Kasperski AVS

[little johnny]

I have some info on an AV program from Kaspersky. Does anyone here know
anything about it? Is it reliable or is there something better out there.
I have always used Norton but we just got a new puter and would like to get
away from all the extra Norton has.

Thanks

--

[nemo outis]

In article <vhldt5q70e1h67@corp.supernews.com>, "little johnny" <missb93@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have some info on an AV program from Kaspersky. Does anyone here know
>anything about it? Is it reliable or is there something better out there.
>I have always used Norton but we just got a new puter and would like to get
>away from all the extra Norton has.
>
>Thanks
>

I use Kapersky Anti-Virus Pro - it's great. Every bit as
effective as Norton or other big-name AV software - better, in
fact, IMHO. Daily updates, too.

I much prefer it to Norton (Norton works well but puts down
"roots" too deep into the OS to suit my taste).

However, Kaspersky is slightly geeky in terms of its interface,
in that it allows you lots of low-level control if you want that.
Reviews by those such as PC Mag invariably show KVP as at or very
near the top in perforrmance, but they usually rank idiotware
higher overall because ordinary users don't wish to understand or
think about what they're doing. I like fine-grained control -
I'm a geek and proud of it :-)

Regards,

PS KVP vs Norton, is like Kerio vs Zonealarm. If you want
pretty good out-of-the-box and mindless, you'll prefer Norton &
Zonealarm; if you want hands-on control and configurability,
you'll prefer KVP & Kerio.

PPS One thing I REALLY, REALLY like about Kaspersky is that
it isn't US-based; no rolling over for Ashcroft and letting
Carnivore and similar government spyware slide on by, as Norton
(and Mcafee) have said they will.

[null@zilch.com]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:36:54 -0500, "little johnny"
<missb93@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have some info on an AV program from Kaspersky. Does anyone here know
>anything about it? Is it reliable or is there something better out there.
>I have always used Norton but we just got a new puter and would like to get
>away from all the extra Norton has.

KAV has long had one of the best scan engines. It is top notch for
detecting a wide variety of malware including Trojans. I even d/l
KAV's special data bases which enable detection of stuff which doesn't
fall cleanly into any category ... dialers, keyloggers, etc. which are
controversial and not clearly either spyware or Trojans.

The priice you pay may be a noticeable performance hit when using
KAV's realtime monitor, especially if it's not in its "smart" mode.
But since you say the PC is new, it may have sufficient resources that
you won't see any sluggishness in any event.


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sun, 20 Jul 2003 10:36:54 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "little
johnny" <missb93@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have some info on an AV program from Kaspersky. Does anyone here know
> anything about it? Is it reliable or is there something better out
> there.
[snip]

It has a fairly decent rep for catching new and/or obscure virii that some
of the others occasionally miss; but it's also a resource hog that has been
known to destabilize some of the systems its running on (mostly, but not
exclusively, older/slower systems).

There was also a major "falling out" between the (Swiss) developer and the
(U.S.) distributor a few years back, which eventually resulted in several
VERY different products being offered under the same/similar names by the
various entites. IIRC (it's been awhile), the U.S.-sourced versions were
pure crap in several ways. Not sure if they're even still around.

> I have always used Norton but we just got a new puter and would like to
> get away from all the extra Norton has.
>
[snip]

While Symantec is sort'a on my s__t-list now after dipping their toe into
the "invasive DRM" arena, it *is* possible to install at least some versions
of NAV in a "safe and stable" manner. The key thing to remember is that the
scanning engine itself has not changed in several years; so you DO NOT need
the "latest and greatest" marketing-driven "version update" to get full
protection; you just need the current definitions files, which remain freely
downloadable from
<http://www.symantec.com/avcenter/download/pages/US-N95.html> (if/when that
URL goes away, so does NAV, AFAIAC).

So the upshot here is, since you apparently already own a semi-recent copy
of NAV (anything from v5.0 up will do; tho' v6.x and later have a couple of
features which make them mildly preferable), you can safely use that on the
new box _provided_that_ you install it correctly -- and you'd still not be
putting money into Symantec's pocket.

OTOH, if you (quite understandably) still want a non-Symantec alternative,
you might want to check out <http://www.avast.com/>. I've not (yet) used
it; but I've heard good things from folks whose judgement is generally
pretty good.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -