How good/bad is Kaspersky?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Gaeko, Jun 26, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    you're wasting you time trying to talk sense to him,unless you praise DrWeb he doesn't want to know,fan boy extreme!
     
  2. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    Uhm, usually 'DrWebbers' are less fundamentalist, LOL.
    Anyway this is my last post in this thread too much FUD :(

    Fax
     
  3. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Actually, the ironic thing is comments such as that actually tend to turn this thread into that type of discussion from my vantage point.

    As for the actual thread topic, for reasons that are simply incomprehensible to me, AV's and other antimalware products tend to develop fairly polarized opinions out there in the field. The question posed may be inarticulately stated, but the questioner is not a native English speaker, so how about offering some slack?

    As for an opinion on the question raised, the good and bad of KAV/KIS reflect the same issues balanced by any of the top tier AV's. For example:
    • Even though performance has been significantly improved over the last few versions, a default install with maximal settings will typically be a bit heavy on standard class consumer machines. This is readily dealt with through configuration.
    • It was the first product to really implement a modular architecture. Undesired modules are not simply disabled, they are not installed. Occasionally this nuance is important. Personally, I do not install the web AV (this is where I tend to see the majority of performance hits that annoy me) and a couple other submodules in KIS (antibanner/antiphish).
    • Detection has been in the top tier of products for an extended period of time. A lot of the discussion here tends to revolve around inconsequential fluctuations in reported % detected levels. By inconsequential, I mean within the inherent reproducibility of the test protocol as suggested by a quick and casual meta-analysis of the data. For example, using AV-Comparatives results, a time series view from Feb 2006 - present suggests differences of the order of 2-3% in net % detected on the demand scan and ~10% on the retrospective test reflect the inherent noise level of the testing protocol. Those numbers have a bit of float depending on a lot of factors, but they tend to be enormous relative to differences which invariably seem to draw blood and vitriol in discussions here and elsewhere.
    • Pricing is decent and, as with many vendors, they understand that many home users now have multiple PC's. I'm not sure if this ethic applies across all markets, but in the North American market, the base pricing of the product is what I'd call good. I realize that for many out there, good really needs to mean free. For that population, KL is one vendor that does not provide a free (realtime monitoring) option.
    • The iSwift CHKDSK issue seems addressed. As I've pointed out endlessly, if this were an intrinsic issue, there would be a growing emergence of reported problems over time. That simply hasn't occurred. I do believe that the implementation changes made over the last couple of versions were useful in that some of the implied constraints in the use of file object ID's are now seemingly adhered to. Overall, the way KL handled this issue was abysmal, but that's water under the bridge and hopefully they've learned. All the major vendors have mishandled situations like this in the past, it seems a common issue in the industry.
    Overall, KAV/KIS is a very decent product, as are a dozen or so alternate offerings out there. It has its advocates and detractors, as do those other dozen or so competitors. In most instances the exuberant support (or faux shock at a competitors misstep) is nothing more than content-free emotional spin.

    For the record - specific products that I currently have installed on the various machines at home used by myself and family members: KAV, KIS, Dr Web, NOD32. All work as advertised. The user is arguably the weakest link for all of them. Each has their quirks, none are perfect, all are suitable for virtually any user.

    Blue
     
  4. Athletic

    Athletic Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Posts:
    93
    Another vote for ''powerfull'' KIS 2010 ,but I hate slowdowns that comes from it.....
     
  5. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,306
    Although I am one of the least knowledgeable on the forum, I think we tend to nit pick when we get into such discussions. I have not used anywhere near the number that most others here have.

    I have three that are my favorites because they run well on my two machines. Those are KIS/KAV, F-Secure, and Avast Home. I have also used Bit Defender and Norton. I have never had an infection. I have used and put Avast Home on several of my friends computers and they have never had an infection.

    I am convinced that any AV that has even fairly decent scores will do the job. The brain is the best protection.

    Regards,
    Jerry
     
  6. format_c

    format_c Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2008
    Posts:
    116
    just add extra byte after the end of trojans. it'll not affect the trojans but the most of the signatures created by KL robot. period.
    before start the flame please be sure you know the subject.
     
  7. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Europe, UE citizen
    I believe that this doesn't answer completely to the problem:

    1 iSwift and iChecker mark a file as good ( heuristic too can fail not ? )

    2 a later update has new signature that would detect that file as malware.

    What's happen, since the file was excluded from future scans ?
     
  8. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Well, I suppose one could look up precisely how these approaches are implemented and find....
    In other words, the basic premise of your question (permanent exclusion once scanned) is wrong according to KL's description. Are there details missing? Sure, but it's informative enough to deal with the points raised above.

    Learning these high level descriptive details - they're not even technical details at this level of description - is not difficult. Search engines and vendor websites can be your friends...

    Blue
     
  9. Einsturzende

    Einsturzende Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    390
    Location:
    neubauten
    here, some I found...

    proof.png

    28.6.png

    28.61.png
     
  10. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    This method applies to all signature technologies (not only adding at the end) this is why you have EMU, HEUR and GEN.
    Did I say factual evidence? o_O Post a reputable analysis that shows KAV is the weakest amongst the top antivirus engines or just shutup for G.. sake!

