9 ms·
A lot in here about Defender/Microsoft Security Essentials. > [MSE] doesn’t have: parental control, built-in VPN, webcam protection, password manager, backups,
by m0nty 10y ago
A lot in here about Defender/Microsoft Security Essentials.
> [MSE] doesn’t have: parental control, built-in VPN, webcam protection, password manager, backups, exploit protection, protection for online banking and online shopping, proactive protection against future threats and dozens scores hundreds of other features which are all useful in providing maximum protection and a better user experience
That's exactly what I like about it. Stuff the "user experience": I don't want an AV product that tries to run my life for me. (I don't want Windows 10 to do it either, which is why I tried it for less than a week and went back to Windows 7.) AV products are bloated, difficult to use and always in your face when they should just silently remove viruses. Which is what MSE does for me.
- teekert 10y agoNice, so you are the MSE target audience... Problem is, they don't just target you, they also target others without informing them of the lesser level of protection MSE provides.
- Scea91 10y agoYes, I believe developers are not the primary target audience of any AV. Common users will benefit from the additional features and better protection of 3rd party AV solutions more.
- JorgeGT 10y ago> proactive protection against future threats Does this mean heuristic analysis? Because apparently MSE does that: http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/protect/forum/mse-protect_scanning/does-does-mse-do-heuristics-or-not/dfb7966f-a61d-472c-8188-0931a9487c3c http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/protect/forum/mse-protect...
- creshal 10y agoExactly. 99% of the "additional features" are pure, useless bloat and I don't want to pay for them. If Kaspersky had an offering that combines their definitely superior scanning engine with Defender's/MSE's stupidly easy and unobstructive UX, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. (Well, maybe not a heartbeat. Would be nice if their website worked without enabling JS and didn't ask me to download PDFs afterwards… seriously?)
- turblety 10y agoBut I think the point is the user should decide if they want this bloat not Microsoft. I agree I would never use kaspersky or norton or any other system like this, but there are people who do want to use them. It's the individuals choice to use these systems, not Microsofts. But this is the model Microsoft are going towards and if we don't like it, lets stop using and promoting them.
- creshal 10y agoSure, Windows 10 is a trainwreck. But that's no news, and antivirus solutions have been bloated shit for much longer than that.
- roryisok 10y ago> the user should decide if they want this bloat not Microsoft The average windows user hasn't a clue whether a piece of software is bloat, or really important One of the most common issues I come across when fixing PCs of friends or relatives is "my antivirus thingy says I need to buy it or I'll get viruses" and my solution is always the same: uninstall whatever version of Kaspersky, or Norton or AVG shipped with the machine and replace it with Defender/Essentials, which just works, and more importantly, is practically invisible while doing it. Frankly, the tactics used by AV companies to try and scare users into buying their software are downright immoral. Microsoft is losing out to Apple, who have no qualms about deciding what you can and can't have on their platform (Flash anyone?). From a marketing point of view I can definitely understand why they would do this.
- 10y ago
- red_admiral 10y agoIt also doesn't have: TLS MITM, adware, a bundled rebranded version of chromium with the same-origin policy turned off, privdog, a bundled password manager that has a bug allowing remote code execution through <img> tags and all the other things that came with many AV products over the past years. I'm not completely devoid of sympathy for Microsoft here.
- bo1024 10y agoThat's irrelevant to the main point, though: that Microsoft isn't giving users a fair choice between its product and the others. Instead it's causing users to switch to its own product in a misleading and anti-competitive way (is the point of the article).
- languagewars 10y agoNot exactly, we have all been dumping on Microsoft for having terrible security and they have what essentially boils down to a public health problem for their entire ecosystem. Then, no one knows what they are adding as AV, much like injecting unreviewed vaccines. They are making decisions to scan anyway and enable their solutions whenever they can because I won't stop and ask users which crapware they installed to supposedly scan their system before telling them to give up on windows. I find it very funny that Kaspersky claims Microsoft was a security leader when they were in a total downward spiral but is unhappy now that I have to think twice about whether my recommendation to switch to Linux is out of date advice. I don't have a good solution for maintaining an add-on AV market and actual security.. But pushing them to just do the bundleware and not be the AV is a pretty good solution for Microsoft and their users that financially Microsoft pays for instead of profiting from. Still, it might be too late for them to retain a position on consumer devices of any sort.
