Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

Well, that's only good thing about it.

So then why do you even bother with thinking about implementing a host-based packet filter? Especially if it's such a known crappy piece of software? What should it achieve even if you even lack more fundamental security concepts? Dude, you're misusing Outlook Express as a newsreader!

1) proven antivirus, though doesn't have the excellent proactive detection 2) excellent firewall (take a look at 3) lightweight and will not bog your system down

I prefer using Nod32 2.7 and outpost 4.0, but next to this combo that would be my choice

There is no such thing like proactive detection.

That's looks rather quite bad. It does spend code and resource on trying something obviously stupid.

Gotta laugh, very hard.

Yes, clueless people usually prefer such nonsense. After all, it seems like none of your arguments has any serious background. But that's OK - it's just his system that get's f***ed up when he's following your advice...

I didn't write that.

And you copied my statement.

Could it be that your totally f***ed up your quoting?

Well, then you're lost. Misusing IE7 as a webbrowser undermines every security concept. Before searching for an alternative webbrowser, you should get a real one in first place...

Hi Sebastian, I hope the quoting issue is now resolved and restate my request.

Can't you get off your high throne for once and concisely pass-on your thoughts/knowledge? We all know by know that you are very well versed with respect to securing operating systems and most of us are impressed! I located a few sites covering the topic and offer recommendations/guidelines and think am able to implement as suggested. However, I am not computer-savvy enough to determine as to which of the following sites is *most* suitable (best) and kindly request an expert opinion as to which recommendations/guidelines to follow.

If all possible, I wish to utilize the Windows Firewall (appropriately configured) as according to some test reports most of the free software firewall versions are ineffective with respect to outbound filtering anyway. I read some time ago that "closing certain ports and practicing safe-hex together with good quality AV application(s) is a much better alternative than 'fancy' third-party software firewalls".

And yes, I wish to stick with IE7 and don't consider using an alternate browser.

-- You've mentioned that I am misguided for using IE7, okay point taken. I was using IE since inception and did not experience or encounter any security issues. So I really need compelling reasons other than highly charged emotive arguments for not using IE7.

Well, if you don't wish to assist with my original request then just ignore this post. There is no need adding flames and/or profanities (I bet you wouldn't do that if you were standing in front of me). Cheers....................Kayman.

Obviously not. There don't appear any quotes marks '>'.

As you may notice, one has first to debunk the wrong security concepts and replace them with some serious ones. Then, and only then should start thinking about implementations.

But by starting off by debunking, you just switch people off and they then gain nothing from you when there was so much they might have learned from a more subtle response.

If people just want to hear what they'd like to hear, they shouldn't be asking in first place. And, after all, Usenet is a medium for discussion, not a support medium.

You're right, but the essence of a good discussion is not to belittle what the other party is saying, or asking.

Maybe that's why my postings are rather ironic: I seed the people doing dumb stuff, but I don't treat them as dumb and take their words for serious

- which creates that clear contrast between what they want and how things are actually like.

Just that most people seem to fail realizing that it's not my fault that reality bites them in their asses, and that I'm just providing a clearification.

At any rate, someone needs to tell them what's actually going wrong. And I'm telling it outright. Yes, being honest to people is a pitiful job.

You're right to try to be honest with people, no question about that. Of course an honest message can be delivered in a number of ways, bluntly, hurtfully, tactfully, empathetically, respectfully; you name it.

You forgot "obfuscated" -Sebastian's style

Thanks for the replies,

flip

Wow, you do need to educate yourself. You aware of zero day threats, you know the malware that cannot be detected while 95% of AV vendors are scrambling to get signature updates. Please do your homework and take a look at reputable sights on the tests they conduct, namely

You will find there is meaning to the term practive you idiot

hmmm how is that stupid, seems to me that this is becoming a larger concern in the security industry

Lets see.....2 process running in memory 1 that occupies less tha 4MB and the other around 20. Let us compare this with say Symantec, Trnedmicro and McAfee whose process consume a ridiculous amount.

So what did Kapersky do to you anyway. Hey, I don't use it, but the data speaks for itself. Little effort researching the web will show you that it is a reputable suiteI think the data points I mentioned already shutdown that assertion But that's OK - it's

we'll you can always take an image of your system using ghost or acronis true image, if it does mess with the system, restore the image taken before installing the suite

btw, I am not certain what the opinion is on this forum for ZA, but the new version 7.0 will be using kapersky's AV engine....oh my God, we better steer clear then

That*s not proactive, but generic detection, you idiot.

It's stupid because it's a theoretically and practically unsolvable problem. Concerns won't help, especially not if they're misguided and just focusing on the symptoms.

Interesting how these huge memory-hogging processes (hint: Wipfw takes 70 K code + 600 K data to do a way better job) are f****ng up your network and slowing down your computer.

You know that's not a serious alternative.

Why? It would make ZA less worse.

Doesn't end in "ly" though :-)

Post at kaspersky forums ;)

me

Is that what santas wasting on you this year?

Ive always thought that about cars too.

Yes its nice to have that security isnt it.

Now thats the first sensible thing youve said all year

Awww...there you go again with them negative waves. me