KIS 2009 - slow web browsing

[mvdu]

KIS slows my web browsing by about .5 second to a second or more on web pages. I turned off the web AV and didn't notice much improvement. Is there a way to increase speed?

I'm not going to change over this, but it's the one thing I don't like about KIS.

[edd3800]

-{ Quote: "KIS slows my web browsing by about .5 second to a second or more on web pages. I turned off the web AV and didn't notice much improvement. Is there a way to increase speed?

I'm not going to change over this, but it's the one thing I don't like about KIS." }-

I used KIS for a week and had two problems with it. One was the same issue you are having. I tried a lot of different things could not fix it. For me it was a deal breaker and I uninstalled. A few weeks later I did come across a post about using firefox with KIS. That some users were having slow downs because they had tweaked firefox. Which may have been my problem. So if your using firefox you might want to look into that. Sorry can't recall where I saw the post.

[mvdu]

Thank you - I'll see if I can find info. on that as I do use Firefox.

[edd3800]

Your welcome. If you type about:config into the address bar and hit enter. Anything thats been changed is in darker print.

[octogen]

If I recall correctly, KAV users were reporting slow downs when pipelining was activated while using Firefox. The remedy was to turn pipelining off. Maybe someone who has experienced this can elaborate.

[poutine]

I had that issue, fixed now.. heres how

can you please double click the kaspersky icon

choose settings

choose network

select

untick ports 443 and 80


apply and ok

And yeah its totally safe to do that. Kaspersky approved. !! ;)

[Oldjim]

Just checked over at the Kaspersky Forums and it is not recommended http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=87126

[poutine]

-{ Quote: "Just checked over at the Kaspersky Forums and it is not recommended http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=87126" }-


Well isnt that nice of Kaspersky UK to tell me to do that. !! I just read the comments on the Kaspersky forum and i am p****d off to say the least with their support.

[mvdu]

I tried the pipelining thing and it didn't work, unfortunately. All of them were already set to false. With AntiVir it's the Web AV, so with that it's an easy solution. Eset Smart Security does not slow things down even with the web AV. Anyway, I think unchecking those ports would help, but I'd feel unprotected.

[poutine]

-{ Quote: "I tried the pipelining thing and it didn't work, unfortunately. All of them were already set to false. With AntiVir it's the Web AV, so with that it's an easy solution. Eset Smart Security does not slow things down even with the web AV. Anyway, I think unchecking those ports would help, but I'd feel unprotected." }-


-{ Quote: "Well actually all that does is stop web av from scanning traffic on port 80 (www) and 443... no risk to it if you have fileAV enabled as it will catch infections on execution." }-

From Baz at Kaspersky Forum. ;)

[steve1955]

-{ Quote: "Well isnt that nice of Kaspersky UK to tell me to do that. !! I just read the comments on the Kaspersky forum and i am p****d off to say the least with their support." }-
the guys at Kaspersky UK are probably the ones to trust:-most members of the Kaspersky forum don't work for Kaspersky and no matter how good the meanings of the advice given there the guys giving it aren't as clued up on the product as the official uk support bods

[poutine]

-{ Quote: "the guys at Kaspersky UK are probably the ones to trust:-most members of the Kaspersky forum don't work for Kaspersky and no matter how good the meanings of the advice given there the guys giving it aren't as clued up on the product as the official uk support bods" }-

Good point steve1955, i should of thought of that but i didnt like the way they replied to oldjims post on there either, implying my words were by a troll. That wasnt very polite at all. >:( That got my back up.

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "From Baz at Kaspersky Forum. ;)" }-
This makes no sense. If you want to disable HTTP scanning across port 80, you might as well turn off HTTP scanning altogether.

