A review. I'll search around for a proper article though it will likely be from '10.

---

Avast: 99.3%
Avira: 99.8%
MSE: 97.6%


The %-scores are from the AV-Comparatives Aug-2010 'on-demand' test.
(These are not on-execution/behavioural scores).
Test results, test methods, scan speed and fp's can be found: http://www.av-comparatives.org/en/comparativesreviews
N.B. These scores are achieved with the highest settings.

edit:
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/st...ry2010.pdf

Direct pdf to 2010 results.

MSE is in the top 3 for quite a few categories. It has the second lowest false detection score with the third highest positive detection score.

It's also on there for "Overall Performance" tied with Avast for 3rd.

I'm sure last time I looked mse was lower down, ah well, makes me feel better about using it

Like our Facebook Page and visit our Facebook Group!

I'm not sure where you read it lol maybe within the first month or so? MSE's been one of the top AV's going purely by detection rates since very early in its release.

Consistent updates that are integrated with windows update are very nice and are one of the main reasons I use it.

One of my main priorities in looking for an AV is that it's low-resource and high-performance. I have multiple layers of security and my AV isn't all too necessary so if I'm going to have one I want it light.

Totally my thinking as well, Hungry Man.
I usually have the real time protection disabled and only scan the occasional odd download.

It's by far more important to secure the browser these days anyway.
With noscript, adblock and default cookie deny, I'm like really safe :>

I use Chrome. I feel much safer on it. It has a built in XSS auditor and I have javascript globally disabled (I whitelist sites as I come to them.) Chrome's sandbox structure puts me at ease =p

On top of that I have two host files that redirect sites:

One from mvps on my router running DD-wrt with a built in firewall.

One on my PC with a host list of malicious sites that I update using spybot search and destroy.

I also have advanced file permissions in my download area as well as my temp folder preventing files in those folders from elevating to administrator level.

edit: I also leave real-time protection on but I disable certain locations that I trust to keep the memory footprint down.

edit2: I also have a 4GB usb flash drive, which I use for a ton of things, but about 500MB of it is dedicated to a folder that contains a ton of AV's (including a portable version of spybot, which is how i update my computer's host file)

My favorite part about these security techniques is that they have virtually no performance hit.

>_> I feel like I sound a bit paranoid lol but I could take for more drastic features.

Chrome = All your privacy are belong to google.

VBA-M

I hope you don't actually believe that. I'm happy to explain why you're misinformed if that's not the case.

(04-20-2011 05:15 AM)Squall Leonhart Wrote:  Chrome = All your privacy are belong to google.

Rather have Google "spy" on our activity than Microsoft; we ALL know how effective it is to be paranoid. Haters gonna hate, I guess.

(04-20-2011 05:49 AM)Hungry Man Wrote:  I hope you don't actually believe that. I'm happy to explain why you're misinformed if that's not the case.

I trust applications i can see the source code too.

VBA-M

Perfect!

http://www.chromium.org/

You know what google adds? Some random crap all of which has been made available in source.

You're welcome to look at chromium's software. If you'd like to see waht google adds you're gonna have to google it and find it, I'm lazy.


edit:
http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/google-chr...unication/

There's some more info about how little Chrome actually talks to Google servers.

edit2: If you'd like to learn more about anonymous usage data please look up what a 256bit hash is. That's what we are to google. The only thing they see is "oh id$ 423452345(etc etc) needs blah blah" and even google's massive server farms would take quite a while to figure out just one person's identity from a hash.