- KirinDave 10y agoMicrosoft absolutely IS facilitating a fair choice, what they're doing is making it so that consumers are left "in a lurch" where they have to re-up their licenses or end up with a totally unprotected computer. Please read on, I will explain. My experience just last month: you cannot run 2 anti-virus systems at once, they all aggressively lock out their competitors. McAfee causes Kaspersky to crash, and in the opposite case a lot of scary looking warnings go up. Imagine if insurance was done this way, or home security, or even physical security. Most fields of personal security allow for overlapping coverage. Anti-virus products explicitly try and avoid this and then use that to their advantage to force you to re-up, paying for coverage. Defender is the default option that steps in so that consumers CAN take the time to make a rational and educated choice. Because most consumers with anti-virus software didn't choose it! Anti-virus vendors compete much more at the level of securing hardware vendor contracts (or eking out an existence in counterpoint to them). This is REALLY important and is a case where Microsoft is actually being very progressive and pro-consumer. Anti-virus software, of pivotal importance for windows users, is now on even footing with games and word processors. They must compete for consumer attention and affection and demonstrate value and cultivate consumer loyalty. Even if Kaspersky is one of the better actors in this space, it's a space fundamentally toxic to consumers.
- Poiesis 10y agoI was about to post this quote; it's amusing to see it within the first 13 comments. I am sympathetic to the author's UX arguments, but it has always seemed to me like the OS vendor was clearly the party whom I wanted to handle my virus protection, if any. I'm already obliged to trust them and they're in the best position to do the job (API access, etc.) If you as a third party want to convince me you're better at protecting my computer, you've got an uphill battle considering the hacks necessary to do the job (and it never seemed like lots of AV API support is the answer, since you could just build first party AV functionality instead with better integration). Also not convincing: hundreds of non-AV features like a password manager. "Better user experience" would not be the way I describe it.
- wuschel 10y agoI completely agree. This and the introduction of hostile upgrades on Windows 7 was the reason I actually switched to a Linux based operating system (Xubuntu), with my old Windows 7 as occasional virtualized guest operating system for old applications. I was never happy with Microsofts product policies and aggressive strategies, but I accepted them since they did not cross the lines too much. Also, I thought the barrier to switch was much higher. It is not. There is no reason not to switch away from proprietary, closed OS such as Windows or Mac OS these days. Unless you are really a fan, of course. But then you are willing to pay the price.
- erokar 10y agoAs OSs go I agree, Linux is a viable and in many ways a better alternative to MacOS and Windows. But there are still quite a few thrid party apps that do not have good Linux equivalents.
- quickConclusion 10y agoSide question, off topic: I am seriously considering switching to Linux (Windows slow, auto-updates outside my control). I'd start with a dual boot and see whether i will miss some apps. My sticking issue is mailbox. I like local email storage bc of responsiveness, offline use, as opposed to web ui. Is there an email/calendar client that can work on windows and linux, and update the same file? E.g if i sent an email on Windows, and now i am on Linux, i'd like to see it in my sent folder. Any tips?
- ec109685 10y agoAll imap clients operate this way. They sync from the server so you have identical representation of you mailbox and its folders on all devices. Once the sync is done, they can operate in an offline fashion.
- rerx 10y agoApparently that's possible with Thunderbird: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Sharing_a_profile_between_Windows_and_Linux http://kb.mozillazine.org/Sharing_a_profile_between_Windows_... I think there aren't many more cross platform alternatives available anyway.
- sundvor 10y agoAgreed. I was going to say, on passwords, I have Lastpass for that. I'll stick with my non-bloated MSE thank you very much.
- gpderetta 10y agoAnecdote time. A couple of weeks ago, my neighbors asked me for some help with their printers. Their wifi printer had suddently stopped working, then they bought a new one (which of course costed less than a ink cartridge) which also didn't work. After the initial shock of dealing with windows 10 (I hadn't used windows, especially a home version, for years), I found out, by plugging a cable, that the printer actually worked just fine. Checking the wifi router admin page showed that the printer was correctly connecting to the network. At that point I suspected firewall issues. The Windows firewall control panel was disabled claiming to be managed by the antivirus. I looked at MSE, and it was also disabled. I asked my neighbors and they said that they had been using MSE but McAfee had somehow appeared recently on their computer (possibly sneakingly installed by some unrelated application). And of course McAfee was there, already demanding protection money. I uninstalled it after clicking through dozen of scary popups warning that the computer would be overwhelmed by viruses, my bank account emptied and my identity stolen. Immediately after that a popup appeared from Windows system tray telling me that my computer was unprotected and I should install Avast immediately. I quickly got rid of that only for yet another popup to appear (for some AV that I had never heard of). Eventually I managed to get rid of all AVs, re-enabled MSE, and suddenly the printer started working again. I think MSE should really just treat every other AV as malware, although I'm sure MS would get a lot of backlash.
- arkitaip 10y agoThis is part the AV/FW vendors fault, part Microsoft's fault. Yes, on Windows the security products are too often as nasty as the malware they claim to protect you from but Microsoft has failed to design a sane security experience that works with legit 3rd party vendors. Currently on Windows 10, it's surprisingly difficult for "normal" users to know if av/fw are available by default and how they work. How the built-in security works with 3rd party solutions is more confusing, even for power users.