[poutine]

-{ Quote: "This makes no sense. If you want to disable HTTP scanning across port 80, you might as well turn off HTTP scanning altogether." }-

Hmm, fair point ,but i dont really know what else to do about this problem . I hope that we get some more suggestions to help both mvdu and myself.
I am using I.E 7 and i get the slowdowns to, also updating KIS 2009 takes a while to even on an 8MB connection. :-\

[trjam]

lodore once told me to set web scanning at the highest level and it would be faster. Trust me, that still holds true on 2009.

[poutine]

-{ Quote: "lodore once told me to set web scanning at the highest level and it would be faster. Trust me, that still holds true on 2009." }-

Hi trjam.
Would you be so kind as to tell me how to do that ?
Do you mean web traffic - set to deep scan ? Thank you. :)

[yeuxbleus]

-{ Quote: "KIS slows my web browsing by about .5 second to a second or more on web pages..." }-

What is the average load time of the pages? The reason I ask is to see if I am experiencing the same problem.

[trjam]

-{ Quote: "Hi trjam.
Would you be so kind as to tell me how to do that ?
Do you mean web traffic - set to deep scan ? Thank you. :)" }-
I always set everything to its highest settings, rootkit detection and all. Turn off anti-banner, it is stupid anyway.

[mvdu]

The times differ at each site. At Wilders, there's not much difference, but at Democratic Underground, it takes about .6 seconds to leave a page with KIS off and 1 - 1.2 seconds with KIS on.

[edd3800]

-{ Quote: "The times differ at each site. At Wilders, there's not much difference, but at Democratic Underground, it takes about .6 seconds to leave a page with KIS off and 1 - 1.2 seconds with KIS on." }-

mvdu I found this at pcmag.com its part of the review on KIS 2009

The big difference was in the browser test, which took 60% longer after installation of KIS2009. In a way it makes sense, as a number of different security features are at work here. Each page is evaluated by parental control and antiphishing, and the banner ad blocker surely has its own effect.

[mvdu]

Thing is, though, not all security suites do this, and with some that do I've found a solution. It's just a noticeable drag that occurs.

[mvdu]

I noticed that most of the KIS slowdowns occur when you go straight from page to page. If you wait, times at electoral-vote.com and google.com were similar.

[poutine]

-{ Quote: "I noticed that most of the KIS slowdowns occur when you go straight from page to page. If you wait, times at electoral-vote.com and google.com were similar." }-

Hi mvdu.
Whats your KIS 2009 updating like ?? mines as slow as hell, im on a 8MB connection and the updates trickle in at 13kb a sec. ???
all of my other apps update quickly but KIS 2009 nope. It gets quicker as it goes but mannn its slow for a small little update.

[mvdu]

Same here with the update. Got a lot faster as time went on, but started out at 7-13 KB/sec and a delay when starting and finishing. :(

[poutine]

-{ Quote: "Same here with the update. Got a lot faster as time went on, but started out at 7-13 KB/sec and a delay when starting and finishing. :(" }-

Exactly the same for me ! And every time i tell Kaspersky this " no one else has reported" blah blah ;D
apart from that and the slow webpages i like it a lot, and the vulnerabilitys it finds reminds you to update your programs !! cool. ;)

[emperordarius]

Had no problems with kis and my broadband. Actually turning web traffic high did slow the page opening, though once I set it to medium the slowness vanished.

[lordpake]

-{ Quote: "Actually turning web traffic high did slow the page opening, though once I set it to medium the slowness vanished." }-
Isn't that by design? After all it buffers a lot more (or rather, it holds objects longer in buffer before releasing them, see the help file of KIS) when set to 'high' than in 'recommended' (1sec vs 60 secs). Additionally the heuristics are turned to maximum in 'high'.

I only ever turn it to maximum if I suspect I might be visiting shadier pages.

[doktornotor]

All these "webshields" are piece of junk. And some are even a great means of DDoS as a free bonus in addition - hello AVG LinkScanner :D

[lordpake]

I wouldn't call for example KIS WebAV function as piece of junk. What's wrong with taking traffic inside internal buffer and then scanning for malware signs?

