Kaspersky reliable?

[truthseeker]

I installed the 30 day trial version of Kasperky AV.

Can Kasperky be trusted as reliable to detect virus?

Reason I ask is because I don't see Kasperky mentioned on this forum much.

[farmerlee]

Yes it can be trusted. Kaspersky's detection rates always seem to rank high. You can check its record at av-comparatives if you wish. I currently use Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 and its been performing very well. Imo its one of the most complete suites available.

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "Yes it can be trusted. Kaspersky's detection rates always seem to rank high. You can check its record at av-comparatives if you wish. I currently use Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 and its been performing very well. Imo its one of the most complete suites available." }-

Cool thanks, I will continue to use the 30 day trial kaspersky AV then. :thumb:

By the way, what is Rollback RX 8.1 and is it free? :) And is it anything like Acronis Trueimage, because I have bought Trueimage and use it

[farmerlee]

-{ Quote: "Cool thanks, I will continue to use the 30 day trial kaspersky AV then. :thumb:

By the way, what is Rollback RX 8.1 and is it free? :) And is it anything like Acronis Trueimage, because I have bought Trueimage and use it" }-
Rest assured you can feel reasonably safe using kaspersky, well as safe as possible in regards to an antivirus anyway.
Rollback is an instant system restore software. It allows me to safely try out new software or test different system configurations. If i like the changes i can keep them if not a simple reboot will undo all changes. Its sort of like trueimage except its able to restore my system a lot faster. Unfortunately its not free, its actually fairly expensive.

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "Rest assured you can feel reasonably safe using kaspersky, well as safe as possible in regards to an antivirus anyway.
Rollback is an instant system restore software. It allows me to safely try out new software or test different system configurations. If i like the changes i can keep them if not a simple reboot will undo all changes. Its sort of like trueimage except its able to restore my system a lot faster. Unfortunately its not free, its actually fairly expensive." }-

Shame it's not free, sounds great.. sounds like Time-machine for Apple.

[xpsunny]

-{ Quote: "I installed the 30 day trial version of Kasperky AV.

Can Kasperky be trusted as reliable to detect virus?

Reason I ask is because I don't see Kasperky mentioned on this forum much." }-


Nope..... ;D

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "Nope..... ;D" }-
BS
of course Kaspersky can be trusted to detect viruses/malware.
if not you can always send KL a sample.

[larryb52]

-{ Quote: "BS
of course Kaspersky can be trusted to detect viruses/malware.
if not you can always send KL a sample." }-


if it doesn't detect it how could you send a sample :)

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "if it doesn't detect it how could you send a sample :)" }-
to newvirus at kaspersky dot com
using winzip or winrar to compress it. password protect using the password "virus"

[Einsturzende]

-{ Quote: "if it doesn't detect it how could you send a sample :)" }-
Kaspersky have different technique to detect malware (behavior) not just by signature: by proactive defense (behavior detection), by HIPS (KIS will notify you if *.exe etc. should be trusted or restricted in its action) and by heuristic...

[Baz_kasp]

-{ Quote: "Nope..... ;D" }-


Sunny, if you ever have an intelligent comment to make that can be substantiated, please do post it, otherwise what is the point of these obvious "flame bait" posts ::)

[LowWaterMark]

-{ Quote: "Guys, can you move the totally off-topic Returnil debate to a separate thread?" }-Returnil posts all moved to this new thread (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=221882).

[jrmhng]

It will be fine in terms of level of protection. If Kaspersky doesn't have any conflicts with your computer, has minimal system impact, then I'd suggest you purchase it after the 30 trial.

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "It will be fine in terms of level of protection. If Kaspersky doesn't have any conflicts with your computer, has minimal system impact, then I'd suggest you purchase it after the 30 trial." }-
+1
Good advice :thumb:

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "Nope..... ;D" }-

Why do you say Kaspersky is not reliable? What reasons? :blink:

[lordpake]

-{ Quote: "Why do you say Kaspersky is not reliable? What reasons? :blink:" }-

He has no reasons. See Baz's comment about "flame baiting".



Wiki: Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in.

[trjam]

Reliable? In what context does the orginal poster ask?: Will it keep you safe, yes. Is is very good, yes. Does it break, no. I mean come on, it is as reliable as about 20 others. Try it, you have to decide.

[Medank]

Reliable?
Trust me Kaspersky will protect you better then many AV's out there,
Maybe not all but many AV's!

[xpsunny]

-{ Quote: "He has no reasons. See Baz's comment about "flame baiting".



