Evangelising the Metaverse since 2001
|
|
|
Microsoft releases a free Windows security suite
THE CREATOR of PC operating systems that are insecure by design, Microsoft has updated its free security suite for Windows.
Five months after the public beta, Microsoft announced the release of Security Essentials 2. It sports a new malware detection engine and closer integration with Windows Firewall and Internet Explorer, with the Vole also touting performance improvements.
Security Essentials 2 supports machines running Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows Vista and Windows 7, though not all features are enabled on Windows XP. In fairness to Microsoft, the omission of the network inspection system isn't a cheap trick enticing users to upgrade, but rather a requirement of the Windows Filtering Platform, a piece of software that is only available for Windows Vista and Windows 7.
Microsoft is pitching Security Essentials 2 at consumers and small businesses with up to 10 machines. For larger outfits, the Vole has updated its Forefront Endpoint Protection security software, which includes real-time server monitoring.
Unlike its operating systems, subsystems and client access licences, Microsoft decided to give away Security Essentials for free to individuals and small businesses, although medium-sized and larger businesses that want Forefront will have to fork over cash.
Or they can move over to Linux, where most software including a lot of security software is free, and they can choose whether or not they want to pay for support. µ
Tags: Microsoft
Share this:
Share
Jon Green
sorry but your comment is invalid when you understand the sheer scale of platform testing that is undertaken before patches are released.
What made this website great was its wit, its zestiness, ah, the refreshing smart articles full of wits, how I miss you.
Today, the replacement for Magee are writers that can't really write at that level, and hence, when you can't write with wit, you end up just bashing.
Its like comparing a ninja in a China shop with a medieval knight in full armour...
One will waltz around everything and the other will just bash everything down.
If you can't write with wit, then don't attempt it and just report factually what you learn.
Wit just means that yes, you just bashed the thing, but you did it in a way that's charmingly funny, incisive and true.
I cannot find any download for Security Essentials 2 on M$, only the original version.
Is it really released? Or have you just typed up a bit of M$ flam?
So, you'd rather have an OS that issues mega-patches once a month than one that reacts rapidly to threats and pushes out individual, targeted patches in days, sometimes hours?
Sorry, what was that you said about "secure"?
If you want numpties to have a secure OS then the worst thing possible is to give them Swiss Cheese like Linux, and hope they might actually install the ten zillion patches that are released for it at random each year.
okay you lamers , who the hell wants a thorough article about security essentials?????
you people are just lame, most people who are on the inq are already informed on the topic.
Given that I've made most of my income for the past 11 years from Linux, and since 1987 substantially from Open Source, you might expect me to agree with the author.
I don't.
MSSE1 was not that bad a product. It was free, it did its job, and simply worked. I ended up deinstalling it from my main Windows PC simply because it could slug the CPU unnecessarily sometimes, but I've kept it on other Windows PCs I maintain. (My main Windows box now uses Avast AV, which is excellent.)
If MS has brought out a new and better version, and kept it free, this is something to applaud, not slap down gratuitously. It's taken MS a long time to realise that its OSes needed better security than MS offered as standard; let's not deter them from a useful and productive change of mind. It doesn't happen often.
MS already admitted that they didn't use to have a 'focus on security' and that prior to vista is wasn't designed for such, as is obvious if you see the mechanisms available on linux (and its derivatives like OSX) versus windows.
These things are not made up by fanboys.
And there's things like ActiveX which MS invented and which seemed almost specifically designed for breaking into systems.
In fact when they became more interested in security they actually disabled a bunch of things in XP, because plugging them was just not going to do it.
And then there's the rather peculiar skillset of the MS coders, who if you look at the patches over the years all forgot to do sanity checks on input and happily churned out code with massive amounts of overflow vulnerabilities, code that still is a big part of w7 too since w7 is 80% XP as we now know.
Not that people working for other companies/projects also often seem to have not been taught, nor have had feedback enough for some reason, to not be aware you should always have your modules check for sanity on input, but maybe it's just laziness too, but that's the job of projectmanagers, to be on their case when they drop the ball like that and make sure they don't repeat.
Yes we can wait for a new great operating system to come out Blighty being developed of course by the arm chair experts at the Inquirer.
Don't know why all the negativity is around about Security Essentials. Currently use it on both my home machines and it is much much faster/easier than any commercial realtime protection package I've come across.
Release 2 sounds like a step back. Integrating with firewall and having anti-malware will almost undoubtedly hit performance.
Forefront ( for business types ) is a bit of a nightmare of complexity though. Unless you want to buy into the whole System Centre infrastructure. They've left a big gap for mid sized businesses open to the AV competition.
What a bunch of MS trolls that have posted here. He doesn't even mention Apple and yet gets accused of being "The author of this article is obviously an Apple follower"
What a pathetic bunch of tossers.
The article was informative with the only thing being his suggestion of moving to Linux to avoid all the crap that comes with MS Windows.
Obviously, everyone commenting on this article only had the chance to read this one and nothing else from theinquirer.net. There isn't an Apple loving author for miles, nor Microsoft, and satire is the name of the game. Really? This is news to you guys?
Its just news with bits of humor, not stern and serious in-depth reporting from journalists with a doctorate. Quit crying foul
Think Shia Labeef of Transformers fame is bad?
lawrence "mr negative" is worse. I have lost my respect for the inquirer.
Wake up editors, this kind of obvious hit-whiting isn't doing your reputation any favours.
If this writer thinks he is a journalist, he needs to go back to school. I thought this was a tech NEWS site and not a tech Opinion section. Keep your limited knowledge to the facts and save the rhetoric for your personal blog.
This author of this article is always writing negative articles about anything related to Microsoft products. You would think some journalist would be objective, apparently not.
That known vulnerabilities are let slide for years is, of course, a minor aside.
"The author of this article is obviously an Apple follower"
Yeah, that and a Scientologist. The constant and relentless references to Tom Cruise and Kirsty Alley throughout the article were the give-away signs for me.
Thank god for the tin foil hats from I want one of those dot com.
Microsoft's OS is just as secure if not more secure than any other OS out there. The only reason that problems with Windows are so highly visible is because the totally dominate the world in OS sales for homes and businesses. The author of this article is obviously an Apple follower. Apple followers love to bash Microsoft, but the bottomline is they dominate all other OS's on the market from every angle.