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "What's wrong with taking traffic inside internal buffer and then scanning for malware signs?" }-

And what's wrong with leaving the job for the normal on-access scanner so that it doesn't slow down your web browsing and doesn't cause other incompatibilities and ridiculous false positives (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=221996)?

Ah, right... the "cool" factor, they couldn't stick "webshield" into the marketing blurb. ::)

[lordpake]

-{ Quote: "And what's wrong with leaving the job for the normal on-access scanner so that it doesn't slow down your web browsing and doesn't cause other incompatibilities and ridiculous false positives (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=221996)?

Ah, right... the "cool" factor, they couldn't stick "webshield" into the marketing blurb. ::)" }-
What cool factor? And personally, I have not noticed any slowdowns with KIS when using the Recommended settings (then again, I do not tweak internal settings of my browser). If I turn it to maximum I do notice slowdowns in some places, such as YouTube. However, recommended is the optimal setting.

As to that false positive you are referring, I do not find it ridiculous. The software is just doing what it is supposed to do.

I would rather have my IS acts as proxy, and deal with with exploits before they even have a chance to land in my PC and interact with my browser. If they hit the browser, there's always a chance for them to execute. At that point it would be the task of AV to intercept dropped malware before it is executed. Why give the malware a chance at all?

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "And what's wrong with leaving the job for the normal on-access scanner so that it doesn't slow down your web browsing and doesn't cause other incompatibilities and ridiculous false positives (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=221996)?

Ah, right... the "cool" factor, they couldn't stick "webshield" into the marketing blurb. ::)" }-
Webshields are necessary to stop exploits that execute in memory, and some network worms that never touch the hard disk at all. Normal on-access scanners are completely helpless against those.

Don't be so quick to dismiss and ridicule things that you don't understand.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "Webshields are necessary to stop exploits that execute in memory" }-

Errr, fatal error, doesn't compute... all malware executes in memory... there's absolutely nothing special about browsers, email clients or whatever similar.

-{ Quote: "
and some network worms that never touch the hard disk at all. Normal on-access scanners are completely helpless against those.
" }-

Your realtime AV doesn't detect malware in memory unless its origin is in your browser? Uhm, time to change the AV, I'd say.

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "Errr, fatal error, doesn't compute... all malware executes in memory... there's absolutely nothing special about browsers, email clients or whatever similar." }-
Actually, there is. Exploits delivered via network-connected processes (i.e. browsers) are executed before they are saved to the cache. It's already too late when your on-access scanner detects the cached file.

-{ Quote: "Your realtime AV doesn't detect malware in memory unless its origin is in your browser? Uhm, time to change the AV, I'd say." }-
That's your own uninformed opinion, which you're welcome to.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "Actually, there is. Exploits delivered via network-connected processes (i.e. browsers) are executed before they are saved to the cache. It's already too late when your on-access scanner detects the cached file.
" }-

Yeah, except that there's still nothing special about browsers. You can exploit tons of bugs in tons of apps remotely, yet you don't implement the functionality of those apps into an AV. Vendors don't implement such stuff for browsers either, which leads exactly to those stupid false positives mentioned above. The thing just foolishly parses the contents, lacking even the most basic logic like being able to spot the difference between active, clickable link and plaintext log pasted into a webpage. This is not KIS specific, this is a generic fact valid for all those webshields out there, as proved by the thread referred to above.

If you want to catch similar stuff, you need behavior analysis and not dumb AV signatures.

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "Yeah, except that there's still nothing special about browsers." }-
You can dismiss my explanations, but just because you're unable to refute them doesn't make them untrue. I've explained the purpose of a web scanner: because normal on-access scanners are helpless against exploits.

