// Home / Enterprise / Real World Computing

Real World Computing

Has Microsoft shot itself in the foot with Security Essentials?

Posted on 4 Feb 2010 at 11:11

Davey Winder explains why he thinks Security Essentials could fail, despite being a decent product

What concerns me most of all is that Security Essentials won’t actually fulfil Microsoft’s aim of bringing security to those who need it most, especially in low-income and developing countries, because those are precisely the environments where people are most likely to be using pirated copies of Windows that can’t be validated – but unless the OS is validated first, Security Essentials won’t install. So the low-income masses will still get no protection.

I’m not overly concerned that Security Essentials will damage the major commercial players, because we’re talking apples versus oranges there

Microsoft’s commercial eye shoots its own well-intentioned foot. I’m not overly concerned that Security Essentials will damage the major commercial players by cutting their profit margins (with the usual consequences for development spending), because we’re talking apples versus oranges there. I am, however, concerned for the other free AV vendors.

Why would it be any different for them, you might ask, and again the answer seems fairly obvious. My own straw-polling over the years suggests that free security solutions are rarely sought out and installed by end users themselves, but are instead installed by the family PC expert, or the friend who knows about computers, or the chap at the local independent PC shop, and I expect these people to start moving over to the Microsoft product that doesn’t nag them to upgrade to a commercial version, doesn’t display adverts, doesn’t install an unwanted toolbar, and so on.

It’s easier and it works without complaint, so it’s less hassle for the PC expert friend.

To sum up then; my verdict on Security Essentials is that it isn’t going to replace the commercial products on the PCs of those who already understand the importance of protection in a connected world, but it sure has the potential to make that world safer by providing a layer of security for currently unprotected machines for the masses.

For that, if nothing else, I personally think Microsoft deserves credit. After all, if there are fewer machines out there wide-open to infection then there will be fewer threats for all of us. Will I be abandoning my internet security suite for this product? Not on your nelly. Will I be recommending it to those people who simply refuse to pay for a yearly security suite subscription? You betcha.

Download a year of Davey Winder's Online Security columns by heading to our Free Downloads site

1 2

Subscribe to PC Pro magazine. We'll give you 3 issues for £1 plus a free gift - click here

From around the web

User comments

One care sounds like a shampoo product

interesting analysis. We all tend to take AV effectiveness at face value and blind faith-until the inevitable happens. How many users have actually tested the responsiveness of their AV?

Microsoft and security don't seem very compatible at the moment, with the holes in their browsers, how can we be sure this is a viable product?

I followed your example and sampled the Anti virus and malware test files at http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm . I am running the so called mediocre AVG 8.5+ firewall.+google chrome. As it says on the site "Good scanners will detect the 'virus' in the single zip ARCHIVE and may be even in the double zip ARCHIVE. Once detected the scanner might not allow you any access to the file(s) any more"

I was pleased that AVG resident shield picked up all the tests.

By blackcat on 4 Feb 2010

Installed And Using

Installed this on my mother's Laptop she bought, works well and for basic facebook and genral net surfing I do not see a point in buying a subscription to comercial AV software.

By Deathtaker27 on 4 Feb 2010

Are you Serious???

Are you serious about commercial products not being effected?

Take a look at your local high-street to see the massive discounts that companies such as Symantec are offering on their products.

By 00lissauers on 4 Feb 2010

@blackcat

"Microsoft and security don't seem very compatible at the moment, with the holes in their browsers, how can we be sure this is a viable product?"

Well you could try reading the article, DW found it to be pretty effective.

I'm considering moving over to it. I have used AVG for ages but version 9 has an annoying habit of continually accessing the hard disk - this is on my XP machine. For now, I've stopped it by renaming the offending component, but its hardly ideal.

By rjp2000 on 5 Feb 2010

@rip2000

I have read the DW article thoroughly and followed the previous articles on One Care and the Morro developments with interest. It seems pretty effective but only as a’ lightweight security ’ application for users in developing countries with pirated computers or people on low incomes who cannot afford the subscription of an recognized robust AV. DW states that he won’t be abandoning his current AV suite any time soon for MIS – I wonder why?

Big Bruv at Redmond will be watching you as can't opt out of contributing to the SpyNet cloud-based service that compares file behaviors across computers running various Microsoft operating systems. It has abandoned the additional firewall, performance tuning and backup and restore options in order to make the product Freebie and get foothold in the competitive AV market.

By blackcat on 5 Feb 2010

Correction

I have incorrectly stated in a previous thread that MIS aim is for 'pirated copies' of windows in the developing world. Obviously this is impossibility as pirated copies would not be allowed to install it. I should have written ‘Microsoft altruism to provide a minimum level of security for users with genuine copies of windows in developing countries’

But then again- since when has validation stopped pirated software users' getting around’ WGA. So unintentionally Microsoft may be providing a free service to pirate users.

By blackcat on 5 Feb 2010

patronising

who cares about people with pirated copies of windows? It's hardly microsoft's job to consider people who are breaking the law. I'm as liberal as the next person but that's a farcical comment.

Also all this stuff about people not seeking out a free antivirus. don't be so patronising. you guys recommend avira personal till you're blue in the face, so stick to your guns. It's not rocket science is it? If you can install iTunes you can install this for goodness's sake.

Plus 20 seconds on google will yield up simple guides to killing the splash screen and nag screen - which is where the family computer guy comes in.

By gavmeister on 8 Feb 2010

MS don't care about pirate windows

Do we really think MS care about pirate windows in developing/undeveloped economies. If they did they would be handing over the market to linux!
Once the market has developed and become dependant upon windows, then they will start charging. Remember the 90's?

By darkhairedlord on 9 Feb 2010

Small Business Loves Free Antivirus

The amount of businesses that use the free av products from one user and up, licenced or not seems prevalent in our area. There seems little regard to how good or legal it is just because it is free.

By DigitalM on 29 Apr 2010

Leave a comment

You need to Login or Register to comment.

Davey Winder

Davey is a contributing editor to PC Pro, having covered the internet as a topic since the magazine started in 1994. Since that time he's won numerous awards for his journalism, but remains a small-business consultant specialising in privacy, security and usability issues.