Wiki: Flamebait is a message posted to a public Internet discussion group, such as a forum, newsgroup or mailing list, with the intent of provoking an angry response (a "flame") or argument over a topic the troll often has no real interest in." }-

I was a bit busy at college, for a coupe of days, so sorry for the delayed reply.

@lordpake (you must be knowing that the earth is round in shape, so when its a day for you, someone who is geographically located at a diametric opposite point observes night, accordingly the Time Axis for various longitudinal zone varies. So..........its not possible for me to post a real time quick reply....I also have other works to do.....so avoid JUMPING to conclusions.....solely because of a delayed reply).

1. Kaspersky has poor detection rate of spyware (especially the rouge av/as)....although it claims to be an Internet Security Suite.

2. KL never openly reveals the MFT data expansion, when several computers are scanned via LAN, through a single host, the MFT zone is flooded....which cannot be reversed.

3. Most of the time whenever I send malware sample to the labs, they say that its all clean.....after repeated post of the malware along with VT links...the malware may come under detection (recently it happened when i posted Worm.Paker to the labs, about 5-6 times, which could block PD from deleting it).

4. The most important of all the reasons....(most of u might be knowing it already)....there is no Heuristic Module in Real-Time file protection....and although it exist its turned off by default, if its turned on it causes wow wow special slowdown. (FYI, I'm aware of PD and other modules in KIS...but they art a replacement for Heuristic Real Time protection).


@Baz

Do not lead people to incorrect conclusions of my posts, just because of a delayed reply.

Thus, WRT original poster, Kaspersky is not completely reliable, try using secondary security software in conjunction with it....

[risl]

Since no antivirus can detect 100% of everything, no antivirus can be completely reliable.

[EliteKiller]

-{ Quote: "Reason I ask is because I don't see Kasperky mentioned on this forum much." }-

If you'd spell Kaspersky correctly then you'd find copious amounts of information (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/search.php).

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "If you'd spell Kaspersky correctly then you'd find copious amounts of information (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/search.php)." }-
That explains it all ;D

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "
1. Kaspersky has poor detection rate of spyware (especially the rouge av/as)....
" }-

Hmmm, scratching my head - the "rouge av/as" should be exactly what here?

-{ Quote: "
2. KL never openly reveals the MFT data expansion, when several computers are scanned via LAN, through a single host, the MFT zone is flooded....which cannot be reversed.
" }-

Errr, what's exactly "MFT data expansion"?! Care to clarify what are you talking about?! ??? :blink:

[Saraceno]

Kaspersky is one of the most reliable AVs, and has been for a long time.

IMO, the reason you don't see Kaspersky mentioned, is because it consistently performs and users don't have problems using it.

Many of its users would install it and not bother about installing much else. They probably don't have to ask any questions as their system is running well.

[blacknight]

-{ Quote: "Kaspersky is one of the most reliable AVs, and has been for a long time.

IMO, the reason you don't see Kaspersky mentioned, is because it consistently performs and users don't have problems using it.

Many of its users would install it and not bother about installing much else. They probably don't have to ask any questions as their system is running well." }-

Quote. So is for me too.

[Baldrick]

-{ Quote: "Kaspersky is one of the most reliable AVs, and has been for a long time.

IMO, the reason you don't see Kaspersky mentioned, is because it consistently performs and users don't have problems using it.

Many of its users would install it and not bother about installing much else. They probably don't have to ask any questions as their system is running well." }-
Can we please get back to the reason for this thread?:gack:

I would endorse what Saraceno says. Have been running KIS since version 6 through to the latest 2009 with little or no issues. I am also a Gold Beta Tester...so I am nailing my colours to the mast here.

But I would say that if you want a good perspective of the product then you should log onto the Kaspersky Lab Forum:

(http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showforum=4)

and check out what is being said there as it reflects the position of current users (not disrespect to Wilders but the KL Forum is dedicated and therefore likely to be somewhat more represntative, etc., IMHO)

I would close on a personal note by saying that my base line loyalty is to quality and I will go with what I consider best or one of the best. I was a NIS user for many years until NIS2006 became unusable, IMHO...and therefore I switched. I note that NIS2009 is getting excellent reviews, IMHO on a par with KIS, but am content to stay with KIS.

Hope that this help? ;D

[Fly]

-{ Quote: "Kaspersky is one of the most reliable AVs, and has been for a long time.

IMO, the reason you don't see Kaspersky mentioned, is because it consistently performs and users don't have problems using it.

Many of its users would install it and not bother about installing much else. They probably don't have to ask any questions as their system is running well." }-

It's not as rosy as that.

