So what does the KIS HIPS actually protect against in Vista?

[mvdu]

As someone using KIS 2009, I am interested, and so are others here.

[jad123]

Funny - not one reply.

I guess nobody has a clue what the KIS HIPS protects against. I am quite bothered by this.......???

[Ed_H]

Hopefully Baz will help us out here.

[Sjoeii]

What do you mean with that question? It will protect you like other HIPS apps

[Jin K]

its work will!! and its have successfully block my sample of antivirus2009 on windows vista home

[Kayracc]

kaspersky has admitted the HIPS from there is 'limited' with vista, but won't say much more

[Technic]

Thats a good and relevant question. Any Kaspersky fanboys around? :P

[Baz_kasp]

My replies are delayed curtosey of Dell delaying my (vista) laptop order (again) by two months total. Can't give you worked examples until it arrives :|

[subset]

Hi,

just a comparison of the program rights, XP vs Vista, KIS 8.0.0.454.

203334

Cheers

[fce]

wow!

so KIS9 is more efficient if you're using XP.

[denniz]

-{ Quote: "wow!

so KIS9 is more efficient if you're using XP." }-

Or Vista is just much safer then XP, so you don't need the XP specific features... ;)

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Or Vista is just much safer then XP, so you don't need the XP specific features... ;)" }-
Well in my tests, I haven't found the same.
KIS 2009 on vista fails keylogger tests and other HIPS tests .

But on XP, they pass (provided they are unsigned).

[mvdu]

-{ Quote: "What do you mean with that question? It will protect you like other HIPS apps" }-

subset gave a good comparison of the features - that helped me out.

[Fajo]

-{ Quote: "Or Vista is just much safer then XP, so you don't need the XP specific features... ;)" }-

All in all that is a Myth. Some FEATURES in vista make it a little safer but if you are 90% of the pop that turns those off. Its really no safer then XP.. Try 64bit now that is a bit safer. :P


The main reason you don't have those features in Vista is because Microsoft said no. Kaspersky wants the "Microsoft Vista APPROVED" logo instead of Functional software. :blink:

[lordpake]

-{ Quote: "The main reason you don't have those features in Vista is because Microsoft said no. Kaspersky wants the "Microsoft Vista APPROVED" logo instead of Functional software. :blink:" }-
Here's one for you :)

Is it better to have compliant software, or some hacked-together POS that no one outside the originating company really knows what it does/how it works and thus has a real chance of creating incompatibilites far and wide?

Since I'd like to continue using multiple security applications in same system, I think I prefer the compliance model :)

[vijayind]

-{ Quote: "Here's one for you :)

Is it better to have compliant software, or some hacked-together POS that no one outside the originating company really knows what it does/how it works and thus has a real chance of creating incompatibilites far and wide?

Since I'd like to continue using multiple security applications in same system, I think I prefer the compliance model :)" }-
Here is my view for you ...

Shouldn't a respectable company, advertise clearly that its Vista product is minimalistic and many features/functionality advertised is only present on XP ?

Maybe then it can state that these limitations exist due to inability to be compliant.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "
Is it better to have compliant software, or some hacked-together POS that no one outside the originating company really knows what it does/how it works and thus has a real chance of creating incompatibilites far and wide?

Since I'd like to continue using multiple security applications in same system, I think I prefer the compliance model :)" }-

MS-logoed drivers have rendered systems unbootable quite a couple of times. "Vista Capable" logo is plain scam. For me, "Vista Ready" logo or similar gimmick honestly means nothing but a marketing blurb.

The real trouble starts when you start to dictate third-party vendors what then may and must not do, especially given the MS monopoly. The above quoted view is rather shortsighted, plus there's no compliance model for multiple third-party security apps at all, all this stuff deals with what vendors are allowed to use to make their software run on Windows. You can install two apps "certified" by MS and crash your system perfectly fine because of conflicts.

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "The real trouble starts when you start to dictate third-party vendors what then may and must not do, especially given the MS monopoly. The above quoted view is rather shortsighted, plus there's no compliance model for multiple third-party security apps at all, all this stuff deals with what vendors are allowed to use to make their software run on Windows. You can install two apps "certified" by MS and crash your system perfectly fine because of conflicts." }-
Once again you're doing an excellent job of not making sense.

Certification means that the certified product works with Microsoft's products, not with every single other third-party product out there. How is it possible for any company, Microsoft or not, to ensure the latter anyway?

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "Once again you're doing an excellent job of not making sense.