    Fax
    P.S. Sorry I could not resist to post... :D
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2009
  11. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2009
  12. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    yes but even if i added some extra byte to a malware i doubt if kaspersky can detected it with its heur !!

    i know a friend of mine who is not even an experts who was capable of defeating kaspersky detection by some easy reverse techniques !! and bang the big kl has been crushed :D
     
  13. fax

    fax Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2005
    Posts:
    3,899
    Location:
    localhost
    Doubt?
    Where are the facts, analysis and comparison o_O ??
    Post a reputable analysis that shows KAV is the weakest amongst the top antivirus engines or just avoid posting FUD

    Fax
    P.S. Yes... mutiple packing / crypting can avoid detection but this applies to ALL engines!!! :D
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2009
  14. Dark_Hanzo

    Dark_Hanzo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2009
    Posts:
    204
    Location:
    CA
    Hi Gaeko.

    Here's my humble opinion as an average pc user about Kaspersky :

    The good about Kaspersky:
    -Its detection/removal.
    -It's a balanced product (good av, good fw, etc.)
    -They introduce new technologies in every release.

    The bad about Kaspersky:
    -Some settings are complicated for a basic home user (i.e. firewall).
    -I remember I had a hard time to deal with the pdm module when they first introduced it in ver 6. I couldn't understand/handle all the popups, so I had to turn it off.
    -The updater slowed down my pc especially in the first boot. I believe this has been fixed in the new builds
    -Some annoying fps (that's something common in all avs anyway).

    Aside from that, Kaspersky is a top-notch product and I've been using it since ver 4.5 personal pro (combined with Kaspersky anti-hacker of course :D).
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2009
  15. blacknight

    blacknight Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2007
    Posts:
    3,085
    Location:
    Europe, UE citizen
    My basic question was: a later update has new signature that detects the file previuos escluded as malware. Well, the algorithm and his random elements can not consider that file ( i.e.: too little time passed....) So ? What for the malware detection ? In fact, when I have been used KIS, I didnt' use iSwift. .



    Thanks for the link, I'm not more a KIS user... anyway I believed the question was interesting for the forum and for his users. My concern here is not Kaspersky good or bad, but security ;)
     
  16. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    everbody seems to have a friend who knows how to get round the av product they like to slag off,somehow I doubt most of these "friends" exist,don't believe and reproduce all you read in other forums,most of it is bull!
     
  17. s23

    s23 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Posts:
    263
    Can anyone confirm about the sandbox work in x64? Kaspersky announced this officially?
     
  18. tonyf1971

    tonyf1971 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Posts:
    58

    also interested in this, has anyone tested under x64 ?
     
  19. TJP

    TJP Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2006
    Posts:
    120
    Indeed. The poster you were conversing with has been on a hate campaign since changing AV vendors. It is very sad when love turns to hate :p

    One area Kaspersky is doing OK in is proactive security: http://www.matousec.com/projects/proactive-security-challenge/results.php

    Cheers.

     
  20. Jin K

    Jin K Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2008
    Posts:
    105
    believe or not ، kaspersky was really crushed with some very basic reverse technique not a lie its a fact and i have seen it myself !!

    not a hater or something me was a kl user for years but i left them because of their now position.

    note : be happy fans i will not comment in any of kl new topics :p
     
  21. Einsturzende

    Einsturzende Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    390
    Location:
    neubauten
    eh, for some users that is all they need, ask Comodo people... develo...khm prevention, prevention, prevention... :D, if you add excellent AV, sandbox, good heuristics, fine FW, best logging I ever see.... simple there is no weak link in KIS, ok maybe sandbox is little bit "experimental" and needs fine polishing, all in all, I cant see better IS than KIS :thumb:

    I need proof... did you inform KLab about that issue?

    you asked for one .gen, I give you few... just a heur o_O :cautious:
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2009
  22. firzen771

    firzen771 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Posts:
    4,815
    Location:
    Canada
    when it coms to IS, i have to agree, KIS is the most overall coverage and protected one, but i never get IS, i combine multiple products which is why i dont choose kaspersky.
     
  23. Einsturzende

    Einsturzende Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2008
    Posts:
    390
    Location:
    neubauten
    well, my vote goes to integrated protection (wherever is possible) and fine understanding between components rather than having many soft. which after every upgrade needs fine tuning component disabling and other voodoo tricks to functions properly together.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2009
  24. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,166
    Location:
    PA
    And other AVs are not affected by the technique?

    KIS seems promising, but I'm holding off until they fix those memory leaks/firefox stickiness. It does not run so smoothly on my computer.
     
  25. steve1955

    steve1955 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Posts:
    1,384
    Location:
    Sunny(in my dreams)Manchester,England
    If you posted something that was true and useful then there would be no probs at all but you just post anything you can think of to try to slag kaspersky(and I do mean anything!):-I just wonder what your motive is
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.