Although I'm not familiar with the latest versions, Kaspersky used to cause a relatively high % of false positives. Certainly more than the average AV.

And if you don't want to use the default settings, you can get some interesting surprises ;D

[lordpake]

-{ Quote: "And if you don't want to use the default settings, you can get some interesting surprises ;D" }-
Try turning heuristics on maximum, it can yield some interesting discoveries :) I ended up using medium heuristcs in Full Scan, safer that way.

[BlueZannetti]

To all,

This discussion became sidetracked and a number of posts related to that have been removed.

Let's keep the comments focused on the original question and not various members posting here.

Blue

[Baldrick]

-{ Quote: "Try turning heuristics on maximum, it can yield some interesting discoveries :) I ended up using medium heuristcs in Full Scan, safer that way." }-
A good point indeed but the same as one would find if one set any heuristics emulator/functionality, in any product that has this feature, to 'High'.

I personally tried this and whilst I found it to be the case in KIS2009 I did not find the no. of FPs to be very high, and they were easily weeded out and notified to the Kaspersky Lab for review.

I personally have Heuristics set to Medium, and that in combination with the other features of KIS, ie, PDM, HIPS, Application White List, etc., seems to do the job for me.;D

[xpsunny]

-{ Quote: "To all,

This discussion became sidetracked and a number of posts related to that have been removed.

Let's keep the comments focused on the original question and not various members posting here.

Blue" }-

Thank you. :)

[vijayind]

Kaspersky has good detection history and continues to enjoy high detection in my own dirty tests and also of many neutral labs ( see AV-Test & AV-Comparative).
In Kaspersky 2009, they have introduced a proactive/HIPS module which further increases protection against 0-day threats.

But there are some chinks in the armor.
1) Proactive/HIPS module will trust signed apps by default. This may allow certain adware/rogueware for which signature may not have been written to pass through.
2) Proactive/HIPS protection is present only in XP ( and earlier windows versions). In Windows Vista, the protection is dilute to almost zero.

So IMO, use Kaspersky and have a on-demand AV/AS, for any exigency. I use and recommend, SuperAntiSpyware.
If you are using Vista, do use some HIPS tool like Mamutu,Zemana or DefenseWall for complete security, till KL resolves the issue of their HIPS drivers.

[Baz_kasp]

-{ Quote: "I was a bit busy at college, for a coupe of days, so sorry for the delayed reply.

@lordpake (you must be knowing that the earth is round in shape, so when its a day for you, someone who is geographically located at a diametric opposite point observes night, accordingly the Time Axis for various longitudinal zone varies. So..........its not possible for me to post a real time quick reply....I also have other works to do.....so avoid JUMPING to conclusions.....solely because of a delayed reply).

1. Kaspersky has poor detection rate of spyware (especially the rouge av/as)....although it claims to be an Internet Security Suite.

2. KL never openly reveals the MFT data expansion, when several computers are scanned via LAN, through a single host, the MFT zone is flooded....which cannot be reversed.

3. Most of the time whenever I send malware sample to the labs, they say that its all clean.....after repeated post of the malware along with VT links...the malware may come under detection (recently it happened when i posted Worm.Paker to the labs, about 5-6 times, which could block PD from deleting it).

4. The most important of all the reasons....(most of u might be knowing it already)....there is no Heuristic Module in Real-Time file protection....and although it exist its turned off by default, if its turned on it causes wow wow special slowdown. (FYI, I'm aware of PD and other modules in KIS...but they art a replacement for Heuristic Real Time protection).


@Baz

Do not lead people to incorrect conclusions of my posts, just because of a delayed reply.

Thus, WRT original poster, Kaspersky is not completely reliable, try using secondary security software in conjunction with it...." }-


Sorry, but a one word post of "nope" counts as flamebait to me...what were you hoping to achieve with that apart from getting some emotional responses?

If you wanted to give your reasons you should have done so in the original reply so then we could see why you think that instead of assuming you are stirring for no reason. Now it looks like you are giving reasons only because someone questioned your original intentions.

1. Kaspersky doesn't have a poor detection of spyware....a lot of which falls under "other programs" or "riskware" category which is off by default. With it enabled, Kaspersky detects the works (obviously not all, but a quick email with a sample and it is detected......Kaspersky also have tech support and a forum for helping customers with infected machines and getting them cleaned up with a little input from the user.

2. iSwift does not scan on network drives.

3. This may happen very rarely (and it happens to other vendors too, I can give a few examples where neosploit scripts came back clean from vendor X and Y while Z and others added it) due to human/auto analysis error. If you reply to the original response with a clear description of why the "clean" verdict is wrong instead of just virustotal links, then it will be reanalysed and added quickly.

