Symantec & AVG - Microsoft Security Essentials Is Not Enough
- 12
- Add a Comment
Symantec is saying that Microsoft Security Essentials is not enough to protect users from the threats posed by the Internet. According to the folks at Symantec and AVG, we users need a whole lot more in order to be protected. They have stated the following:
“Early reviews of the beta are showing that it under-performs when compared to existing freeware products, and well below paid solutions,” said security firm Symantec in a statement.
“Referring to Microsoft’s basic anti-virus and anti-spyware product as an essential security solution is misleading. Consumers need firewall protection, web protection, anti-spam and identity safeguards,” it said.
AVG folks state:
J.R Smith, chief executive of security firm AVG, said Microsoft’s entry into the security market could “further confuse consumers about the inherent security of their computer”.
“It’s important to recognise that Microsoft’s role in the internet security realm is much like your relationship with your trusted family doctor. They can help diagnose the problems. In addition, they treat many general ailments. In the end, though, they are not a replacement for a specialist when you need one,” he said.
These comments remind me of what sales people are always trying to sell us. I recently bought a new car which I thought was expensive enough until the sales people hit me with these insurances. Extended warranty. I guess 3 years, 36k isn’t enough. Price for the policy $1899. Then there was gap insurance. This covers what ever your auto insurance doesn’t cover. Like damage sustained if your car is trampled by a herd of wild Camels. Cost was $750. Than there was death insurance. The car is paid off if I die. Heh, if I’m dead I don’t give a rats ass what you do with the car. Take it back and ruin my credit. I don’t care people. Cost for this was only $900.
So how much protection does your computer really need? MSE might not be enough, but what the others offer may be over kill.
What do you think? Share your opinion with us.
12 Comments
Ryan Farmer
June 24th, 2009
at 8:46am
Actually, gap insurance covers the difference between what you owe on the loan and what your insurance pays (fair market value of the car).
Means if I wreck my new car 2 years out, the market value could be several thousand less than what I owe on it, leaving me to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket.
Gap insurance is a good idea, dunno about the extended warranty, but gap insurance is a few pennies a day to save you from possibly thousands in liability.
As for the pay to play antivirus cartel, what do you expect them to say?
They’re (rightly) worried that they’ll be ruined now that they have no “legit” product to sell you, one of those Symantec people said you needed a firewall, doesn’t Windows have one?
Ron Schenone
June 24th, 2009
at 9:16am
Hi Ryan,
I have full replacement with my auto policy. If the car gets wrecked I get a new one. Costs about $30 more a year.
Is Microsoft Security Essentials Enough? » Starfish Computer Solutions
June 24th, 2009
at 10:20am
[...] is saying that Microsoft Security Essentials is not enough to protect users from the threats posed by the Internet. According to the [...]
Symantec & AVG - Microsoft Security Essentials Is Not Enough ~ The … « Security
June 24th, 2009
at 11:09am
[...] See the rest here: Symantec & AVG - Microsoft Security Essenti… [...]
Jeff
June 24th, 2009
at 1:25pm
I haven’t really ‘tested’ it per-say: its installed but I don’t normally run into infection. I have been virus free for 3 years now, and only had one before that because I had a party and left me computer logged in….
Anyhoo - they claim you need anti-spam and firewall, but windows already includes these. In a nut shell, all they are offering are ’stronger’ version of what you already get with windows. Firewall, UAC, MSE, IE8 security settings. Its all there, just not as strong as a company that spent their life making it.
Symantec & AVG - Microsoft Security Essentials Is Not Enough ~ The … « Security
June 24th, 2009
at 1:33pm
[...] Read more: Symantec & AVG - Micros&#… [...]
Ryan Farmer
June 25th, 2009
at 11:43am
http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=knowledge_center&articleId=9134753&taxonomyId=1&intsrc=kc_top
According to GmbH antivirus comparisons, Security essentials is not only far more effective than Norton at discovering in-the-wild threats, but also had no false positives .
No wonder the people that make Norton are scared.
Ron Schenone
June 25th, 2009
at 12:01pm
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for the link.
Neil Katz
July 7th, 2009
at 9:46am
Nice try Symantec. Regarding anti-span, I use NIS 2009 and turn this off. I have anti-spam in MS Outlook 2007, and thru my ISP Verizon.net). Only a small number get ID’d as junk by Outlook, and none are true spam. Verizon gets all of the junk, and rarely makes a mistake. As far as a firewall is concerned, my router has one, and Vista/Win 7 have another - using Vista Firewall Control to configure the Windows firewall completes that requirement (for fee too). Internet Explorer and Firefox provide the web security. Regarding Identity Protection, a little common sense goes a long way - don’t give out confidential info unless you are initiating the process (such as a online purchase).
I will probably continue NIS for my wife’s and son’s PC’s, as they do not want to be bothered configuring the Windows Firewall, even with the above front end app, but do not plan to install it on my Win 7 PC.
D.P.
November 5th, 2009
at 1:43am
Versus Norton? Probably anything is better than Norton. I wouldn’t listen to anything they have to say. As far as how it would compare to AVG, McAfee, etc., I’m not really sure. Have only ever used Norton, Webroot, Malwarebytes, and AVG. Webroot and Malwarebytes have been good so far, AVG was alright, but Norton was terrible. Absolute crap. Waste of time, money, and your computer’s resources. ABN = Anything But Norton. I don’t know how much I trust Microsoft either when it comes to their record on internet security, heh, but I’m sure it couldn’t be any worse than Norton.
AKAY
November 7th, 2009
at 4:51am
Its just typical scare tactics by these companies, as long as you don’t do anything silly online then most free anti virus programs are adequate. I’ve not bothered renewing my Zonealarm subscription, as the newer version was just a bloated mess and really bogged my system down. I’ve switched to MSE and I use Outpost Firewall 2009 free, and I’ve got the free version of Malwarebytes which I use as an on demand scanner, just in case, and my laptop runs like a dream now. I’ve always been pretty careful, I’ve probably had one infection in 5 years, and that was last year, funny thing is my paid version of ZA missed the trojan, but Malwarebytes free got it, so why bother giving them money again?
Whenever I’m online I’m generally behind a router, which provides great protection, and as I mentioned I back it up with a software firewall. In terms of ID protection, its simple, just use your brain for chrissakes, Im pretty sure I’m not related to a Nigerian prince lol, you don’t need any symantec garbage.
Ron Schenone
November 7th, 2009
at 5:46am
Thanks for the comments everyone.
Akay -
“as long as you don’t do anything silly online then most free anti virus programs are adequate”
Exactly. This is basically all you need to do.
“In terms of ID protection, its simple, just use your brain”
This is where most people get themselves into trouble. They don’t use their brain. LOL
Regards, Ron