Spyware, viruses, & security forum: Is the security software built into Windows 7 good enough or not?

The advice regarding Microsoft Security Essentials from Watzman is excellent. This is an excellent security suite and it's available for free.

But i would like to add that some ISPs provide antivirus-antispyware suits with the subscription. Comcast is my ISP and provides NIS free for up to seven computers. MSE is very good, I used it before but upgraded to NIS because of some additional features and it didn't cost me any extra with Comcast.

If Linux ever became popular then it would get tested and guess what, it would needan antivirus program too! Apple users have been making this statement too, but now the security flaws are starting to surface. Now there are anti-virus programs for Apple and it's only 10% of the market. To assume that any OS doesn't need added security is to live in a fool's world.

Google liveusbcreator, download and install, even on Win PC. Go to Fedora, Gentoo, Debian or Ubuntu sites to get reasonably easily understood and implemented OSs. Download the ISO and install it on a USB pendrive of at least 2GB. Do not make copies, this changes the format. Then you have a bootable live CD OS. You can run this by choosing the boot device when the PC starts up. F12, I think. This will leave your Win XP, 7, whatever intact and you can check things out.

When you want to install to disc, you can do dual boot installs. You first install Windows because it hogs the master boot record. (Small part of why people started hating MS and big reason for the virus thingy, representative of the mentality, win some, lose some). Then you install any Linux OS and you can then install GRUB and you will be able to boot into any OS after that. Linux will also read NTFS files and you can link the two OSs with SAMBA. Linux also does not have a registry. It does have dependencies - small generic utility apps like printing that may be used by other larger apps. Watch this.

Go to LinuxOnline http://www.linux.org for three courses on the Linux system. There are also forums where you can get help. It is a lonely road, yet highly, vastly rewarding. All the software is free, but you have to work at getting your knowledge up. The virus/spy thing does largely not exist merely from the fact that is is a friendly community and all is freely available, Refer GCC, C++, Fortran et al compilers all in one.

One other benefit is the eternal maintenance is gone, there are updates, but the weekly nitpick is gone.

Fedora is a good place to start. All the office apps and you can convert to MS format. I changed my Office suite to Evermore Integrated Office, done in Java and runs on both Lin and Win. Does spread, word and presenter all under one file format; click, paste internal links.

I agree with the absolute need for a business and personal investment in a good internet and antivirus suite of software I concur with this submitter that NIS ONCE had serious issues and having been burned across the board by these on all the sites I had to support, I am DONE with Norton and will never return to them.

I have made the switch to Avast Pro and glad I did for it is exceptional in performance and catching weird stuff but allowing utilities that Norton and McAfee believe are viruses but they are not. Again Avast Pro (Not AVG) is where I have gone to on all my physical and virtual Windows 7-64 ultimate systems. It is time and money well spent.

Hank Freeman
Senior Data/Systems/DBA/Solutions Architect.

This is a really excellent response. In forums like these, as we all know, people love to throw vociferous opinions around like they're going out of style, but you really gave a fair appraisal of the pros/cons of MSE vs. the paid solutions, especially in terms of Norton's significant improvements since its dark ages a few years back.

Personally I'm on the lightest version of Norton's product -- AntiVirus 2010 -- and I'm very pleased with it, especially considering how awful it was just a few short years ago. But MSE, being free, is making me wonder, and I do have a certain bias (perhaps irrational?) that an OS vendor is in the best position to release compatible products to run on its OS.

It'll be interesting to see how Symantec and McAfee respond to justify their existence in response to very credible free competition from Microsoft.

I think if you investigate a bit ,you'll find that most suppliers such as HP do not install the free MSE program on the PC's is simply because of that reason>>it is FREE!They usually put a trial version of Norton,AVG or some other anti-virus program on the PC's because they are paid to do so...but with the Microsoft OS they aren't paid extra to install the MSE program.It's all about them making their money and without concern for the buyer!!
This is the same attitude they have about not shipping the free recovery and systems disc you pay for in the price of the PC but they keep and claim you have to go to a partitioned section of the HD to activate the program.I argued that if the PC screwsup and you can't access anything then how can you get the recovery or system disc to do the job required?This happened to me with an ACER pc I got as a christmas gift back in 'o8...after a lot of annoying and pestering ACER help techs and top bosses they realized I was in no hurry to go away and they sent me "DOUBLE DISCS" of both recovery and systems discs.
But personally rather than pay for the space {memory} hogging Norton or AVG program I find the MSE from Microsoft very efficient...and as with other anti-virus programs I've had,I simply go to DOWNLOAD.COM >owned by CNET< check around and download something like avir antivir or avast to do a sweep/scan with that program just to see if my anti-virus program has missed anything.

