Kaspersky IS vs. F-Secure IS

Hello everyone,

My local reseller is offering a nice discounted price for 1-year licenses for KIS and FSIS. I like the offer, and renewals are at the usual rates of 30- to 50%.

I'm basically getting FSIS for USD 32, and KIS for USD 34. Now the question is, which is the better deal? Any help would be appreciated. I've tried KIS once and I liked it, but I've never tried FSIS. As both use the Kaspersky engine I imagine detection rates will be top-notch anyway, I wanted to know which of the two suites functions better.

Thanks for your help.

 

For our experienced users, of course KIS, much more flexiable.
FSIS did a much silent job, it is for common users.
Detection rate, FS maybe an unnoticeable higher and a little slower than kis

 

I own/used both... For me I like KIS better for a few of reasons. First, system startups are a bit slower with F-Secure IS 2007. Not terrible but, noticeably slower. Second, the F-Secure GUI also loads slower than KIS. Third, F-secure does not have as many "tweaking" options for fine-tuning. Forth, the firewall rule creation in F-secure isn't as straightforward as it is in KIS. Fifth, Kaspersky has a nice support forum. Also, I noticed that some programs would open slow with F-secure installed. I'm not sure if it has to do with Norman's sandbox...

You can get an idea of firewall rule creation for F-Secure here.

 

i would suggest kis as well......seems lighter,firewall is good and nothing needs to be said about detection-rates...

 

I'd buy KIS.
Like said Legendkiller, KIS is lighter, the firewall is one of the best around, and new heuristics is on the way, and the beta of version 7.

 

well id choose f-secure,

sure you get a slower boot up time, but f-secure DOES run more silently than kaspersky (some have said this as a negative above) and the software just 'feels more secure', hence the name.

love the fact it has deepguard, aswell as f-secures own heuristics and it all does run very well for security software.

sure it uses more ram (although not terrible) and has a slower bootup, but its security software and f-secure is the best at this

 

f-secure didnt make me feel any safer than kis6.0.
if anything kis6.0 makes me feel safer with its PDM module.
also in the event log in windows it showed alot of f-secure couldnt finish scanning file e.g. blah blah.
kis6.0 is lighter only has two processes uses around 20mb of ram.
compare that to 13 processes and over 100mb of ram....
f-secure doesnt have many options to change.
as far as i know you cant even get f-secure to deal with threats automatically only ask the user.
it seems pointless to have all those extra engines for hardly any extra detection rate.
f-secure has its HIPS deepguard and kaspersky has PDM.
it can be a bad thing if f-secure is silent since it blocked my soundcard driver without asking me first.
i think f-secure should ditch most of the engines and keep the following.
kaspersky engine,kaspersky extended bases,norman sandbox and f-secure's blacklight.
the rest of the engines are rubbish and should be scrapped.
lodore

 

yes, f-secure can silently deal with threats and a little pop up that vanishes.

in my experience, f-secure used around 50mb ram and processes mean sh1t, i never understand why 'processes' even gets mentioned.

sure, kaspersky has PDM, but invader alerts by the massive and many pop ups to users, most which state things most users dont even understand (hmm, do i allow it or deny?...erm, i just dont know)

at least when f-secure and deepguard pop up (which are not as annoying and frequent as kaspersky), it shows information including pathnames that is understandable to the user, sure it might have blocked your drivers, but you changed your setting and it fixed it right? so no problem

f-secure definatly has another options, but not as many as kaspersky.

f-secures engines work well together, detecting different things and yes it does have only a slightly better detection, but still better.
i cant see, other than a slower boot up how using f-secure would affect a user.

id recommend installing f-secure without parental control (in the installation)

 

f-secure never asked me if i wanted to install parental control or not.
it just installed it and i didnt want it installed.

i had to get deepguard to ask me on all changes to allow the soundcard driver which makes it almost as annoying with popups as SSM.
since i used it for over 2 years i think my experience with it could proof useful to the OP.
folowing about kis6.0,
for the record once you put the safe programs in trusted zone you get hardly any popups anymore.
i have to say when i used f-secure 2005 it worked flawlessly for me.
f-secure 2006 worked fine for a while but always had a red exclamation mark over the blue icon indicating automatic updates disabled which took about 20seconds to go after every logon this was fixed in the 2007 version but the problems above where all from the 2007 version.
lodore

 

all depends on your settings,

it offers to install without parental control on the FIRST SCREEN of installation i think.

sure you can name this soundcard thing as a negative, but change your settings and it was allowed so i dont see the problem here, whereas kasperskys PDM flags most things, very annoying... IE7 favourites even an INVADER!! warning warning, in red with allow deny of mumbo jumbo that most users dont know about, scaring users i think, whereas f-secure doesnt do this and when it does pop up, it states proper information and pathnames.

i think both are good, but with f-secure having deepguard which i prefer, and a more 'in the background setup' it gets my choice, plus their anti-phising is amazing, catches em all.

but i really would install without parental control.

 

i prefer kis6.0 with PDM and those popups dont come up as much as you state dont try to scare the OP or anyone else.
when you tryed it did you put the safe programs in trust zone or not?
also did you use basic or advanced protection mode for PDM?
lodore

 

default settings, with that training mode thing.

 

training mode isnt default settings as far as i know.
basic and advanced mode for PDM are different.
basic mode will give you hardly any prompts but wont have all the modules active. advanced mode means more protection but more popups until you have the safe applications added to trusted zone that need to be.
lodore

 

ok maybe i should have added the word 'and'

default settings, and that training mode thing.



still prefer f-secure, been a valid licence holder in the past, its never let me down, changed only for .. well, a change.

 

Seems to be an interesting discussion. The best thing about F-Secure is that a single license allows you to use it on 3 PCs (at least for me anyway), while Kaspersky is still just one PC...

I think I'll wait for a few more opinions before deciding. In either case, I've got a great product I think.

 

i wish kaspersky would allow me to install kis6.0 on more than one pc...
i mean cmon even norton let you install nsis2007 on three pc's...
lodore

 

isnt kaspersky just a key-file or licence number?

cant you just use it on another computer, copy the key-file if there is one, or just use the same serial, does it not work?

 

Isn't that illegal? I mean, if KIS records your IP address or MAC address when you update, and you use your keyfile on multiple PCs, then I believe you'll be busted....

 

i dont think so, if its YOUR licence and its paid for, its up to the company to make sure it doesnt work on another machine, if they try and sell it for 1pc only.

 

yes your right they would black list the license if found to be used on more than the license allows.
i just posted a message on the kaspersky forums about licenses and how most companys now allow you to install on up to three pc's
to get kis6.0 legally on two pc's for one year would cost £100!
i think they should change they policy and be more leniant.
if they allowed it to be installed on more than one pc i would install that on my new pc im building soon but as it stands i will have to buy a cheap av that i can afford for it.
lodore

 

ok, but if your behind a router at home, isnt the IP that kaspersky is logging the same for all the machines, im pretty sure they dont log the 192.168.1.100 etc., but the IP for the connection.

 

If they log the MAC address, wouldn't that be different for every PC?

Either way, I don't have a router, so I cannot do this.

 

either way, i doubt they would block a user from say 2pcs.

i think they will only blacklist the ones that are obviously circling the internet, 10,20-50-100+ users on the same licence.

 

I doubt it too, but nobody would want to take that risk....

 

Not only that but it is dishonest.
Best,
Jerry