4. So the fact that heuristics are enabled in WebAV, and MailAV and scanning your mail, IM traffic and web surfing (the main point of infection- email and web and IM) doesn't matter and doesn't count as realtime to you does it? ....also the fact that HIPS does a deep heuristic analysis when you launch an executable for the first time? ::)

It might cause a slowdown if you are using a pentium 3 with 64mb of ram, but any decent pc will not notice a significant blow from having heuristics on the fileav realtime protection, although this is not needed for the reasons I mentioned above.

[Baz_kasp]

-{ Quote: "Kaspersky has good detection history and continues to enjoy high detection in my own dirty tests and also of many neutral labs ( see AV-Test & AV-Comparative).
In Kaspersky 2009, they have introduced a proactive/HIPS module which further increases protection against 0-day threats.

But there are some chinks in the armor.
1) Proactive/HIPS module will trust signed apps by default. This may allow certain adware/rogueware for which signature may not have been written to pass through.
2) Proactive/HIPS protection is present only in XP ( and earlier windows versions). In Windows Vista, the protection is dilute to almost zero.

So IMO, use Kaspersky and have a on-demand AV/AS, for any exigency. I use and recommend, SuperAntiSpyware.
If you are using Vista, do use some HIPS tool like Mamutu,Zemana or DefenseWall for complete security, till KL resolves the issue of their HIPS drivers." }-


1. There is a blacklist of digital certificates that is updated frequently, and not all digital certificates are trusted by default. Hence there is no "chink" there

2. Incorrect. Proactive defense/HIPS has a fully funcitonal set of features in Vista, but less compared to XP due to API limitations set out by Microsoft. If you care to test HIPS on a Vista system you will see that it is perfectly capable of dealing with malware. Do not base judgements on leaktests or hearsay ;)

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "1. There is a blacklist of digital certificates that is updated frequently, and not all digital certificates are trusted by default. Hence there is no "chink" there
" }-
Hmmm.... Isn't HIPS/Proactive protection supposed to be to fight against 0-day threats ?? 0-day as per my knowledge means a threat for which signature/counter-action is yet to be made. In such a case, how will Kaspersky protect ?
It has the same fatal flaw as other products working on the whitelist/blacklist principle. Where any unlisted threat is free to infect, till its detection and addition.
-{ Quote: "
2. Incorrect. Proactive defense/HIPS has a fully funcitonal set of features in Vista, but less compared to XP due to API limitations set out by Microsoft. If you care to test HIPS on a Vista system you will see that it is perfectly capable of dealing with malware. Do not base judgements on leaktests or hearsay ;)" }-
Wow, Baz. Thats what I like about you and other ppl from KL in general. Be it here or in KL forums. You never admit your fault, you still what people to believe the world is flat.

Do not base on leak tests !! You gotta be kidding me. If you can't detect and protect against test apps, how is it that you will protect against real threats :argh:
The Zemana tests both signed and unsigned versions fail on Vista with KIS 2009, now how do you suppose KIS 2009 can actually protect against loggers ?? ???

I also tested many commercial keyloggers, before making this statement. Here is the one:
203255

( To protect the thousands of KIS 2009 users on Vista, I have hidden the actual name and details of the keylogger used. )

KIS 2009 by default added the logger in "Low Restricted" group. But still it worked. So I moved it to "Highly Restricted", still nothing !!

Yet I am sure, you still believe that KIS 2009 actually has a working HIPS ... :wacko: So let me ask you.

Everytime you seem to ask other to prove and never accept undeniable proof given. If KIS 2009 actually works on Vista, prove it...
Show me KIS 2009 successfully thwarting loggers and 0-day threats on Vista. Let the experts at Wilders and other forums decide reality. Stop the Bull **** !!
Stop being a "bully" and rather have the courage to admit your faults and overcome them. It will give you more respect and loyal users, I promise.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "
Do not base on leak tests !! You gotta be kidding me. If you can't detect and protect against test apps, how is it that you will protect against real threats :argh:
" }-

Exactly because those leak tests are no real threat...

-{ Quote: "
The Zemana tests both signed and unsigned versions fail on Vista with KIS 2009, now how do you suppose KIS 2009 can actually protect against loggers ?? ???
" }-

Already been debated here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1304410&postcount=77); it's whitelisted. You need to test with real malware as said before...

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Exactly because those leak tests are no real threat...



