Just saw this over on Apple Insider.
QuoteLeading anti-virus software producers Symantec and McAfee will face new competition in the lucrative market for fixing Windows when Microsoft launches its own free security service, dubbed Morro, sometime in the second half of 2009.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/06/11/microsoft_announces_free_anti_virus_service_for_windows.html
I suspect a lot of people will switch to it.
And it'll be nicknamed to Morro by it's users for being way behind in updates!!
:lol:
I don't for one minute think it'll be anywhere near as good as the paid alternatives up there, but people like things for free, and Microsoft is a familiar name, so I think it'll be popular.
Quote from: colonelsun on Jun 11, 2009, 20:45:51
And it'll be nicknamed to Morro by it's users for being way behind in updates!!
:groan:
I would expect the updates to be pretty quick, they certainly aren't behind on the Windows Vista Defender updates.
As Microsoft should have a better understanding of Windows than anyone else and given their resources then they should be able to write effective AV software. Whether this proves to be better than others I'll wait to see what an independent evaluation says about it. I Can't see that it would be any worse than Norton though.
I do think they could have come up with a better name though.
Quote from: Sebby on Jun 11, 2009, 21:11:30
...... but people like things for free
Yes, I've noticed that, how strange ;)
Quote from: john on Jun 11, 2009, 22:00:23
As Microsoft should have a better understanding of Windows than anyone else and given their resources then they should be able to write effective AV software. Whether this proves to be better than others I'll wait to see what an independent evaluation says about it. I Can't see that it would be any worse than Norton though.
I do think they could have come up with a better name though.
True, but then they don't really have much antivirus experience (though there was the failed OneCare, I suppose).
The only thing i know Microsoft for is patches.....patches for IE must constitute a third of my hard-drive...so them getting into the AV business does worry me.
However, i'm an Avanquest System Suite 8 owner, free AV etc updates for a year, but the program is way too bloated with loads of tools i never use. Now if i could read some positive reviews of Microsoft's AV ware i just might switch but a brand name of Morro does not inspire me.
I think it will be as effective as Windows Firewall and Defender. :evil:
Quote from: john on Jun 11, 2009, 22:00:23
I Can't see that it would be any worse than Norton though.
Can someone explain to me what is so bad about Norton (someone who's actually used it, not someone just rubbishing it because that's the thing to do).
I've used Norton since 2002, on four PCs, and have never once had a problem with it, nor ever been infected with any viruses, despite receiving many thousands of emails with attachments, children downloading goodness knows what via P2P etc., etc. The 2006 version was resource hungry when scanning, but later versions, especially the current 2009 one, really do sit very quietly in the background.
I have nothing but good things to say about Norton, but if it really is as bad as some make out, and if there really is a substantially better alternative, I'd love to know.
As far as protection goes, it's not bad. But as a program, it's very bloated, inefficient, and resource hungry (although the newer versions are supposedly a lot better).
That's interesting. I'm writing this on an XP PC, and as I write Norton 2009 processes are using less than 15mb of memory. At the same time, Windows Media Player is using 26mb, Explorer 148mb, Avant 33mb, Outlook Express 15mb, RouterStats 5mb, plus dozens of smaller processes. 15mb doesn't seem like much to me.
Ah, well that's 2009, which is significantly improved (may even be good). In the past, it has been dire, and unfortunately has gained a bit of a reputation for itself.
The 2009 version may have addressed many of the criticisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_AntiVirus#Criticisms) it's received in the past.
Norton definately has improved as far as the av goes. However it is still not particualarly hard to bypass using obfuscation. The security suite I wouldn't touch with a barge pole, why rely on one thing in any product these days to secure you. If that one process fails you lose all security. Any half decent malware out there has norton/mcaffe etc in the list to disable as a priority, worst case scenario will look something like this.
(safe link so don't panic)
http://trac.metasploit.com/browser/framework3/trunk/scripts/meterpreter/killav.rb?rev=5773
So it has improved a lot, but it ends up coming down to the security through obscurity argument. Mac users state they are more secure than windows users due to market share. The same is true of av. The more known and used a product is, the more likely it is that automated scripts will attack it. My thoughts anyway.
Quote from: john on Jun 11, 2009, 22:00:23
As Microsoft should have a better understanding of Windows than anyone else and given their resources then they should be able to write effective AV software.
If they had
that good an understanding of Windows it wouldn't need anti-virus. ;)
lets not forget microsoft has put a lot of time and money into security of late. Things like dep, aslr, the malicious software removal tool and so on. They are not all bad :)
Quote from: john on Jun 11, 2009, 22:00:23
As Microsoft should have a better understanding of Windows than anyone else and given their resources then they should be able to write effective AV software. Whether this proves to be better than others I'll wait to see what an independent evaluation says about it. I Can't see that it would be any worse than Norton though.
I do think they could have come up with a better name though.
Yes, I've noticed that, how strange ;)
Norton 2009 has the top detection ratings of all AV's right now, apart from G Data who hit 99.8% check AC comparatives, Microsofts old onecare never faired well next to the free ones at all. Time will tell, but I would grab the G data suite at £24. or Avira. Norton may makes us shiver but it is good at what it does as far as detection of malware, Rootkits and all the nasties, the 2009 suite is better that the older ones by miles, it does brand your browsers but tbh if it protects them, is simple to use for novices then that's great and its not a resource hog these days. I still would not have it on my pc though ;)