Kaspersky Internet Security v8 (proactive test)

[emperordarius]

Kaspersky Internet Security v8 (proactive test) on Av-comparatives on 1st June. Be sure to check it out. :D

[C.S.J]

no thx :blink:

[Sjoeii]

Interesting.

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> Kaspersky Internet Security v8 (proactive test) on Av-comparatives on 1st June. Be sure to check it out. :D <-QUOTE}
Very unlikely to be based on KIS 2009 but rather KIS 7...as KIS 2009 not expected to be released until 2nd June, at the earliest, and then it is expected to be the French version first. ::)

[IBK]

its KIS 2009.

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> its KIS 2009. <-QUOTE}
What is ??? ??? ???

[btman]

{QUOTE-> What is ??? ??? ??? <-QUOTE}

Kaspersky has changed their next version to year numbers instead of V8 it is Kaspersky 2009.

[TonyW]

{QUOTE-> What is ??? ??? ??? <-QUOTE}
IBK means the Kaspersky Internet Security v8 (proactive test) has been done on KIS 2009, which is likely to be the .357 TR build I think.{QUOTE-> Very unlikely to be based on KIS 2009 but rather KIS 7 <-QUOTE}The May '08 proactive test, also due June 1, will feature v7.

[Macstorm]

Are you sure it's the 2009 (v.8 ) that was tested? :blink:

[TonyW]

{QUOTE-> Are you sure it's the 2009 (v.8 ) that was tested? :blink: <-QUOTE}IBK says so in post #5.

[Macstorm]

my bad :ouch: bypassed his post, today's not my day... thanks Tony.

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> IBK says so in post #5. <-QUOTE}
And I would like to know how he knows when the learned people at the Kaspersky Forum are not aware of this?

Also, as KIS 2009 is not yet officially released it is hardly an appropriate comparision. We know that there will be a further release. Surely KIS 2009 should only be tested once officially released ???

[TonyW]

{QUOTE-> And I would like to know how he knows when the learned people at the Kaspersky Forum are not aware of this? <-QUOTE}I don't understand this question.{QUOTE-> Also, as KIS 2009 is not yet officially released it is hardly an appropriate comparision. We know that there will be a further release. Surely KIS 2009 should only be tested once officially released ??? <-QUOTE}I'm sure IBK will explain in his report the reasoning behind the testing of the version he did use.

Remember that whether final or not, the proactive technologies are continually being developed so in some ways it'd be interesting to see results of how the product fared at a certain point in time. Six months down the line should garner different results as much will have improved through updates.

[Baz_kasp]

We aren't IBK...he makes the tests, we read em ;)


If I recall he also tested V7 prior to official release so this isn't something out of the blue.

[IBK]

KL gave me KIS 2009 to test and they already peer-reviewed the results (all our reports are usually peer-reviewed before they went online).
btw, it would not have made a difference if KIS2009 would have been tested yesterday or several months ago (signatures are rolled back anyway and only some aspects were tested, which have not been updated/changed since long time - according to KL). P.S.: I would appreciate if in future questions are posted in the av-c forum, in order that also other peoples can see the responses. I continue to visit some few forums - incl. wilders - from time to time, but I can not always reply to anything at everytime (and I do not like to repeat myself), but will try.

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> KL gave me KIS 2009 to test and they already peer-reviewed the results (all our reports are usually peer-reviewed before they went online).
btw, it would not have made a difference if KIS2009 would have been tested yesterday or several months ago (signatures are rolled back anyway and only some aspects were tested, which have not been updated/changed since long time - according to KL). P.S.: I would appreciate if in future questions are posted in the av-c forum, in order that also other peoples can see the responses. I continue to visit some few forums - incl. wilders - from time to time, but I can not always reply to anything at everytime (and I do not lie to repeat myself), but will try. <-QUOTE}
Thanks...I therefore stand (well, sit actually) corrected :-[ ...and will look forward to reading the results with interest. ;D

[HiTech_boy]

{QUOTE-> P.S.: I would appreciate if in future questions are posted in the av-c forum, in order that also other peoples can see the responses. I continue to visit some few forums - incl. wilders - from time to time, but I can not always reply to anything at everytime (and I do not lie to repeat myself), but will try. <-QUOTE}

P.S.2 Much appreciated would be if you write this in bigger size :thumb:

[TonyW]

The results were very interesting, especially the fact that "around 68% of the samples from the retrospective test-set" were blocked automatically by the HIPS module. IBK also acknowledges the AVZ engine scripts will be updated in the weeks to come, which will surely improve things even further.

[Baz_kasp]

My own testing has been very promising. The emulator catches a lot of the bad nasties as it is (e.g. annoying malware like zlob, and "hard" malware like bagle) and places them in a restricted state, thereby preventing them from being able to infect...even without signature or heuristic detection.