Already been debated here (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1304410&postcount=77); it's whitelisted. You need to test with real malware as said before..." }-

No real threat !! It logs my keystrokes, captures my screen. Thats sooo normal.

If you look in depth, in the conversation. It seems, the automatic whitelist, is for signed apps. Since Zemana tests are signed, they where automatically whitelisted.
Hence usage of unsigned test in XP, will trigger prompt for KIS 2009.
See this post in same thread. (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1304880&postcount=90)

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "No real threat !! It logs my keystrokes, captures my screen. Thats sooo normal.
" }-

Nice to misquote something out of context and restart your rants. The reply was about the leak tests, damn it! Learn to debate in a civilized way or keep your trap shut. :thumbd: >:(

[vijayind]

Ok, I have no shame in admitting my mistake.

If you see my actual post I was talking of leak and logger tests in conjuction. So I assumed, you also meant the same collectively.

Civilized .... What did I do so uncivil ? I never uttered profanity or curse. Why is sarcasm so bad. Unfortunately, I always add a tad of sarcasm to get my point across, so you will probably see more of that from my "trap" ( Yeah, thats civil ). Its all figurative, not literal. So try to take it , in your stride. I don't mean it in the perspective, you seem to assume.

[BlueZannetti]

Folks.

Let's tone down the gratuitous rhetoric. It really doesn't advance either side of the debate.

Blue

[Saraceno]

vijayind, no disrespect, but to address the original poster, Kaspersky for an 'all-round' package is pretty damn good.

The commercial keylogger you refer to, don't know which one it is, it might also go unnoticed by programs such as ThreatFire, Mamutu, or by all the other AVs. If it is picked-up by all the other programs, then fair enough, Kaspersky has some work to do.

Rather than an experienced user like yourself that is testing commercial keyloggers, and intentionally installing keyloggers, is quite different to the regular user experiencing a drive-by download.

IMO, I still maintain, for a regular user, surfing the internet, the likelihood of a drive-by keylogger transferring from a site then self-installing itself without Kaspersky giving alerts, would be as rare as hen's teeth.

It might have some improvements, but I believe there are plenty of products out there that wish they could say they have 'a few improvements to go', but instead are looking at a complete product overhaul.
:)

[tiagozt]

Kaspersky is reliable, but I sent some samples have more than 4 to 5 days and I received no reply yet. The signatures were not added too.
Probably it's a temporary problem because usually they reply in some hours.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Kaspersky is reliable, but I sent some samples have more than 4 to 5 days and I received no reply yet. The signatures were not added too.
Probably it's a temporary problem because usually they reply in some hours." }-

I see that your main feedback about avs is about sample-sending:)
Sometimes they reply slowly, or don't at all, in some cases I waited for weeks and no reply...but then I sent the sample again, and I got a reply.

[mvdu]

Yes, Kaspersky is reliable, but I decided to put the firewall/HIPS in Interactive Mode. That way I can get advice but make my own decision. I decided to return my NIS 2009 license and stick with KIS.

[emperordarius]

It is reliable, the HIPS may have some bugs(for instance with some programs it gives tons of keylogger alerts by an 'unknown' application that won't go away until you turn off the PC), but it's powerful overall.

[TopperID]

-{ Quote: "....it gives tons of keylogger alerts by an 'unknown' application that won't go away ...." }-
Are you running SSM by any chance?

The protection offered by the PDM in KAV 8 is appreciably weaker than that of KAV 7 and 6; a lot of the action has been hived off to KIS. Actually I think it has been dumbed down to make it more user friendly for the less experienced.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Are you running SSM by any chance?

The protection offered by the PDM in KAV 8 is appreciably weaker than that of KAV 7 and 6; a lot of the action has been hived off to KIS. Actually I think it has been dumbed down to make it more user friendly for the less experienced." }-

No, it did like that with IceSword and PowerDVD(strangely this last one was fixed if I unchecked "don't monitor application activity" for another program called Launchy:-\
Ah, yes, also with MBAM, it said that the boot sector or something had been changed, got away after a restart)
I think that the developers have concentrated more on the HIPS.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "vijayind, no disrespect, but to address the original poster, Kaspersky for an 'all-round' package is pretty damn good.
" }-
No offense taken, Sir. I agree, its pretty good. I said so, in my first post on this thread. But a neutral commentator, should also highlight the cons also (if any). Which I did, its up the individual if they feel its a sizable drawback for him/her.
-{ Quote: "
The commercial keylogger you refer to, don't know which one it is, it might also go unnoticed by programs such as ThreatFire, Mamutu, or by all the other AVs. If it is picked-up by all the other programs, then fair enough, Kaspersky has some work to do.
" }- I had mixed results with commercial keyloggers. Zemana missed few ( I have sent them a report). Mamutu warned for many in normal mode, but for all in paranoid mode. Comodo Defense+ was the best, it detected everything and gave warning at every step of installation, execution and logging.
-{ Quote: "
Rather than an experienced user like yourself that is testing commercial keyloggers, and intentionally installing keyloggers, is quite different to the regular user experiencing a drive-by download.