-{ Quote: "You can exploit tons of bugs in tons of apps remotely, yet you don't implement the functionality of those apps into an AV." }-
And why not? There are vendors who implement IDS features to detect such attack patterns; ESS, avast!, Kaspersky, Symantec, McAfee etc. Again, a scanner that can monitor network traffic is needed here, because normal on-access scanners are (surprise) helpless against these remote exploits as well.

-{ Quote: "This is not KIS specific, this is a generic fact valid for all those webshields out there, as proved by the thread referred to above." }-
So it happens with Symantec, i.e. ONE product, and all of a sudden it's a generic fact that's applicable to every product, even though we've yet to see the slightest shred of evidence that this is true. Uh huh. Brilliant work, Holmes.

As I've said, don't be so quick to dismiss and ridicule what you don't understand.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "
So it happens with Symantec, i.e. ONE product, and all of a sudden it's a generic fact that's applicable to every product, even we've yet to see the slightest shred of evidence that this is true. Uh huh. Brilliant work, Holmes.
" }-

No, it doesn't happen with ONE product. As illustrated by the thread, it equally happens with Windows LiveCare (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1328151&postcount=9) and will happen with any other AV that's foolish enough to hardcode such URLs into signatures without doing any of the legwork to actually analyze the stuff, already explained above - which, surprise suprise, requires basically implementing a stripped-down browser into the AV engine if you want to get rid of such stupid false positives. Then you can implement a stripped down bittorrent/emule/whatever engine to work around P2P exploits, and bunch of others for other network stuff - and enjoy the obnoxious bloatware with horrible performance. Good luck with this. Completely broken approach.

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "No, it doesn't happen with ONE product." }-
Wow, that's a groundbreaking development. So it's a generic fact that applies to all product because it occurs in not only one, but TWO products! I mean, come on, TWO! Awesome!

A flaw shared by two products means it's common and generic among all others. Oh yeah. :dry:

Besides, there are many types of web scanning as well. Checking for embedded links in a webpage is just one, certainly of no relevance to KIS, and even less to what's being discussed in this thread. Just another piece in the growing pile of evidence that reveals your lack of understanding about this issue.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "Wow, that's a groundbreaking development. So it's a generic fact that applies to all product because it occurs in not only one, but TWO products! I mean, come on, TWO! Awesome!
" }-


+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
==================================================================


Finished here... ktnxbye.

[saberfox]

I wouldn't call you a troll yet, since tbh all you've done so far is to display a lack of understanding about the topic discussed. But if you insist... advice accepted, and thanks.

[yeuxbleus]

-{ Quote: "Had no problems with kis and my broadband. Actually turning web traffic high did slow the page opening, though once I set it to medium the slowness vanished." }-

I experience no slow downs while browsing using KAV set to recommended settings either. I thought I did, but did a comparison between surfing with Web Scanner on to with it off...no difference. :thumb:

[JasSolo]

-{ Quote: "I experience no slow downs while browsing using KAV set to recommended settings either. I thought I did, but did a comparison between surfing with Web Scanner on to with it off...no difference. :thumb:" }-

Well, sometimes it's just not eneough, just to turn something off in Kaspersky's products, to do a comparison. Sometimes it's not even enough to disable the hole product, at least that's my experience with Kaspersky. To do a real comparison, you have to uninstall Kaspersky and test, then install Kaspersky again.


Cheers

[yeuxbleus]

-{ Quote: "Well, sometimes it's just not eneough, just to turn something off in Kaspersky's products, to do a comparison. Sometimes it's not even enough to disable the hole product, at least that's my experience with Kaspersky. To do a real comparison, you have to uninstall Kaspersky and test, then install Kaspersky again.


Cheers" }-

You're right. Recently, I imaged the hard drive with KAV installed and then uninstalled KAV. Still, no difference with KAV installed or uninstalled. Reimaged hard drive to when KAV was installed.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "This makes no sense. If you want to disable HTTP scanning across port 80, you might as well turn off HTTP scanning altogether." }-


Agreed. Kaspersky tells you to disable part of there own product. Great fix now lets move on to getting a REAL fix. And not blame everyone Else's product once again for the screw up. ;)

I had the same issues on the test system when I tested kaspersky a few weeks back. Unfortunately it leaked over to IE also the Delays where to noticeable for my liking, it felt like a $110 a month Dial up.


(sorry been gone a wile hectic work sch. :o )

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "I experience no slow downs while browsing using KAV set to recommended settings either. I thought I did, but did a comparison between surfing with Web Scanner on to with it off...no difference. :thumb:" }-
Ditto.

Kaspersky's web scanner is one of the best, if not the best, http scanners available out there.

[flik]

Hi. I have experience the same with my kis. I think that when I untick ports 80 and 443 speed is increased. I have donw some tests, and I think that it helps with the speed. I haven't decide what to do. But, if I uncheck these ports, does it affect anti-fishing components too?

[virtumonde]

Why don't you guys that have trouble with http scanner don't just uninstall it?Firefox with no script provides a better protection anyway.

[lordpake]

Yeah :) You can easily install KIS w/o the Web AV component, you still get all the other goodies, just not this specific part.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Yeah :) You can easily install KIS w/o the Web AV component, you still get all the other goodies, just not this specific part." }-

The point is. You should NOT have to, to use a product that you paid for. all features should work. :blink:

[mvdu]

True, Fajo. I'm paying for my fast connection too and don't think I should put up with the slowdown.

[edd3800]

-{ Quote: "True, Fajo. I'm paying for my fast connection too and don't think I should put up with the slowdown." }-

I agree I won't put up with slowdowns. If I notice it's slower, I try and tweak it. If I can't I uninstall. Try something else. Since many products are now using some form of web protection that seem to slow down surfing. I tried several products before picking one.
As I said early in this thread I tried KIS 2009 could not fix the slow down problem. It's funny it came up today. Back when I was trying to figure out how to speed up Kaspersky I called a guy that I knew had KIS 2009. Frank and his Dad both use it. He said neither of them had any slow down at all. Today he came by my house while I was on the computer playing poker. While talking I went to several webpages. He said Holy **** your lighting fast. Well to make a long story short, He left here was going home to uninstall KIS and test without it.

[mvdu]

I really want to use KIS, but the one website where I spend much of my time at is where the slowdown is very noticeable. So I'll have to choose between Avira, ESS, and NIS as I just can't find a solution.

[edd3800]

-{ Quote: "I really want to use KIS, but the one website where I spend much of my time at is where the slowdown is very noticeable. So I'll have to choose between Avira, ESS, and NIS as I just can't find a solution." }-

The same here that's why I spent a week trying to work it out. I also had the same problem with Avira Premium. But not with Avira Free

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "I also had the same problem with Avira Premium. But not with Avira Free" }-

Well, that's because Avira Free has no webguard ;)

[Farmand]

-{ Quote: "I really want to use KIS, but the one website where I spend much of my time at is where the slowdown is very noticeable. So I'll have to choose between Avira, ESS, and NIS as I just can't find a solution." }-


No problem here.. KIS 2009 work great.. And i have no slow-downs what-so-ever.

KIS 2009 rocks if you ask me.

[the mul]

I have been reading all the posts with interest and I can honestly say that I have no slow downs with KAV 2009 all settings set to max, it works very well while surfing with firefox 3, but I have read many threads over on the kaspersky forum about the slow web browsing issue, so lets hope that kaspersky can fix this issue for people who are experiencing this problem.


THE MUL

[Zombini]

-{ Quote: "Just checked over at the Kaspersky Forums and it is not recommended http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=87126" }-


You are absolutely right.. turning off 80 and 443 kills your web protection. Not sure who would recommend that :-)

[Zombini]

-{ Quote: "Ditto.