How did you manage to run MS AND Norton Anti virus, at the same time? That IS what you are saying, If I read you correctly. I was always told this was NOT POSSIBLE! 2 AV's at once?? Maybe THAT was your problem... I'm running MSE on 2 desktops and a laptop, no issues.. I also run Malwarebytes and S&D on the side occasionally too... all work, all free, not a single issue! I USED to run Norton, until the cost got to darned high.... so they lost 3 customers here! I'll stick with Free AND Effective!!

Anti-viruses have multiple functions based on which one you have, which could include hacker prevention and up to date anti-spyware and anti-virus protection.

Threats are developed 24/7 by people trying to infiltrate your system, while windows only updates once or twice a month. I don't see how they can claim the protection is better than an anti-virus that updates every day. The sheer fact that there are so many different anti-programs out there and some are better than others, but there is NO perfect protection, means that windows 7 itself cannot also be perfect.

They could claim that additional programs would conflict and hinder the effectiveness of the windows 7 security, but they definitely cannot say they have the best security. It simply is not true.

I would recommend a spyware and anti-virus program with Win 7, but make sure it is 100% guarantee supported with win 7. (there is no shame in using free programs either, they work just as well as the full versions just without a little extra benefits.)

I would never trust Microsoft's included security software. I, too, am running Win 7, but immediately installed Norton Internet Security 2010 to protect myself. I have worked with too many people, in the past, who have also trusted MS's security and have had to clean their system's of viruses, etc.

Microsoft's included security measures are a 'nice' start, but no where near an end result for keeping yourself safe.

Don't believe whaty say or claim and get another antivirus app and keep it updated.

Norton's stuff has been completely redesigned and can't be considered bloatware if properly installed for your needs. But there are other competitors to Norton's for 32bit Windows 7 (64bit is an whole different story) that are just as good. Here's just one:
http://www.softsea.com/review/Comodo-Firewall-Pro.html
Microsoft has always relied on Firewall holes to get in and out of your machine. So even though they say they won't use any of your information, they still have access to it. Their own software notoriously gets busted into all the time. Symantec listed the highest number of "Remote Code Execution Vulnerabilities" ever recorded last year. So should you really trust Microsoft? I don't think so!!!

I always hardware firewall my home network and never use wireless from inside my firewalled network router. My Sony PS3 runs on a wireless N out side my network too. But it's considered un-hackable and has never been broken into, except by putting it behind a computer using packet sniffers. Still that only captures data once it leaves the PS3!

Linux has SELinux (unbreakable NSA protection), but it's pain in the neck to use. If only Windows had something like AppArmor or Grsecure to fully control traffic (even Microsoft's), then I'd feel more comfortable. Then you wouldn't even need to worry about Remote Code Executions or Rootkits even. Because even if something got in, it couldn't get out. Everything runs in a sandbox where everything is kept either in or out!

MSE may be OK when used with Windows 7 but I have not had good luck with it on older Windows XP machines. I have installed it on many client's XP computers and they came back infected within just a few days. I have a small group of clients that seem to get infected all the time because they perform a lot of risky searches and forwhatever reason are always infected. You can say what you want, but I have tried many combinations of protection with them and the latest 2010 version of Norton IS has worked the best so far and with very little impact on performance. I would have never have recommended Norton a few years ago and would typically remove Norton from every machine that would come in for service. Knock on Wood, but I have not had a single infected Windows 7 computer come in yet so I truly feel that the security has improved but only time will tell.

Hi Ron G. I use Kaspersky 2010 I Have used Kaspersky for 2 years and it has worked well for me. I checked the ratings on security software before I bought mine I believe that the most money you should spend on software is for computer security, especially in this day and age. I'm running windows7 64bit but i have used it on windows vista 32 & 64 bit also. Hope this helps you.

I see someone recommends AVG (which I didn't like compared to avast due to the way it operated), zonealarm, popup blocker and adaware I think, and I wonder how much all of this slows down my system. Right now I am using just windows 7 ultimate 64 bit system and I don't go to risky sites. I like how fast this machine is now and don't want to slow it down.