IMO, I still maintain, for a regular user, surfing the internet, the likelihood of a drive-by keylogger transferring from a site then self-installing itself without Kaspersky giving alerts, would be as rare as hen's teeth.
" }- Well, by using commercial keyloggers I want to check the HIPS/Proactive behavior of the product.
Average Joe can meet with a 0-day malware, then the HIPS should kick in. If it fails for most/all commercial keyloggers its logical to conclude that the HIPS may not be able to provide good protection.
Same with KIS 2009, a regular user if confronted with 0-day malware will be unprotected, IMO as per the tests.
-{ Quote: "
It might have some improvements, but I believe there are plenty of products out there that wish they could say they have 'a few improvements to go', but instead are looking at a complete product overhaul.
:)" }-
I agree, but my main grievance here is the fact the KL doesn't display this info in its advertising and also takes a bullish approach in face of evidence.

I am still a KIS 2009 user. And with all probability I shall continue to use KL products. But for the fact, I am not a fanboy and I don't want to give biased opinions. Since none have been given to me, here on the forum.

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "It is reliable, the HIPS may have some bugs(for instance with some programs it gives tons of keylogger alerts by an 'unknown' application that won't go away until you turn off the PC), but it's powerful overall." }-
Let me guess, that on XP. Right ?
On Vista, I yearn to see even such a sight.

[Jin K]

the only thing that i hate on kaspersky!! it hips when it put a malware that have a signature into low resricted group i dont know but i think if they also make it by behavior it will be good!!!

also that i have found the hips so weak against some variants like trojans-downladers that created it self into the tmp so i wish it will improve in the 2010 ver maybe

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Let me guess, that on XP. Right ?
On Vista, I yearn to see even such a sight." }-

Yes. On Vista you don't even have those protection options I guess.;D

[poutine]

-{ Quote: "Yes, Kaspersky is reliable, but I decided to put the firewall/HIPS in Interactive Mode. That way I can get advice but make my own decision. I decided to return my NIS 2009 license and stick with KIS." }-

I'm glad i wasnt the only one who didnt like NIS 2009 enough to give up Kaspersky ! What really turned me off about Norton 2009 was that the options and settings werent particulary well laid out and the whole thing sucked of being set up for people who knew bugger all about security software. ;)

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "the only thing that i hate on kaspersky!! it hips when it put a malware that have a signature into low resricted group i dont know but i think if they also make it by behavior it will be good!!!

also that i have found the hips so weak against some variants like trojans-downladers that created it self into the tmp so i wish it will improve in the 2010 ver maybe" }-

I noticed your sig says you use Kasperky, but also avira and avg
'on demand'

What do you mean by 'on demand'? You have all 3 installed at same time?

[Jin K]

-{ Quote: "I noticed your sig says you use Kasperky, but also avira and avg
'on demand'

What do you mean by 'on demand'? You have all 3 installed at same time?" }-

its a manual scan by right clicking ، and yes i have the 3 installed but only avira is portable and they are all with no real-time protection except kaspersky

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "its a manual scan by right clicking ، and yes i have the 3 installed but only avira is portable and they are all with no real-time protection except kaspersky" }-

Is there a free version of portable avira? I didnt know Avira has a portable version.. where can I get it? So it doesn't install itself at all into windows registry etc, and doesn't load any permanent RAM resident drivers etc?

And how did you disable AVG from running in real-time? Were you able to totally disable everything that loads with AVG in memory?

[Saraceno]

vijayind, well said. :thumb:

Hopefully Kaspersky takes note and makes improvements in the next update.

[richrf]

My 2 cents:

Yes, KAV is very reliable, and is very comprehensive. However, it was always, from the beginning, a royal pain for me. Performance, support, upgrading, etc. I finally decided to dump it (after paying for a new license), because I couldn't handle the drama that the company kept bringing into my life.

Right now, I am looking at two alternative solutions, that hopefully will provide me with equivalent security:

1) AntiVir + HIPS (e.g. DriveSentry)

2) Norton AV 2009

Rich

[yeuxbleus]

-{ Quote: "Kaspersky is one of the most reliable AVs, and has been for a long time.

