Security Essentials

[Rich Barry]

Microsoft has a fairly new program called Security Essentials. Does
anybody know if it includes a Firewall? It does talk about
anti virus and malware protection. I just started using Comodo Free version
combo of Firewall and Antivirus/Malware. Just wondering if I should give SE
a try.

 

[Bob I]

Windows comes with a firewall.

 

[Andrew McLaren]

Microsoft has a fairly new program called Security Essentials. Does
anybody know if it includes a Firewall? It does talk about
anti virus and malware protection. I just started using Comodo Free version

Hi Rich,

Microsoft Security Essentials does not contain a firewall in its
packaging, because there is already a Firewall built in to Windows XP
SP2 and later.

A combination of Windows' own firewall and MSE would give you firewall,
antivurs and antimalware protection; with no need for any 3rd party tools.

As to whether the Microsoft offerings are any better than 3rd party
tools ... there's probably thousands of different opinions; many based
on anecdote, subjective impressions, and prejudice FWIW, I've been
using MSE and found it to be pretty good. It immediately detected the
only infection I've encountered in recent times (and that virus wasn't
even active; it was in the data payload of a non-executable file.

Most antivirus apps work by means of a "filter driver", which inserts a
layer of code into the stack of drivers that read and write to the disk.
Any slight error here can be very destabilising for the entire system;
AV software is notorious for casing blue screens and the like. One
advantage of MSE is that it's extremely compatible with the rest of Windows.

Hope this helps,

Andrew

 

[Anonamoose]

Few users need a firewall other than what is built into Windows. If you
cannot articulate in clear technical detail why the Windows firewall is not
adequate for your specific needs you do not need any other firewall.
The router that you inevitably use to access the internet has a hardware
firewall as well which is likely the main firewall actually protecting your
computer.
Programs like Commodo, if you are not familiar with using them, can easily
complicate local network connections.
MS Essentials is no better or worse than a host of free programs like AVG so
it comes down to personal preference.
In my personal experience there is little advantage, and many disadvantages,
to paying the exorbitant prices for retail antivirus programs. Your mileage
may vary.
If you actually get hit by malware it means your firewall and antivirus
program did not work and you will end up using free programs like
Malwarebytes before you are forced to reformat and reinstall.
No program will protect your computer if you are not reasonably careful
about what you click on when viewing websites.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Andrew McLaren" <[email protected]>

< snip >

| Most antivirus apps work by means of a "filter driver", which inserts a
| layer of code into the stack of drivers that read and write to the disk.
| Any slight error here can be very destabilising for the entire system;
| AV software is notorious for casing blue screens and the like. One
| advantage of MSE is that it's extremely compatible with the rest of Windows.

< snip >

That's a bunch of malarchy !

 

[Doum]

"Anonamoose" <[email protected]> écrivait

The router that you inevitably use to access the
internet has a hardware firewall as well which is likely the main
firewall actually protecting your computer.

<snip>

I wasn't aware you needed a router to access the internet, or maybe I
misunderstood?

(English is not my native language)

 

[Rich Barry]

It's been so long that I forgot I turned off Windows own Firewall.
Comodo works fine for me since I am not on a local Network.
In the past MS efforts to protect my Computer have been less than
adequate. Hence, I don't think of MS as a first line of defense.

 

[Fuzzy Logic]

It's been so long that I forgot I turned off Windows own Firewall.
Comodo works fine for me since I am not on a local Network.
In the past MS efforts to protect my Computer have been less than
adequate. Hence, I don't think of MS as a first line of defense.

You may find this interesting:

http://lifehacker.com/5401453/stop-...ity-microsofts-security-tools-are-good-enough

http://lifehacker.com/5433229/microsoft-security-essentials-ranks-as-best+performing-free-antivirus

I have been running MSSE since it came out of beta on both Vista and XP and it's got a very small resource
footprint and apparently does a very good job based on recent testing.

 

[Roy Smith]

"Anonamoose" <[email protected]> écrivait



<snip>

I wasn't aware you needed a router to access the internet, or maybe I
misunderstood?

