Kaspersky web antivirus

I need your opinions friends about kaspersky webantivirus,if I set to LOW would I be in danger?I´m asking cause it seems webantivirus slows down my browsing speed.
Thanks

 

hello,
I find the high setting to be the best and doesnt seem to slow me down.
dont ask me why the high setting doesnt slow me down but the normal setting can.
also if you have any other questions post at the kaspersky fourm
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showforum=13
lodore

 

It doesnt seem to slow down my browsing either.

anyways if u set to the Low setting it would provide less protection, but Kaspersky will still keep you protected. the File AV is the important module.

 

Could that be because the "limit fragment buffering time" is not ticked under the high setting?

 

Web Anti-Virus on the highest setting does not slow me down either.

 

select that "streaming scan" option and there won't be any slow-downs in your surfing speeds........

 

I just started using KIS 6 again a few days ago, and I have Web Antivirus set to high also. It doesn't slow things down here either. I decided to give it a try after someone brought it up in the Kaspersky forum.

 

It's correct that the highest setting won't give you real slow down. But it will give you the right protection.
I always test in on spy sites like seriall.com , if you got the settings on medium or high it won't allow you to download anything. It will block things on the lowest setting but on high it will block things faster.

 

Thanks for the quick response,I checked streaming scan option and now everything is back to normal

 

What does it mean BTW "streaming scan option"?

 

put into simple terms, Streaming scan uses less signatures and it scans as the file downloads.

in contrast, Buffering scans waits til the file finishes downloading and it uses the full set of signatures.

 

no, it doesn't wait, it stores chunks of the file in a buffer, scans them and then makes them available to the user.
high might not slow the speed down because the buffer isn't limited so there's no fragmentation of that file, bu i don't know how the buffer handles very large files.

 

Why do you bother using it? You don't need it. Only ignorant folks who don't understand how AV's work use something like that. I hated it as it cut my internet speed by more than ONE HALF. I would have been absolutely crazy to have used it and Kaspersky should never have developed it as it is purely a marketing hype tool...it provides no more or better protection than KAV by itself. I think a lot less of both NOD32 and KAV because they stooped so low to come up with something worthless like this. It is one reason I now use avira free and it is so much better an AV because it is nice and simple, does what AV is intended to do and no more. Avira doesn't even have an email scanner...what a wonderful relief...finally an AV that respects users and expects them to understand how an AV works as an email scanner is also not needed anymore than a web HTTP scanner.

 

If I understand it corectly the there seems no difference between Buffering scan( Web antivirus) and File Antivirus. True?

 

I wonder avast has so many scaners and I don,t see much issues with it. Seems very nice work by them.

 

yes there is.
file av scans files on the disk while web av scans http streams on certain ports.

 

Here we go again with your usual rants against NOD32 and KAV just because they include an e-mail and web scanner...quite frankly, it's getting old! Here's a news flash: Just because you've experience so many problems with those two AV's doesn't mean the rest of us do. In fact, most users of either AV don't experience nearly the same problems you do. I guess most of us are "ignorant" for getting the AV's to work right. I say, if a feature doesn't affect performance then by all means use it.

Edit: Punctuation and some additons

 

http scanners can block browser exploits. even if the on access scanner detects the exploit it cant stop it. that was part of a quote from an AV expert
lodore

 

Maybe it was a misquote rather than a qote.

Of course the file scanner can intercept exploits. With KAV 5 it had to 'cos there was no Web scanner - it just picks them out of your TIFs. It's only in very particular circumstances that the web scanner would give better protection (ie when something can get into memory before being written to HD; but this is not usually the case).

 

So that people understand - this is only true of the PersonalEdition Classic version.

Both the PersonalEdition Premium and Premium Security Suite have email scanners so it would appear Avira realises there is a value to using them in those versions. The free version is just a stripped down version. Much like AOL's AVS is a stripped down version of KAV.