|
Posted by Damian on October 18, 2006, 6:48 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Marek Kalisz wrote:
> Thanks for recommendation. Tried it. Full scan: 4 hrs vs. G Data 22+
> hours. Had a problem with blocked internet traffic when installed
> trial. Contacted this company, received an answer with fix in 2
> minutes. You were right - super (don't they sleep...?). I'm
> switching...
I've been using it for several years now and I couldn't be happier, nothing
has gotten on my machine with it. Now if they would make a Firewall
program... (In the mean time, I'll stick with Norton Personal Firewall; it
works great and is really easy to set up. Hate Norton's AV so I don't use
their Internet Security suite.)
|
|
Posted by Marek Kalisz on October 18, 2006, 11:20 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
After a quick exchange of information with them last night I decided to buy
it and install. This morning they send me another answer: very soon they
are issuing a new version with much improved rootkit malware security.
Firewall? I'm using for years already Zone Alarm. It is good, effective -
and not expensive. Anyway, thanks one more time for directing me to NOD.
Cheers.
Peace.
Marek Kalisz
> Marek Kalisz wrote:
>> Thanks for recommendation. Tried it. Full scan: 4 hrs vs. G Data 22+
>> hours. Had a problem with blocked internet traffic when installed
>> trial. Contacted this company, received an answer with fix in 2
>> minutes. You were right - super (don't they sleep...?). I'm
>> switching...
>
> I've been using it for several years now and I couldn't be happier,
> nothing has gotten on my machine with it. Now if they would make a
> Firewall program... (In the mean time, I'll stick with Norton Personal
> Firewall; it works great and is really easy to set up. Hate Norton's AV so
> I don't use their Internet Security suite.)
>
>
|
|
Posted by Art on October 14, 2006, 5:48 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>Art:
>Apart from the 'pros', I dug up a few 'cons' and would be grateful if you
>would comment on these, please:-
>
>"Active Virus Shield represents a limited-functionality edition of Kaspersky
>Anti-Virus 6.0 with the following restrictions:
>
>1) Web Anti-Virus is disabled.
>
>2) Quarantine is disabled.
>
>3) Proactive Defence has been removed. This is a feature which scans all
>process requests and alerts you of them, asking for your permission to
>allow them or not. This is becoming the norm with security software. KAV6
>has it, Spyware Terminator has it. I think it is the future of security
>software. It is too bad they removed it.
>
>4) Advanced settings of Anti-Virus package can not be changed.
>
>5) Rescue Disk component is disabled."
That's partially what I meant by "plain vanilla" :) AVS is even
"plainer than plain" since it's a reduced capability/feature
KAV rather than KIS. KIS is more of a full blown modern day
av suite geared to "protect" average users who might not
even have a firewall or external NAT router/fw (for example).
I agree with you that expanded capabilites such as KAV's
proactive defense module are becoming the norm ... and
they are becoming increasingly desirable for average
users. I've told myself that the time might come when
I actually might want such a feature myself. But "plainer
than plain vanilla" still serves me well. I just use av
to scan critical areas once in awhile. IMO, AVS is the
best free av to have come along in years. It's ideal
for those who practice "safe hex", and who take personal
control and responsibility for their malware protection.
It has plenty of flexibility and many options for such
users. I particularly like the fact that I can completly
"shove it out of the way" and not have it underfoot
interfering with my activities. When I enable it, it
automatically updates, but I have the realtime capability
disabled. So after it updates, I can use it as I please
as a on-demand scanner with many scan options available.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
|
|
Posted by Ron Lopshire on October 14, 2006, 9:06 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Art:
> Apart from the 'pros', I dug up a few 'cons' and would be grateful if you
> would comment on these, please:-
>
> "Active Virus Shield represents a limited-functionality edition of Kaspersky
> Anti-Virus 6.0 with the following restrictions:
>
> 1) Web Anti-Virus is disabled.
>
> 2) Quarantine is disabled.
>
> 3) Proactive Defence has been removed. This is a feature which scans all
> process requests and alerts you of them, asking for your permission to
> allow them or not. This is becoming the norm with security software. KAV6
> has it, Spyware Terminator has it. I think it is the future of security
> software. It is too bad they removed it.
>
> 4) Advanced settings of Anti-Virus package can not be changed.
>
> 5) Rescue Disk component is disabled."
Kayman,
Here is a list of features available in KAV 6, but not AVS. Read
carefully, it is not at all clear which applies to which. This is true
of many KL documents, things lost in the translation (from Russian).
(http://www.kaspersky.com/faq?qid=194134869)
1) There are conflicting reports floating around about the Mail-AV
component of AVS. Some contend that Mail-AV is not included with AVS,
but I am not sure that that is true. Web-AV (port 80) is not
available, but IIUC, AVS includes Mail-AV (ports 110, 43).