Certification means that the certified product works with Microsoft's products, not with every single other third-party product out there. How is it possible for any company, Microsoft or not, to ensure the latter anyway?" }-

Keep your pointless trolling for yourself, sir. Maybe if you actually read in context instead of jumping in with intent to start your personal agenda, you'd notice what I've been responding to, namely:

-{ Quote: "
Is it better to have compliant software, or some hacked-together POS that no one outside the originating company really knows what it does/how it works and thus has a real chance of creating incompatibilites far and wide?

Since I'd like to continue using multiple security applications in same system, I think I prefer the compliance model
" }-

If you had read the above, you could have spared yourself a completely pointless argument about something I've not claimed at all, huh? :thumbd:

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "Keep your pointless trolling for yourself, sir. Maybe if you actually read in context instead of jumping in with intent to start your personal agenda" }-
I love how everyone who points out the fallacies in your illogical claims must be a "troll" or have some sort of "agenda" against you. I'm simply disagreeing with your claims because they're plain wrong.

-{ Quote: "
If you had read the above, you could have spared yourself a completely pointless argument about something I've not claimed at all, huh? :thumbd:" }-
I've quoted word for word what you claimed, and it's still there for all to see, so it's kind of silly to go into denial mode now.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "I've quoted word for word what you claimed, and it's still there for all to see, so it's kind of silly to go into denial mode now." }-

Ugh... I'm saying the same thing as you've said (the certification doesn't ensure compatibility with anything but MS stuff so the whole reasoning in this lordpake's post I've quoted (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1330508&postcount=15) is flawed), what kind of denial mode are you talking about here? IOW, you've twisted my words, completely omitting the entire context of my reply - clearly in order to start your off-topic personal agenda. And apparently you didn't have enough and feel the urge to continue your trolling.

:gack: :thumbd:

[saberfox]

-{ Quote: "Ugh... I'm saying the same thing as you've said (the certification doesn't ensure compatibility with anything but MS stuff so the whole reasoning in this lordpake's post I've quoted (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=1330508&postcount=15) is flawed), what kind of denial mode are you talking about here? IOW, you've twisted my words, completely omitting the entire context of my reply - clearly in order to start your off-topic personal agenda. And apparently you didn't have enough and feel the urge to continue your trolling." }-
Of course certification doesn't ensure compatibility. I can't see where lordpake ever claimed that it does, either. What certification does do, on the other hand, is to HELP ensure compatibility. When you know that third-party products are only able to interact with the OS in a limited way, then it helps in designing your own product to minimize the risk of incompatibilities. Or in the case that one does occur, it simplifies the process of hunting down the source - compare that with the old scenario where programs are allowed to interact with the OS in virtually any way they want.

lordpake's reasoning that he prefers certification because he uses multiple security products is entirely legitimate and accurate. Your accusing other people of agendas and trolling to cover your own mistakes, on the other hand, is not.

[lordpake]

-{ Quote: "Of course certification doesn't ensure compatibility. I can't see where lordpake ever claimed that it does, either. What certification does do, on the other hand, is to HELP ensure compatibility. When you know that third-party products are only able to interact with the OS in a limited way, then it helps in designing your own product to minimize the risk of incompatibilities. Or in the case that one does occur, it simplifies the process of hunting down the source - compare that with the old scenario where programs are allowed to interact with the OS in virtually any way they want.

lordpake's reasoning that he prefers certification because he uses multiple security products is entirely legitimate and accurate..." }-

Very nicely put. I couldn't have said it better myself. :thumb:

[TonyW]

If I ever move to a Vista system, I will still use KIS. Seeing slightly less HIPS functionality because of Microsoft related API issues isn't gonna deter me. I believe I'll still feel protected. Besides that, I use my noggin most of the time. ;)

[denniz]

-{ Quote: "If I ever move to a Vista system, I will still use KIS. Seeing slightly less HIPS functionality because of Microsoft related API issues isn't gonna deter me. I believe I'll still feel protected. Besides that, I use my noggin most of the time. ;)" }-

If you are who I think you are.... and you are using KIS.... then you're not using something I thought you would use.... hmm that makes one think....

[TonyW]

-{ Quote: "If you are who I think you are.... and you are using KIS.... then you're not using something I thought you would use.... hmm that makes one think...." }-Not quite sure what you mean here, but I presume you're referring to the use of a competing product. I've been using Kaspersky AV protection since autumn 2004 although I have tried and tested a number of other products before and since then. Prior to 2004, I used Trend Micro's PC-Cillin for many years.

[CountryGuy]

If you're happy with your current product and want to go to Vista 64, missing functionality such as this should not be a deterrent. The reason things are missing is that the OS is more secure and doesn't permit the AV to have the hooks it needs for the other types of monitoring; At the same time, malware can't use them either.

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "As someone using KIS 2009, I am interested, and so are others here." }-
A bit on it here if you haven't seen it yet:

http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=83746&pid=752720&st=0&#entry752720