Special User Sections > What's the Best?
Anti-Virus Package
f0dder:
I bought kaspersky a few years back and it polluted my NTFS drives forever. I know this was a temporary thing which is nowadays optional, but it kind of annoyed me! Especially as at no point did it ask whether i wanted to use this feature or what the consequences would be on utilities like defrag / disk checking tools...
-iphigenie
--- End quote ---
It asks at install time whether you want "use the iStreamsTM technology", and it also explains what it is. And at uninstall time it asks whether to remove that data... at least for 5.0.712 anyway.
I'll have to say that using streams wasn't the best way of doing things, and Kaspersky appearantly realized this as well, at least they moved to centralized databases in more recent versions.
boxstar:
For me AVIRA is by far the best anti-virus tool!
Lusher:
In my view Panda is *greatly* underestimated.-Lusher (September 09, 2007, 02:27 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm working on a mini-review on Kaspersky, since I just switched to it after an infection bad enough that I had to pave over my whole system. I had been using Panda, but the virus managed to deactivate it. So I no longer have any confidence in that package.
-CWuestefeld (September 10, 2007, 12:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well it's even easier to deactivitate Kaspersky by simply changing the system time as done by many malware... :) The vendors are aware of the problem, but refuse to fix it, if you think hard enough, you will realise why.
The point here is, every antivirus can be beaten... I know of people who keep switching antivirus brands because no matter what they use, they are still infected. lol.
Lusher:
Kasparsky used to be very good, it still is, but it's become too high profile for my taste. Too many people gunning for it.
I wouldn't use it.
superboyac:
Kasparsky used to be very good, it still is, but it's become too high profile for my taste. Too many people gunning for it.
I wouldn't use it.
-Lusher (October 16, 2007, 11:31 PM)
--- End quote ---
I didn't understand the last couple of posts. Why wouldn't Kaspersky fix a flaw if it posed a security risk?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version