It's not. The only reason you'd want a router is if you had several
computers and you wanted all of them to use the same internet connection
(usually DSL or a cable modem). But if you only have one PC, then a router
is not needed at all.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

"Anonamoose" <[email protected]> écrivait



<snip>

I wasn't aware you needed a router to access the internet, or maybe I
misunderstood?

You didn't misunderstand, and you are right that a router is not
needed. Moreover the great majority of computers are used without a
network, and there is no router used with them.

 

[PA Bear [MS MVP]]

Got Google? =>
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=does+microsoft+security+essentials+include+firewall?

Do any MSE-specific pages mention that it includes a firewall? (No.)
http://www.microsoft.com/security_essentials

MSE Support Forums
http://social.answers.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/category/mse

MSE left beta in Oct-09.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <[email protected]>



| You didn't misunderstand, and you are right that a router is not
| needed. Moreover the great majority of computers are used without a
| network, and there is no router used with them.

But a NAT Router or a NAT Router with a full FireWall implementation is better than using
a FireWall application in many respects.

I recently upgraded from a plain NAT Router to a NAT Router with a full FireWall
implementation and I ham very happy with it ability to "rules".

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Fuzzy Logic" <[email protected]>


| You may find this interesting:

| http://lifehacker.com/5401453/stop-paying-for-windows-security-microsofts-security-
| tools-are-good-enough

| http://lifehacker.com/5433229/microsoft-security-essentials-ranks-as-best+performing-
| free-antivirus

| I have been running MSSE since it came out of beta on both Vista and XP and it's got a
| very small resource
| footprint and apparently does a very good job based on recent testing.

Annecdotal information has shown that what gets past MSE isn't removed well by MSE even
after MSE detected it. MBAM did what MSE couldn't do.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <[email protected]>




| You didn't misunderstand, and you are right that a router is not
| needed. Moreover the great majority of computers are used without a
| network, and there is no router used with them.

But a NAT Router or a NAT Router with a full FireWall implementation is better than using
a FireWall application in many respects.

Yep, no question about it. My point wasn't anything else, just that
most people don't have a router.

 

[Rich Barry]

Well, truly forgetting that XP had it's own firewall I did indeed
come away with the impression after reading about MSSE that it
did not have a Firewall. At the time that was very curious to me. So, I
decided to ask the question? I should have added and why not? But, thanks
for your contribution to this subject. MS MVP's are always valued.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <[email protected]>

| On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:47:15 -0500, "David H. Lipman"


| Yep, no question about it. My point wasn't anything else, just that
| most people don't have a router.



Some do and they don't know it as many newer DSL Modems are DSL Modems+NAT Router.

Many on Cable are screwed as the ONLY have a Cable Modem.

 

[Ken Blake, MVP]

From: "Ken Blake, MVP" <[email protected]>

| On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 18:47:15 -0500, "David H. Lipman"



| Yep, no question about it. My point wasn't anything else, just that
| most people don't have a router.



Some do and they don't know it as many newer DSL Modems are DSL Modems+NAT Router.

True. But some--far from everyone.

 

[Doum]

It's not. The only reason you'd want a router is if you had several
computers and you wanted all of them to use the same internet
connection (usually DSL or a cable modem). But if you only have one
PC, then a router is not needed at all.

I am aware of that, it's just that when "Anonamoose" said :"The router that
you INEVITABLY use to access the internet...", it implied that a router was
needed to access the net.

 

[David H. Lipman]

From: "Roy Smith" <[email protected]>



| It's not. The only reason you'd want a router is if you had several
| computers and you wanted all of them to use the same internet connection
| (usually DSL or a cable modem). But if you only have one PC, then a router
| is not needed at all.

Not true. Because you now have a layer of protection outside the PC. Even for just ONE
PC, it is worth it an as I have noted in this thread...
"Some do and they don't know it as many newer DSL Modems are DSL Modems+NAT Router."

 

[Bob I]

Huh?!?!?!?