Re: Why Kaspersky?
From: Hairy One Kenobi (abuse_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: 08/30/05
- Next message: Hairy One Kenobi: "Re: Recent PnP worm writers caught..."
- Previous message: Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor: "REVIEW: "Spam Kings", Brian McWilliams"
- In reply to: nemo_outis: "Why Kaspersky?"
- Next in thread: Jim Watt: "Re: Why Kaspersky?"
- Reply:(deleted message) Jim Watt: "Re: Why Kaspersky?"
- Reply: nemo_outis: "Re: Why Kaspersky?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:53:33 GMT
"nemo_outis" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96C0920BA6B1Babcxyzcom@204.153.244.170...
> To see why Kaspersky is arguably the best antivirus program out there
check
> out:
>
> http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=69&mnu=69
>
> Note that its undetected percentage, 0.72% is nearly *three times better*
> than the next best program (AVK 2.07%).
>
> The latest Kaspersky programs (version 5 series) do use a controversial
> feature, istreams, which places data in an alternate data stream attached
> to each scanned file on an NTFS partition/drive. This feature can be
> *disabled* if the user prefers (the location is not obvious, however!) and
> any already tagged files can be untagged with the utility klstreamremover
> available from Kaspersky (or using third-party tools such as the excellent
> ADS uninstaller that comes with Hijackthis).
Just out of interest, CA's AV has been doing this for (leans, over, checks,
umm.. the version I have that does this is dated 2001. Sigs are "a little"
more up-to-date)
It /can/ be a major PITA if you do a lot of server stuff in Windows - you
can get a lock warning when copying files.
No direct experience of Kasp, beyond the usual "heard it's very good". The
reason for choosing CA was pretty simple - used to get the stuff for free
(as an employee), never had a problem, $9.95 per annum seemed a reasonable
subscription price. Still does, TBH - although it has its flaws (critically,
in not notifying you that its license has expired, and in failing *silently*
when updating)
I tend to ignore percentages, myself, as it's (i) Day Zero response that
counts, and that (ii) MickeySoft actually give away tools that handle most
of that percentage. Once a month. Hence the D0 comment ;o)
And, of course, (iii) the paranoiac's observation that 90%+ of these
"viruses" come from AV vendors' labs - they're variants, will never ever
appear in the wild, and serve no other purpose but to bolster vendor
statistics.
Let's just say that, where I grew up, the local MP used to be Disraeli. I
trust his opinion on statistics ;o)
-- Hairy One Kenobi Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion in the first place. So there!
- Next message: Hairy One Kenobi: "Re: Recent PnP worm writers caught..."
- Previous message: Rob Slade, doting grandpa of Ryan and Trevor: "REVIEW: "Spam Kings", Brian McWilliams"
- In reply to: nemo_outis: "Why Kaspersky?"
- Next in thread: Jim Watt: "Re: Why Kaspersky?"
- Reply:(deleted message) Jim Watt: "Re: Why Kaspersky?"
- Reply: nemo_outis: "Re: Why Kaspersky?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|