Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

hi,

It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.

flip

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> fj wrote:
>
>> It looks good to me
>
> Well, that's only good thing about it.
>
>> but I don't know much about security.
>
> 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?
What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
empty pontification. I wasn't aware that KIS was known to be so crappy
but I'm sure higher authorities like yourself are aware. With all that
superior knowledge and experience it's a pity you can't give a useful
answer. Why does one need security concepts to use a PC?

--
Wilf

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

So why didn't you say this in the first place instead of being a
schwachkopf.
Why do you bother posting here? There is certainly nothing here for you who
knows everything but can't explain anything!!!!!!!

"Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
news:4u8rleF165gphU1@mid.dfncis.de...
> Wilf wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>> fj wrote:
>>>
>>>> It looks good to me
>>>
>>> Well, that's only good thing about it.
>>>
>>>> but I don't know much about security.
>>>
>>> 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?
>> What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
>> empty pontification.
>
> The OP got advice: To rethink his security concept first, instead of
> implementing wrong and non-working pseudo-solutions.
>
>> I wasn't aware that KIS was known to be so crappy
>
> Hey, it has "Internet Security" in its name, so it should be pretty
> obvious.
>
>> but I'm sure higher authorities like yourself are aware.
>
> Indeed.
>
>> Why does one need security concepts to use a PC?
>
> Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
> network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want
> security,
> then you need a concept first.

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

"Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
news:4u8rleF165gphU1@mid.dfncis.de...
Wilf wrote:

> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> fj wrote:
>>
>>> It looks good to me
>>
>> Well, that's only good thing about it.
>>
>>> but I don't know much about security.
>>
>> 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?
> What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
> empty pontification.

The OP got advice: To rethink his security concept first, instead of
implementing wrong and non-working pseudo-solutions.

> I wasn't aware that KIS was known to be so crappy

Hey, it has "Internet Security" in its name, so it should be pretty
obvious.

> but I'm sure higher authorities like yourself are aware.

Indeed.

> Why does one need security concepts to use a PC?

Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want security,
then you need a concept first.

Okay, Sebastian.
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.

http://seconfig.sytes.net/
http://www.yellowhead.com/xpcfg1.htm
http://www.5starsupport.com/tutorial/hardening-windows.htm
http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html#_chklst
http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritychecklis t.htm

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.

TIA...................Kayman.

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

You can do a custom install and just install the antivirus. Who needs
scanning email and all that shit. Problem with this program is it always
tells you your serial number is blacklisted. Just virus scan your
computer once a year then uninstall the program.

fj wrote:

> hi,
>
> It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.
>
> flip

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

fj wrote:
> hi,
>
> It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.
>
> flip
>
>
1) proven antivirus, though doesn't have the excellent proactive detection
2) excellent firewall (take a look at www.firewallleaktester.com)
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

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

"Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
news:4u96t3F16t4glU1@mid.dfncis.de...
Kayman wrote:

>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> [...]
>> What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
>> empty pontification.

I didn't write that.

> The OP got advice: To rethink his security concept first, instead of
> implementing wrong and non-working pseudo-solutions.

And you copied my statement.

Could it be that your totally fucked up your quoting?



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

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.

http://seconfig.sytes.net/
http://www.yellowhead.com/xpcfg1.htm
http://www.5starsupport.com/tutorial/hardening-windows.htm
http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html#_chklst
http://labmice.techtarget.com/articles/winxpsecuritychecklis t.htm

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.

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

>
> Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
> network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want security,
> then you need a concept first.
That's all true. but many (probably most) users of personal computers
are naive users in a technmical sense who want to use their PC to get a
job done, whether it's writing a book, simple surfing or whatever. They
neither know nor care about all these matters, they just want it to
work. Like their refrigerator - they don't need to be a
technician/engineer to use that successfully. That's not unreasonable.

--
Wilf

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Wilf wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>
>>> Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
>>> network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want security,
>>> then you need a concept first.
>> That's all true. but many (probably most) users of personal computers
>> are naive users in a technmical sense who want to use their PC to get a
>> job done, whether it's writing a book, simple surfing or whatever.
>
> I'm also pretty naive about cars. You know what? I don't even make the
> repairs myself, I rather pay someone qualified to do so.
>
>> They neither know nor care about all these matters, they just want it to
>> work. Like their refrigerator - they don't need to be a
>> technician/engineer to use that successfully. That's not unreasonable.
>
> It is. A computer is a highly complex implementation of an universal
> von-Neumann machine, and in modern it's interconnected with other
> computers. That's fundamentally different from electronic devices with a
> very limited target functionality.
>
> If they don't want to do the administration themselves, then they should
> pay someone to do it for them.
>
> Yes, I know, most people have problems understanding this, since things
> seemed to be running fine so far. But that's just the lack of consequences,
> and even so they're still to limited they seem to grow - people are being
> hold responsible for abused open WLANs, for participating in damaging
> infrastructure (DoS), and well, also for copyright infringement.
What it implies is that personal computers are not advanced enough at
this stage as they should be fool-proof. If you have to be ultra
technical-savvy to own one then it's a device for the nerds and most PC
users are anything but nerds. To deride a non-technical (or technical)
person's attempt to make his PC as safe as possible by using what, to
him, seems a reasonable approach of installing some firewall software,
for example, is wholly wrong. To help the person, a little less
derision and negativity, with a more constructive response would be more
useful.