Kaspersky's web scanner is one of the best, if not the best, http scanners available out there." }-

Actually that is far from the truth.. If you really want to see how good a web scanner is then look at the number of times the vendor has to rev a web page drive-by download exploit signature. If they keep revving it, then that tells you that their web scanner is not very contextual and they are writing string-scanner sigs which are very reactive and hence you will keep getting infected (if in fact you are a promiscuous surfer).

The best web scanner I am aware of is the NIS2009 Browser Protection and Intrusion Prevention web scanners.

Kaspersky has revved one of their RDSDataspace signatures (the #1 exploited drive-by exploit on the web) 1220 times. See http://www.viruslist.com/en/find?search_mode=virus&words=psyme

On the other hand Symantec has updated its version of the same signature http://www.symantec.com/business/security_response/attacksignatures/detail.jsp?asid=50031 just twice. That should tell you how generic the signatures are and how good the web scanner is.

[mvdu]

In my tests, NIS browser protection and IDS were very inconsistent, so I don't tout it as better. Speedier, yes.

[Zombini]

-{ Quote: "In my tests, NIS browser protection and IDS were very inconsistent, so I don't tout it as better. Speedier, yes." }-

What kind of inconsistencies are you seeing. Not sure if you know, but Browser Protection may not detect the attack if your system is already patched. I say "may" because it all depends on the signature. If the signature is based on a vulnerable method of an ActiveX being called, any Microsoft's patch has set the Kill bit on the ActiveX, then the activeX will not instantiate even when you visit a vulnerable page, so Browser Protection wont detect it. Not so with other "dumb" string scanner based web scanners.

If you have an example of a exploit web page that is able to bypass NIS2009, let me know (please PM).

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Well, that's because Avira Free has no webguard ;)" }-

No one must install the webguard. Do a custom install without it and Avira Premium is fast as lightning.

[Ed_H]

-{ Quote: "No one must install the webguard. Do a custom install without it and Avira Premium is fast as lightning." }-

Yep...I have uninstalled the webguard and Avira Premium is very fast. What I still can't figure out is whether webguard is of any real value. Is it all just marketing hype or is there a real purpose????

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "No one must install the webguard. Do a custom install without it and Avira Premium is fast as lightning." }-

It is very fast with it, too.

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Yep...I have uninstalled the webguard and Avira Premium is very fast. What I still can't figure out is whether webguard is of any real value. Is it all just marketing hype or is there a real purpose????" }-

100% hype for unsophisticated (novice) users. The guard will stop (or should stop) anything that tries to execute. Any http scanning slows you down at least to some degree. Hundreds of posts about this is here if you run a search.

See Stephan Kurtzhals a few posts down:

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=1073294

[mvdu]

I don't remember the pages (they were rogue AV pages,) because there are so many of those pages. But I was able to install rogue AVs without it detecting the activity.

Back to the subject. AntiVir AV does ok but only with WebGuard uninstalled. I wonder why Kaspersky can't make their web guard fast while Eset can?

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "Actually that is far from the truth.. If you really want to see how good a web scanner is then look at the number of times the vendor has to rev a web page drive-by download exploit signature. If they keep revving it, then that tells you that their web scanner is not very contextual and they are writing string-scanner sigs which are very reactive and hence you will keep getting infected (if in fact you are a promiscuous surfer)" }-
Look what i quoted in post #45.
Actually, i was agreeing with yeuxbleus on how light and unobtrusive the Kaspersky web-scanner is. No more no less. I've compared it against all others, IMO it's still the best http scanner in terms of lightness and performance, better even than Aviras one which i use.

-{ Quote: "The best web scanner I am aware of is the NIS2009 Browser Protection and Intrusion Prevention web scanners." }-
I disagree here. I consider Norton products a joke in terms of malware detection. And yes, i've already tested their 2009 too.