IMO, the reason you don't see Kaspersky mentioned, is because it consistently performs and users don't have problems using it.

Many of its users would install it and not bother about installing much else. They probably don't have to ask any questions as their system is running well." }-

Well said! Talk about hitting the nail on the head! :thumb::thumb:

[Baz_kasp]

-{ Quote: "

Wow, Baz. Thats what I like about you and other ppl from KL in general. Be it here or in KL forums. You never admit your fault, you still what people to believe the world is flat.

........ Stop the Bull **** !! .....


Stop being a "bully" and rather have the courage to admit your faults and overcome them. It will give you more respect and loyal users, I promise." }-


Firstly, please have the respect to address me without swearing or taking personal swipes at my character, as I have not done anything of the sort to you.

I did not think this thread was about "fault"...you made a statement in response to the OP regarding Kaspersky, and I made a perfectly reasonable answer to contradict it. If you choose not to agree with my answer or if it makes you angry, that does not give you an excuse to start personally attacking me.

Just because you think I am a "KL person" (an unpaid volunteer, not an employee) that does not make my input any less valid or justified....nor does it mean that if I disagree with you that it makes me a "bully" or mean that I am trying to conceal something. I try my best to clear up any misunderstanding or FUD and give a view from the "other side" to balance out any posts that predict doom and generally go out of their way to bash a product or give arguments which I think are not justified.

I hope you will respect my right to post here and give my POV/arguments as long as the forum administration is not opposed to my presence and that there are no hard feelings between us. It is not my intention to cause distress or offend any member with my posts.

I may choose to reply to your comments regarding HIPS when I have another spare moment, but I hope it will not lead to more aggressive confrontation and that I may present some examples to contradict your findings to let the people make an informed desicion about the comments in this thread.


Baz

[vijayind]

Baz, I am sorry for the outburst.
I wanted to vent my fury at KL and not you. As you know, I have been voicing my view of inability of KIS 2009 HIPS in Vista in more than one thread, in more than one forum.

Every time, I was either shunned or mocked. I too am growing tired of argument. Please lets if possible make a separate thread and lay down the facts. So that the world at large can decide, in a unpartizan way.

I don't have any disregard for your view. But I think our conversations usually end up in circles. Without providing any help to either of us. Again I my apologies, for the miscommunication and misdirection in intent.

[Ed_H]

-{ Quote: "
Please lets if possible make a separate thread and lay down the facts." }-

Good idea!

I have used various versions of KAV/KIS for several years. While I have had a few issues along the way (slowdowns with V7) I always felt the protection was at or near the top. So, reliability is certainly not an issue from my perspective. However, now that I am using Vista, I am not clear on exactly what KIS does and does not protect with the HIPS module. Some clarification would be appreciated.

[truthseeker]

-{ Quote: "Baz, I am sorry for the outburst.
I wanted to vent my fury at KL and not you. As you know, I have been voicing my view of inability of KIS 2009 HIPS in Vista in more than one thread, in more than one forum.

Every time, I was either shunned or mocked. I too am growing tired of argument. Please lets if possible make a separate thread and lay down the facts. So that the world at large can decide, in a unpartizan way.

I don't have any disregard for your view. But I think our conversations usually end up in circles. Without providing any help to either of us. Again I my apologies, for the miscommunication and misdirection in intent." }-

You humility to recognize your err in how you spoke to Baz, and then to apologise is to be respected, well done. :thumb:

I really respect people who have the humility and decency to apologize when it's due.

We can all learn from your message and what you wrote.

[MR X]

here you go this may help you make your decision.
VB100 test results summary for the last few months.
keep in mind this is not the end all. of all test.
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary

[LowWaterMark]

I've removed a reply that did nothing but "stir the pot" further when an issue between two posters was settled, and settled in a polite and professional way. It was not necessary to fire it back up again and then tell one of the people to obey the rules.

Let's all stay on topic and stop commenting about the posters or how they are posting in a thread. If you have an issue, use the Report Bad Post feature, and don't comment about it in the thread as yours will be the post removed in that case.

[Biscuit]

-{ Quote: "I installed the 30 day trial version of Kasperky AV.

Can Kasperky be trusted as reliable to detect virus?