--
Wilf

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Kayman wrote:
>
>> I hope the quoting issue is now resolved and restate my request.
>
> Obviously not. There don't appear any quotes marks '>'.
>
>> Can't you get off your high throne for once and concisely pass-on your
>> thoughts/knowledge?
>
> 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.

--
Wilf

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Wilf wrote:
>
>> 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.

--
Wilf

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
> Wilf wrote:
>
>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>> Wilf wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.

--
Wilf

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

"Wilf" wrote in message
news:458022F9.6070004@wilf45728.com...
> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>> Wilf wrote:
>>
>>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
>>>> Wilf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 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

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Thanks for the replies,

flip

"fj" wrote in message
news:RDEfh.5920$Li6.4529@trndny03...
> hi,
>
> It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.
>
> flip
>
>

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Thank you for your insightful analysis. On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:58:19
-0500, Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

> J Washington wrote:
>
>> fj wrote:
>>> hi,
>>>
>>> It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.
>>>
>>> flip
>>>
>> 1) proven antivirus, though doesn't have the excellent proactive
>> detection
>
> There is no such thing like proactive detection.

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
www.avcomparative.org. You will find there is meaning to the term
practive you idiot
>
>> 2) excellent firewall (take a look at www.firewallleaktester.com)
>
> That's looks rather quite bad. It does spend code and resource on trying
> something obviously stupid.

hmmm how is that stupid, seems to me that this is becoming a larger
concern in the security industry
>
>> 3) lightweight and will not bog your system down
>
> Gotta laugh, very hard.

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.
>
>> I prefer using Nod32 2.7 and outpost 4.0,
>
> Yes, clueless people usually prefer such nonsense. After all, it seems
> like
> none of your arguments has any serious background.

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
> just his system that get's fucked up when he's following your advice...

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



--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

David Smith wrote:
> "Wilf" wrote in message
>>
>> 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
>
>

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

--
Wilf

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

In article , flippingflapjacks@hotmail.com
says...
> Thanks for the replies,
>
> flip
>
> "fj" wrote in message
> news:RDEfh.5920$Li6.4529@trndny03...
> > hi,
> >
> > It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.
> >
> > flip
> >
> >
>
>
>
Post at kaspersky forums ;)
http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?

me

Re: Is Kaspersky"s Internet Security Good?

In article <4uad31F178cugU1@mid.dfncis.de>, seppi@seppig.de says...
> Wilf wrote:
>
> > What it implies is that personal computers are not advanced enough at
> > this stage as they should be fool-proof.
>
> Nothing is fool-proof, especially not with computers. However, if you want
> a good idea of how a fool-resistent system could be like, just take a look
> at the Mac Mini running Mac OS X.

Is that what santas wasting on you this year?
>
> > If you have to be ultra
> > technical-savvy to own one then it's a device for the nerds and most PC
> > users are anything but nerds.
>
> The "ultra" is a bit too overthrown. But yes, a PC is most likely not
> suitable for many people. A quite big contrast to the actual distribution.
> Well, that's exactly the source of the problem. And after so long time some
> dudes are still claiming that computers would be advanced enough to be
> easily usable for Joe Average, and with Windows XP everything gets
> better... or with Windows Vista... whatever... and our legislation can't
> even hold them responsible for these lies.
>

Ive always thought that about cars too.

> > To deride a non-technical (or technical)
> > person's attempt to make his PC as safe as possible by using what, to
> > him, seems a reasonable approach of installing some firewall software,
> > for example, is wholly wrong.
>
> How that? After all, it will only make things worse. The computer doesn't
> become any more secure, rather becomes more insecure and Joe Average still
> believes he can keep on being dumb and clicking on everything - no,
> actually he can click on even more, since his super-duper-hyper firewall
> protects him !!!11#

Yes its nice to have that security isnt it.

>
> Now wake up. There's no alternative to user education, and software can at
> best play a supportive role, as a toolset to a user who actually knows how
> to use that software.

Now thats the first sensible thing youve said all year

> > To help the person, a little less derision and negativity, with a more
> > constructive response would be more useful.
>
> And personal software shit negates every constructive approach. After all,
> what about not running any pseudo security software at all and practicing
> common sense? That's way better than any such software, with or without
> common sense being applied.
>

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