I still think it can be improved, and I am sure it will, because we don't need new versions to add these features..just some core updates and its good to go ;)

[subset]

Hi,

this emulator is probably the most annoying thing I have seen in a program for quite a while.
On every second driver or program this superimportant popup arises and I only want to tell Mr. Emu: Stop bugging me!

Cheers

[Edwin024]

Go use another, and less secure, program.

[emperordarius]

{QUOTE-> Go use another, and less secure, program. <-QUOTE}
PlaceboAV :D

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> Hi,

this emulator is probably the most annoying thing I have seen in a program for quite a while.
On every second driver or program this superimportant popup arises and I only want to tell Mr. Emu: Stop bugging me!

Cheers <-QUOTE}
Could you be more specific and advise as to what app(s) are the cause of this, what dirver(s) are involved and in which Rules group the app(s) concerned is/are in? Then some one knowledgeable may be able to advise as to how to resolve the issues.;D

[Baz_kasp]

{QUOTE-> Hi,

this emulator is probably the most annoying thing I have seen in a program for quite a while.
On every second driver or program this superimportant popup arises and I only want to tell Mr. Emu: Stop bugging me!

Cheers <-QUOTE}

Only on apps that aren't already in the database trigger the emulator for a while. The only things I have had so far being prompted are Malzilla (a small time javascript deobfuscation tool used in code research) and an ATI driver package (analysis takes a few seconds, no longer) which was subsequently put into trusted.

The average user will probably only see that analysis popup once in a blue moon.

[subset]

{QUOTE->
The average user will probably only see that analysis popup once in a blue moon. <-QUOTE}
I have seen more than one yesterday on another PC, for example with the Razer Diamondback Driver v6.02.

Another funny thing is running CPU-Z v1.45 with KIS 2009
It takes eight useless popups to run this well known program. ::)

200355

Does KIS now target Comodo and EQSecure users exclusively?
The average user will probably run away...

Cheers

[plantextract]

you need add to exclusions.. even in the 2nd post for suspicious driver installation, allowing it only allows it once. popup no 2 is not related to hips and the driver.start one has no application if you notice, so it doesn't know that cpu-z started it.

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> I have seen more than one yesterday on another PC, for example with the Razer Diamondback Driver v6.02.

Another funny thing is running CPU-Z v1.45 with KIS 2009
It takes eight useless popups to run this well known program. ::)

200355

Does KIS now target Comodo and EQSecure users exclusively?
The average user will probably run away...

Cheers <-QUOTE}
If you trust it then move it to the Trusted group. It may be well know but that does not necessarily mean that it is currently in the list of Trusted Applications. Kaspersky are still building this and such ommissions can be highlighted by posting the details on the Kaspersky Forum. Alternatively you can add to Exclusions. Either way you have options! ::)

And in any case why would someone be using Comodo (with Defense+ enabled) or EQSecure. Both have or are HIPS and therefore will conflict with KIS's HIPS. Not a good idea.:doubt:

If someone wants to knock something they will always find a way...regardless.;)

[subset]

{QUOTE->
And in any case why would someone be using Comodo (with Defense+ enabled) or EQSecure. Both have or are HIPS and therefore will conflict with KIS's HIPS. Not a good idea. <-QUOTE}
You know the phrase "to target somebody"? :what:
To target Comodo and EQSecure users does not mean that they should use KIS and Comodo or EQS at the same time.

I only wanted to point out that KIS 2009 is as complicated as Comodo or EQSecure.
Especially when Application Filtering is misguided and you are overwhelmed with all this

200358

Cheers

[Baldrick]

{QUOTE-> You know the phrase "to target somebody"? :what:
To target Comodo and EQSecure users does not mean that they should use KIS and Comodo or EQS at the same time.

I only wanted to point out that KIS 2009 is as complicated as Comodo or EQSecure.
Especially when Application Filtering is misguided and you are overwhelmed with all this

200358

Cheers <-QUOTE}
OK, understand what you are saying...but IMHO opinion I do not see why Kaspersky should target either Comodo or EQSecure users anymore than the users of other products...if anybody they should target Norton and the like users. But I do not think that the specifically target any particular users but rather, like all mainstream manufacturers they are targeting anybody not using Kaspersky. ;D

Personally I find neither Comodo or EQSecure particularly complicated...especially not Application Filtering...once you take the time/have the patience to read through the basics and understand how they do what they do.

But then that is just me!:-\

[adyextreme]

I don't think anie security company has realy security .

example:hips versus integrity levels in vista

anie security software use a xml,ini,cfg etc. file type
That's mean all the config are stored as a file,

Vista stores his integrity levels as an extendet ACL ntfs file permision
controled thru UAC that mean it's safer on vista then on anie largescale OS

as for the CLOWNY SOFTWARE that's only popup some mesage that isn't security not to mention the filtering platform underlayng net core

vista is not for newbies btw 80% of intrudet malware hapend on users behalf
expl ok allow next ok and there you have THE NACKED DANCING PIGGS:argh:

Vista has powerfull security tools of cource you still nead a good av product

it's very heavy task to balance betwen security and usability :D