(http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9915)
Suffice it to say that most people in the know consider scanning
incoming and/or outgoing email to be a waste of time. In the case of
AVS/KAV 6, the File-AV module is the last line of defense anyway.
2) You can add to your list that the AVS GUI has no capability for
dealing with the Trusted Zone. Actions and objects that are flagged as
suspicious can be added (to be ignored forever) but not removed.
3) Overall, I have to agree with Art. If you can live with a something
that AOL has had its hands on, I don't know that there is a better AV
solution than AVS. Certainly not for the price. Most of the extra
stuff in KAV 6 is not a replacement for safe hex, and with safe hex do
you really need it anyway?
That said, it will be interesting to see what happens with AOL's
software. Currently AOL 9.0 Security Edition ships with McAfee AV and
PFW, but I haven't seen anything about AOL bundling AVS with future
releases of their software. After all, KL did this to gain exposure in
the US market.
Ron :)
|
|
Posted by Art on October 14, 2006, 11:44 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
>1) There are conflicting reports floating around about the Mail-AV
>component of AVS. Some contend that Mail-AV is not included with AVS,
>but I am not sure that that is true. Web-AV (port 80) is not
>available, but IIUC, AVS includes Mail-AV (ports 110, 43).
>
> (http://www.winmatrix.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9915)
I got curious about this so I tried a couple of experiments using my
wife's computer as a email sending source with attachements. I first
tried sending eicar.com but it disappeared into a black hole. I
presume my ISP's av scanner blocked it, but I haven't yet seen
a NAV (they use Norton I think) bounce report on her PC. So far
it's in a black hole, anyway :)
So I had a idea. I doubted that NAV has detection for a old embedded
Trojan thing I had played with years ago. I have a old Word Doc
Trojanized with a embedded Trojan that will unconditionally erase
everything that's on a disk in drive A: when a user clicks on a icon
in the Word Doc. I knew that Kaspersky alerts, so I sent it from
her machine as SPOOF.DOC (not zipped). I enabled the modules
in AVS so that realtime protection was active.
Sure enough, the doc passed through my ISP's email scanner and
AVS popped up a alert as soon as I tried to download email off
the server. KAV (AVS) names the Trojan Trojan.BAT.FormatA.d
It couldn't clean it so I let it delete the attackment to keep it
happy, and so I wouldn't be forever nagged about the fact that I
failed to let it act on the attackment :)
I'm not sure though exactly what this proves, other than the
fact that AVS does intercept email attackments it knows
about. It didn't seem that I could separate file scanning
from email scanning ... both modules got enabled when I
enabled email scanning. I don't know at what level the
interception was made ... only that it was intercepted.
BTW, this was done using my usual POP3 service and
Mozilla Thunderbird as the email app.
>Suffice it to say that most people in the know consider scanning
>incoming and/or outgoing email to be a waste of time. In the case of
>AVS/KAV 6, the File-AV module is the last line of defense anyway.
If people would just use decent email apps that don't allow them
to Run attackements .... and if they followed the simple rule of
deleting all unsolicited attackments ... there would be no need.
But not all machines are used by people that follow the simplist
of rules, unfortunately. So it probably helps the overall situation
to make email scanning available.
>3) Overall, I have to agree with Art. If you can live with a something
>that AOL has had its hands on, I don't know that there is a better AV
>solution than AVS. Certainly not for the price. Most of the extra
>stuff in KAV 6 is not a replacement for safe hex, and with safe hex do
>you really need it anyway?
I do think AVS coupled with a external NAT router/fw should be quite
adequate for users who know enough to use alternate browsers
primarily, and set up IE properly for use only on trusworthy web sites
with the Internet Zone jammed on max security. Doing without Java
is a good idea as well if you don't need it for anything.
Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Protect your PC 2006 :) | December 21, 2005, 1:41 pm |
| NAV 2006 Annoyance #2 | March 2, 2006, 7:39 pm |
| removing NIS 2006 | January 18, 2007, 8:37 am |
| NAV 2006 Annoyance #1 (#2 will follow) | March 2, 2006, 7:35 pm |
| Turning Off the NAV 2006 Scan` | March 6, 2006, 10:53 pm |
| Norton Internet Security 2006 | January 7, 2006, 7:38 am |
| Norton System Works 2006 Help | January 22, 2006, 8:57 am |
| Unable to instal McAfee Security Suite 2006 on ME | February 16, 2007, 2:48 pm |
| best antivirus | December 20, 2005, 11:06 am |
| Modern antivirus for NT3.51? | August 28, 2005, 9:14 am |
|
XML site map