Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Baz_kasp, Sep 19, 2009.
Some AVs have HIPS. But thankfully not all.
Uh? That's a strange thing to say. You don't like IPS?
Um, no? Are we supposed to?
I agree. It does look like Kaspersky is having a tough time:
OMG , is this real ?
Now that's funny.
Well, in your case you probably don't like them because MSE doesn't have any
IPS can be very useful. Good IPS even protect a user from unpatched vulnerability in the OS, so that even if the patch isn't available yet, the exploit will be blocked by the IPS.
On the other side of the spectrum, IPS can also be very chatty, which is annoying to no end. But many are completely silent now unless something "evil" happens.
Well aren't you a funny guy? You clearly don't know much about how HIPS works, ~Personal comment removed~
This thread isn't about hips. It's about the AV-Comparatives test. Let's stay on topic and keep the comments civil.
the screen behind him says "now 40% faster".....
A very good result for avast.
In my opinion this blog entrie actually says that from all free AVs that were tested , their product (Avast) scored #1 . However , the way the article/blog entrie is written actually silently reminds that "Norton is the best" overall winner . See why:
Having said that Norton is the detection winner (single engine products) and that its scanning speed is slightly lower than Avast's + they had only 13 FPs , I think they are making Symantec a good present
ummm wer did u get the idea they had the best detection out of the single engine products? u realize Avira got a much higher detection rate...
Avira and Gdata scored the best,not Norton...
I prefer to have false positives than virus who bypass my antivirus.
I suspect the claim is based on the final award instead of the % of each av.
Sure , I do But based on "The only single engine A+ rated product with a higher detection than us was Norton"
Avast's blog entrie doesn't care about AVIRA because of the FP and because it didn't get Advanced+
I'm not surprised at all with the results.
Don't overlook the fact that they have the WORST Customer Service Dept. in the Software industry. My personal experience is that I would not use this product again if I got it for a $1.
But give them credit. They are reinventing themselves. As the "old" Symantec. Bloated, buggy software, horrid upgrade policy and slow update servers. I had to remove it from ALL our machines.
umm u said nothing about their ranking, u said the detection winner, plz try to be clear. quote below.
Take in mind that is written in the CEO corner by Vincent Steckler.
Maybe he forgot that he didn't work anymore for Symantec or he is making some adulation .
Ah, "Old Habits Die Hard".
What does that have to do with these test results?
If you had any problems with customer support did you visit the support forum? What country support did you contact?
HIPS (or 'IPS') has its place as a last resort, e.g. as an augmentation component of a firewall, but no, I don't like the implementation of HIPS as a front-line defense. It's an admission of failure on he part of the developers.
If I wanted to have to decide what is or isn't allowed every time something "new" tries to run, I wouldn't have bothered installing resident software to do it for me!
Same here! Kaspersky was kind of overrated in my opinion; I've had it and never want to use it again. I think Bitdefender did well in the tests that proves once again they are good at detection and removal.
I prefer a combination of these, say PCTools firewall+sandboxie+NAV 2010, and say perhaps lowering the usage of system resources by closing many unnecessary services.
ROFL! Once in Norton, always with Norton!