Reason I ask is because I don't see Kasperky mentioned on this forum much." }-

I have installed Kaspersky on several systems, including my own. I found that in a networked environment (SBS 2003 Premium + Vista32), Kaspersky was very unreliable & stopped several components of my server from working. Networked desktop speed also was noticeably slower (my wife asked me to remove it from her computer). I removed the Kaspersky software from all my systems after about half a day. In addition I installed Kaspersky Mobile onto my Smartphone, the software broke my Internet access & I had to do a hard reset to fix it. I installed KIS2009 on my laptop & found performance to be reasonable, but a little slower than my regular products. The laptop ran smoothly, although I did not like the regular reboots that seemed to be needed with KIS updates over a few days. I removed the software from my laptop because of the reboots.

I have occasionally installed KAV2009 on customer computers. It works acceptably when installed on an already infected computer. Out of interest, I found that the KIS2009 parental control feature worked quite well & kept the computer more stable than when using CyberPatrol.

[truthseeker]

Ok, thanks Biscuit for your comments. :thumb:

[Ed_H]

-{ Quote: "I have installed Kaspersky on several systems, including my own. I found that in a networked environment (SBS 2003 Premium + Vista32), Kaspersky was very unreliable & stopped several components of my server from working. Networked desktop speed also was noticeably slower (my wife asked me to remove it from her computer). I removed the Kaspersky software from all my systems after about half a day. In addition I installed Kaspersky Mobile onto my Smartphone, the software broke my Internet access & I had to do a hard reset to fix it. I installed KIS2009 on my laptop & found performance to be reasonable, but a little slower than my regular products. The laptop ran smoothly, although I did not like the regular reboots that seemed to be needed with KIS updates over a few days. I removed the software from my laptop because of the reboots.

I have occasionally installed KAV2009 on customer computers. It works acceptably when installed on an already infected computer. Out of interest, I found that the KIS2009 parental control feature worked quite well & kept the computer more stable than when using CyberPatrol." }-

Did you contact KL or post in their support forum for assistance? I have found both to be responsive and helpful.

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "I have installed Kaspersky on several systems, including my own. I found that in a networked environment (SBS 2003 Premium + Vista32), Kaspersky was very unreliable & stopped several components of my server from working. Networked desktop speed also was noticeably slower (my wife asked me to remove it from her computer). I removed the Kaspersky software from all my systems after about half a day. In addition I installed Kaspersky Mobile onto my Smartphone, the software broke my Internet access & I had to do a hard reset to fix it. I installed KIS2009 on my laptop & found performance to be reasonable, but a little slower than my regular products. The laptop ran smoothly, although I did not like the regular reboots that seemed to be needed with KIS updates over a few days. I removed the software from my laptop because of the reboots.

I have occasionally installed KAV2009 on customer computers. It works acceptably when installed on an already infected computer. Out of interest, I found that the KIS2009 parental control feature worked quite well & kept the computer more stable than when using CyberPatrol." }-
tbh with kis2009 there was three reboots in two days last month. but genrally reboots are hardly ever needed.
also if you dont like reboots complain to MS:D
using vista in a corporate environment is a bad idea anyway. its bad enough at home without business use.
my college uses windows xp and server 2003. they used to use a linux server and everything was fine. but since using the windows server loads of crashes and slowdowns.

[Coolio10]

I am using vista 64 and the web slowdown is significant for me and bootup is a little slower but other than that no crashes or slowdown.

[Biscuit]

-{ Quote: "Did you contact KL or post in their support forum for assistance? I have found both to be responsive and helpful." }-

Yes, regarding my server, my urgent post requesting help still remains unanswered. My post regarding the KMS product was answered (without providing a fix) about 1 week later. I use my email push to the smartphone daily.

[Biscuit]

-{ Quote: "
using vista in a corporate environment is a bad idea anyway. its bad enough at home without business use." }-

In your opinion? Vista Business workstations as part of a Windows network are acceptable Microsoft best practise.

A reason not to deploy Vista in a network would mainly be due to cost, support training & legacy application & hardware support. I have many home users running Vista with no issues.

[Biscuit]

-{ Quote: "tbh with kis2009 there was three reboots in two days last month. but genrally reboots are hardly ever needed.
also if you dont like reboots complain to MS:D" }-

Sorry, I forgot to reply to this point.

I believe that reboots are due to the application design. I note that Eset AV v3.x does not require a reboot even after installation. In addition other security products such as Prevx2, PrevxCSI & Mawarebytes do not require reboots. Only Prevx2 in that list requires a reboot after installation.

[lordpake]

-{ Quote: "Yes, regarding my server, my urgent post requesting help still remains unanswered. My post regarding the KMS product was answered (without providing a fix) about 1 week later. I use my email push to the smartphone daily." }-

Did you contact Support directly? As they may not monitor forums that often. Contacting Support directly is the best option.