[Honyak]

I finally dumped KAV 2009 because of the slow surfing issue, and I kept being told to un-install this and that which had worked fine with previous versions.
Man, KAV 2009 just got to be more than I needed, so I moved on.
YMMV

[poutine]

My surfing is fine again with KIS 2009 ;) Alli needed to do was reset my router and reboot and all was well, granted some webpages take a fraction longer but i am happy in the knowledge that KIS is doing its job and protecting me wherever i go.

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "I wonder why Kaspersky can't make their web guard fast while Eset can?" }-I'm not sure how to test the speed of web page scanning, but on my system, which only has 256MB memory, the pages load very quickly with no noticeable slowdowns. I even have it set at High.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "No one must install the webguard. Do a custom install without it and Avira Premium is fast as lightning." }-

Well, unless they've changed it recently, they don't install the webguard thing by default in Premium either, but that wasn't the point. :)

[Bunkhouse Buck]

-{ Quote: "Well, unless they've changed it recently, they don't install the webguard thing by default in Premium either, but that wasn't the point. :)" }-

It is installed by default and my point was/is that you can do a custom install and not install it.

[Zombini]

The recent Secunia test shows how shitty the KIS 2009 web protection is. Like I said, long before the test, KIS 2009's web protection doesn't even come close to NIS2009.

[lordpake]

Shitty? :D I guess you didn't read that thread so closely.

There's at least one good comment there, by Stefan Kurtzhals (4th post)
-{ Quote: "... the detection rate of the AV products would look ALOT better if Secunia had tested exploits that actually download/drop malware and execute it. I am pretty sure most of the HIPS/behaviour blockers are very well optimized for that ... In the end, Secunia wants to sell a product, the message of this test is accordingly." }-

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=222621

[Macstorm]

-{ Quote: "The recent Secunia test shows how shitty the KIS 2009 web protection is. Like I said, long before the test, KIS 2009's web protection doesn't even come close to NIS2009." }-
ROFL
Best joke ever.

[steve1955]

-{ Quote: "The recent Secunia test shows how shitty the KIS 2009 web protection is. Like I said, long before the test, KIS 2009's web protection doesn't even come close to NIS2009." }-

Why do I get the impression your Anti-Kav?:-Its the test that is "shitty" not Kis,sorry to burst your bubble!:-If you believe the results of tht test then you come to the conclusion there is no point in running any of the suites,thy're a waste of hd space!:-just because you seem to have an intense dislike of a product doesn't make that product "bad"(or shitty!)

[flik]

Is there a way to exclude scanning files downloaded from rapidshare; I inserted rapidshare.com* in trusted urls, but when I try to download a file from rapid, it begins after 1 minute. Sometimes it says download failed due to extended time limit (something like this, I don't speak english very well).
I like kaspersky 2009 very much, but this is a negative point. I don; care about web surfing speed, but it jst don't cooperate with my download manager.

[lodore]

what are you using to download files?

[flik]

I use internet download manager. I insert the urls, but when i click start download the queue, it doesn't start, or it starts many minutes after. It depends on the file size. This happens when I download with opera, it delays to show the download dialog

[lodore]

-{ Quote: "I use internet download manager. I insert the urls, but when i click start download the queue, it doesn't start, or it starts many minutes after. It depends on the file size. This happens when I download with opera, it delays to show the download dialog" }-
sometimes download links here take a while to show for saving files in opera but they always work.
i always use eiether opera or IE7 for downloading files. genrally opera since it is a decent download manager.

[The Hammer]

I know it's off topic but how is resource usage these days?

[dawgg]

Depends on the system and other running programs etc, but I've normally got 30-33k in total for KIS2009 (8.0.0.454)

[zfactor]

i do notice now trying nis2009 it does allow for faster download sppeds for me than kaspersky did. i have a fios 20mb connection and kis2009 def seemed to limit speeds more than nis2009 is right now.. but kis2009 was def not what i would call slow in any way for anything...

[mvdu]

KIS is quite slow on my system, zfactor. Not sure why we are seeing such a difference.