believe to be your case, downloaded updates on their own.

I’m pretty sure that MSE 1.x used Windows Update for signatures too. It just did not show up in the UI until some late patch 10 1.x or the 2.0 beta (I can’t remember for sure).

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I’m pretty sure that MSE 1.x used Windows Update for signatures too. It just did not show up in the UI until some late patch 10 1.x or the 2.0 beta (I can’t remember for sure).

Joe

Not that it is very important, but it didn’t. I still have MSE 1.x on Windows XP mode and have just checked that. Sigs are updated automatically or you just press the Update button on MSE’s update tab. I am convinced updates started being done through Windows Update with 2.0 Beta.
To tell the truth, I don’t really see why Windows Update is used. One upside is that, since Windows Update creates a restore point, recovering from possible bad sigs is easy, but then there never have been issues with the sigs.

Reply | Quote

Not that it is very important, but it didn’t. I still have MSE 1.x on Windows XP mode and have just checked that. Sigs are updated automatically or you just press the Update button on MSE’s update tab. I am convinced updates started being done through Windows Update with 2.0 Beta.
To tell the truth, I don’t really see why Windows Update is used. One upside is that, since Windows Update creates a restore point, recovering from possible bad sigs is easy, but then there never have been issues with the sigs.

MSE has always used the Automatic Update service. MSE updates are downloaded automatically using the AU “pipe” which includes BITS, the Background Intelligent Transfer Service. It must be running and up to date, or MSE updates may have a problem. These are the same services the Windows Update uses. There was a 1.x build which caused the automatic updates to be pushed through the Windows Update automatic update process and thus made visible to the user.

MSE Definitions/Signatures Update FAQ is fairly comprehensive about the MSE update process.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote

I don’t pretend to start an argument. The screen he posted was from an older version, and it was accurate for that version. The statement on updates, however, was valid for the beta version, only, and thus your own statement of his statements accuracy, on this specific count is … inaccurate.

Anyway, all I said is that you run the risk of not providing quality advice when you do not speak from your own experience and Fred said he wasn’t using MSE.

The beta had been out for quite a while, anyway. I believe even Microsoft is entitled to improve its own software, don’t you think?

Reply | Quote

Rui & TIm,

When you installed MSE did you opt in to SpyNet at that point, i.e. during the install? I opted out and have all 3 options on my options screen. Maybe, if you opt in at install time it removes the Opt Out item. Just a thought.

May the Forces of good computing be with you!

RG

PowerShell & VBA Rule!
Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

Rui & TIm,

When you installed MSE did you opt in to SpyNet at that point, i.e. during the install? I opted out and have all 3 options on my options screen. Maybe, if you opt in at install time it removes the Opt Out item. Just a thought.

Hi RG,

I do that have the 3 options. I don’t mind participating in SpyNet. If no one did, finding and fighting malware would be harder.

Reply | Quote

Hi RG – Apparently, with the new release version MSE 2.0 there is an option to Opt Out of SpyNet. On my previous version there is no way to opt out.
Since MSE 2.0 was just released in the past couple of days, I opt to wait and see reviews.
.
Has anyone seen a Microsoft sight with a list of the new features/enhancements in MSE 2.0?

Reply | Quote

Paul Thurrot has a brief overview of the new features in MSE.

Reply | Quote

There are ways that all AV apps send relavant info back “home” when nasties are encountered. MSE is NOT the only app that does this. That is one way the AV writers discover new nasties so they can be innoculated. The MSE version that did not have an opt out clause was the beta. The rtm v2 does have the opt out. At least my copy does.

Reply | Quote

How do you know your actually downloading Version 2.0 (before actually installing) when the website is notoriously vague on percise filename and version numbers?

Reply | Quote

How do you know your actually downloading Version 2.0 (before actually installing) when the website is notoriously vague on percise filename and version numbers?

You can check the properties of the executable you download. It will show it’s version 2.0.657.0

Reply | Quote

The link you provided to Paul Thurrot’s review has a download link to the new version on the “Microsoft Download Center” website.
On the MS website it says Version 1, but it is actually the latest version 2.0.
I just downloaded and installed it, just something to be aware of. …

Reply | Quote

The link you provided to Paul Thurrot’s review has a download link to the new version on the “Microsoft Download Center” website.
On the MS website it says Version 1, but it is actually the latest version 2.0.
I just downloaded and installed it, just something to be aware of. …

Yes, you are right, the info on the site is wrong. Must say I didn’t even look at the version number when I downloaded my copy.

Reply | Quote

Fine Microsoft form, about typical for them I’d say.

…Other than that, the new version looks pretty decent. We’ll give it a run.

Reply | Quote

I just checked about MSE and it did not list build 657. but 5??. Windows Update did not show any updates. I went to MS MSE site and downloaded and installed the MSE and now do show build 657. That is very strange that WU does not have the very latest build of version 2

Reply | Quote

I just checked about MSE and it did not list build 657. but 5??. Windows Update did not show any updates. I went to MS MSE site and downloaded and installed the MSE and now do show build 657. That is very strange that WU does not have the very latest build of version 2

I don’t think MSE is offered through Windows Update yet. I read that Microsoft will likely be offering it through Windows Update, but seems it hasn’t happened yet.

Reply | Quote

Just another piece of info that may be interesting. Paul Thurrot states that version 2.0 can be installed in computers running Windows Server OSes.

Reply | Quote

Well I didn’t really understood what you initially said to mean “using the Automatic Update service”, but you seem to be right on that. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Reply | Quote

Well I didn’t really understood what you initially said to mean “using the Automatic Update service”, but you seem to be right on that. I apologize for my misunderstanding.

No problem. I did not express myself clearly enough.

Joe

--Joe

Reply | Quote