- patates 10y agoI've lived through and heard about this so many times that it stopped being an anecdote for me a long time ago; it's just how hostile most of the 3rd party AV applications are. They, IMHO, should be given no system access and should only be allowed to implement something like IsHarmful(s DataStream) (bool, string) - maybe a little more and that's it.
- douche 10y agoExactly. Defender is non-invasive and good enough. It's my opinion that most anti-virus software should be classified as a virus - it screws with your computer in ways you don't understand and don't like, and it's usually very hard to get rid of. Somebody at work went and managed to get themselves infected with some type of bitlocker-type virus a few months back, and so the decision was made to push AVG to all machines. What a PITA. I might as well have gone back to using spinning-rust instead of SSDs for compiling in Visual Studio, until I figured out how to eradicate the AVG tentacles scanning and intercepting everything. And AVG is supposed to be one of the better ones.
- coverband 10y agoIf you're able to make a choice (and you consciously choose MSE) that's great. The complaint is that Win10 doesn't give that to most/all users.
- WorldMaker 10y agoWhy should system security, of all things, be an opt-in "choice" that people can accidentally not make rather than an in-box concern for the operating system?
- zyx321 10y agoWindows has: parental control, password manager, backups, webcam protection (on UWP Apps; hardware-based solutions are available for $0.00003) Chrome, Firefox and Edge have: exploit protection, protection for online banking and online shopping There is no such thing as "proactive protection against future threats" Besides the VPN, why should I pay money for any of this crap even if I do want it?
- mynameisvlad 10y agoWindows has a VPN client, too, don't forget.
- zeroer 10y agoThere are plenty of free VPN clients for every platform. I think the parent was referring to the server.
- mynameisvlad 10y agoKaspersky has no VPN server feature. Its only VPN feature is a client[0] that will auto-connect to one of their servers. So the only thing it really has on the built-in Windows VPN client is the supply of servers. [0]: https://support.kaspersky.com/12726 https://support.kaspersky.com/12726
- mschuster91 10y ago>> [MSE] doesn’t have: parental control Thank the heavens. I mean, seriously, using parental controls as a parent is equal to failure at being a parent in my opinion. They're useless at best (because you can circumvent ANY of them), and instill false confidence in incompetent parents.
- justabystander 10y ago"Leave it to Beaver" families are not the only type, nor do children only exist in family contexts. It's rather conceited to make assumptions that assume only the best-case scenarios, or that problems only come from incompetence. A more recent example I've personally seen is with a foster parent where several abused children were homed together. Their birth parent would consistently break visit rules, and attempt to establish side channel communications (facebook, email) with the kids so she could coach them on what to say in court. They agreed to do so, despite being extremely unhappy about the situation. They were happier in their new foster home than they'd ever been before, and yet they were overwhelmingly complicit with the demands of their schizophrenic birth mother. Parental controls are useful in such scenarios where the children don't have normal baselines. Not only that, but when given unfettered access to a computer, kids will literally download anything they perceive as fun. Many games, game mods and the sites that host them include malware. Yes, parents should talk with them about safe browsing and downloading, but being a good parent and yet not understanding computers is entirely possible. Simple free software for controlling usage schedules and quantities should be baked into the system.
- douche 10y agoPossibly they are useful if your goal is to raise computer-savvy children, however. I never would have learned as much about computers if my school hadn't had ridiculous filtering and blocking software on their networks. Kind of hard to study for the AP CS test when Bess is blocking the Sun JavaDocs because "hacking"...
- mycall 10y agoPretty much all of the Windows 10's "product that tries to run my life for me" can be disabled and function like any other version of Windows.
- skrebbel 10y agoMore anecdote time! In fact, more like Ask HN time. My brand new laptop becomes impossibly slow when Defender is on. Is this just me or is it supposed to be expected Defender behavior? When I code, every character appears half a second after I type it. Turn off Defender, and everything is blazing fast. This thread is full of people claiming how 3rd party AV makes their computer slow and Defender doesn't, but, well, Defender does. Anyone have a clue? I don't mind the idea of running an AV like Defender but I do mind an unusable computer.
- AdeptusAquinas 10y agoDefender can do this if its in the midst of scanning, and occasionally if you are using it while it is scanning this seems to stop it for finish it keep it perpectually scanning (depends what you are doing). My advice, shut everything down, pop up defender and let it run all the way through. Also ensure all windows updates are done and installed - the background update manager can kill laptops in my experience, so again its best to let it get its job out of the way before using the laptop.
- j_s 10y agoMy first two thoughts: (1) Might have a problem! (malware / something) (2) Might need to let it run and do it's scanning thing for a while 'til it's initialization and/or setup is finished. I've never heard of anyone turning it off and on repeatedly.