Does Escan use kaspersky's engine?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by MalwareDie, Dec 22, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    I heard that it does use KAV's engine and that it has a very agressive scanner. Can anyone tell me more?
     
  2. metallicakid15

    metallicakid15 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2005
    Posts:
    454
    yes in fact it does
     
  3. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Yes it uses KAV engine, yes it is an aggressive scanner, and yes it is somewhat resource heavy. ;)
     
  4. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Makes me think that will score higher than kaspersky but have many fals positives
     
  5. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    only one company use the kaspersky technology properly, and this is f-secure.

    all the others, i forget about, as i have tried them and found them poor in performance.
     
  6. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    Steganos uses kaspersky technology properly and kaspersky uses the technlogy properly to:D
    f-secure is still bloated IMO.
    lodore
     
  7. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i dont think its bloated at all, not on my machine.

    sure boot up time takes longer, but after that... its fantastic.

    and steganos?... erm no thanks :)
     
  8. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    whats wrong with Steganos?
    The security suite from steganos is kaspersky internet secuirty 6.0 without the antispam and a steganos skin but cheaper than kis6.0

    why does f-secure need 13 processes?
    kaspersky uses 2 for the whole suite.
    f-secure even uses a separate process for the parental control with i didnt give an option to not install it during the install process. all that i know is that kis6.0 only uses two processes and it loads up faster and my computer is alot more responsive after i installed it.
    also i got unlucky at the normally uninstall since it said it uninstalled it two seconds then asked me to reboot so i rebooted and it loaded up after the reboot. so i had to use there uninstaller tool.
    lodore
     
  9. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    steganos is a company i do not trust, one of their softwares.... crashed my computer, and would never try them again, even if it is kaspersky without those modules you mentioned.

    why does it matter how many processes a software uses, f-secure uses about 50mb ram while kaspersky is 12mb or so, big deal?

    how come f-secure feels alot more secure than kaspersky?
    how come f-secure picks up on things kaspersky does not (in my experience) , yes.. those added modules what take up the ram and processes is the answer.

    if you care about 40mb of ram or the processes it uses or whatever, sure.. choose kaspersky, but f-secure is better in my opinion for 'security' and always has been,

    f-secure is a fortress, while kaspersky are the people guarding the fortress

    the thing that makes it a fortress is the added engines, and i know you will ask, other than deepguard, what are the others for?... f-secure wouldnt put them in, if they didnt do anything, would they?

    oh and f-secure is cheaper :) ... and if you own 3 pcs, its a whole box of money cheaper. lol

    ive never been a complete lover of kaspersky, although there engine is great, their antihacker has caused me problems in the suite, and also this proactive defence pops up all the time with 'invaders' even though nothing is wrong.

    im not gonna say use this, use that, dont use this or whatever.. just stating why i prefer f-secure and always have done over kaspersky, and why in past years, ive paid for a few licences with f-secure while none with kaspersky.
     
  10. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    i used to like f-secure intill my pc got old and i noticed how much resource it used. it uses ad aware engine which as you know is now rubbish.
    i had to put f-secure deep guard on ask me on all events so it didnt block my sound card driver. it blocked the sound card driver once and it was a pain to get it to install because of it.
    my recommendation is to set it to ask you on all events.
    deep guard is quite good but blocks creative sound card drivers.
    I think it should have a white list so it dont block known safe drivers.
    ad aware engine is crap now so they should of got rid of it.
    f-secure tryed to make it so its really secure but this leads to conflicts with other programs.
    you cant run any other Real time protection next to it be;ive me ive tryed and it just slows it down even more and can sometimes cause blue screens.
    at least with kaspersky and nod32 and others i can choose what other apps i want next to it.
    if you tell f-secure that an app dont work along side f-secure they tell you to uninstall it and f-secure is all you need which is crap they should help fix the incompatibility.
    people always blame bitdefender for not being compatible with other apps and the support saying uninstall it f-secure is worse with compatibility.

    you can get the same or better secuirty using kaspersky 6 and s a few other apps along side it and be lighter than f-secure in total.
    with separate apps you can have all the options, e.g. separate antispyware apps have there own options but with f-secure they dont give you those options same with bullguard you dont get all the options of the outpost firewall and bitdefender virus engine.
    with f-secure you dont get many options i dont think you can even tell it to deal with malware automatically.
    im going on personal experience. the 2005 version was good but back then my pc was brand new and i didnt know it used 20 processes.
    the only good engines in f-secure are avp and avp extended and Norman sandbox but even that blocks known safe creative drivers on default settings. if you look in the tests at av-comparatives the heuristic tests you will notice f-secure and kaspersky get same percentage, which means the f-secure heristics are useless and dont even give 1 percent more so that is one engine that can go. the ad a ware engine doesnt give any advantage in the pup's test both kaspersky and f-secure 96percent. so they should throw ad aware engine out the window as well.
    which means you got deepguard which flags innocent drivers as dangerous. and avp and avp extended.
    which means in the end its the same as kaspersky and pdm.
    lodore
    lodore
     
    Last edited: Dec 24, 2006
  11. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    yeah, wouldnt recommend too much on really old machines, but for todays machines i see no problems with it, they have improved the ad-aware engine for the 2007 version, coding it in with the other engines for a seamless protection, yes you should set deepguard to warn all events, and it didnt pick up on my own creative sound driver. i wouldnt recommend running any other real-time protection with it, nor with kaspersky IS would i recommend this, i dont believe in throwing wood onto the already over-heaten fire.

    it doesnt need another real-time running, as you dont need it, also... f-secure scored well in the pup test on av comparatives, and ive had no problems with its detection that ive personally tested it on.
     
  12. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    i had no problem with the detection with f-secure either i was just saying that the detection was the same percentage as kaspersky which means the ad aware engine is useless.
    i still think they could just have avp with extended databases and deepguard and thats it no more no less and that would probaly at least half the number of processes.
    lodore
     
  13. pipester

    pipester Guest

    Why would anyone need additional security applications if they run a security suite like KIS 6 or F-Secure, are they not enough protection ?
     
  14. C.S.J

    C.S.J Massive Poster

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Posts:
    5,029
    Location:
    this forum is biased!
    i think they are by farrrrrrr enough, but some people dont, the paranoid ones. :D

    all i use is a router and dr.web, and i feel safe, no need to clog up my machine with all these other real-time protections and HIPS and all that junk.
     
  15. MalwareDie

    MalwareDie Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    500
    Ya I agree the ad-aware engine is just crap that does nothing. Same with spybot search and destroy. they pick up nothing and the only thing useful of spybot is its many tools. F-Secure really needs to dump something liek ad-aware then it wil use less resources. I really dont c why spybot S & D and adaware are so popular they are extremely weak programs
     
  16. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,006
    ad aware was good back in its day.
    spy bot is popular because its free but the people who make it dont have the time to make the detection any better.
    lodore
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.