IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> KIS vs BitDefender Internet Security, Bitdefender has more virus definitions?
sallyanne
post 12.10.2006 14:00
Post #1


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 10.10.2006




I have been evaluating both KIS and BitDefender Internet Security. I see that BitDefender has over 500,000 virus definitions, however KIS has approximately half of this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems quite concerning. Also a scan with BitDefender detected a virus which KIS did not.

Your comments are appreciated in my decision of whether to purchase KIS or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
wztech
post 12.10.2006 14:17
Post #2


Advanced Member I
***

Group: Members
Posts: 139
Joined: 31.03.2006
From: Kuala Lumpur,MALAYSIA




Larger Virus Signatures usually has more False Positives, so be careful.


--------------------
Don't Laugh .............. It WORKS !!!!!!

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sallyanne
post 12.10.2006 14:19
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 10.10.2006




Thanks for your reply. BitDefender also seems very highly rated, I just can't believe there is such a difference between the number of definitions included with Kaspersky.

I know that most of your will be biased to Kaspersky but might have tried BitDefender also. Can anyone else shed some light on this?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tigertron
post 12.10.2006 14:32
Post #4


Advanced Member II
****

Group: Gold beta testers
Posts: 427
Joined: 2.03.2006
From: Bulgaria




QUOTE(sallyanne @ 12.10.2006 13:19)
Thanks for your reply. BitDefender also seems very highly rated, I just can't believe there is such a difference between the number of definitions included with Kaspersky.

I know that most of your will be biased to Kaspersky but might have tried BitDefender also. Can anyone else shed some light on this?
*

I have read the latest antivirus tests, and in them BitDefender is not passing the tests, because of false alarm. Kaspersky pass the tests 100%, and some other AV products are after him. The big virus definition database is not garantee that the viruses will be found. BitDefender also is found all viruses in this test, but he make false alarm, and not pass the test. So I think Kaspersky is much better then BitDeffender! Good luck!


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
King Grub
post 12.10.2006 15:04
Post #5


Kaspersky Fan I
********

Group: Members
Posts: 1585
Joined: 4.04.2006
From: Sweden




Isn't it like this: different vendors have different ways to define a virus or group of viruses? One vendor might have a definition that counts as one, but which detects a group of trojans or viruses, while another vendor has definitions that counts each trojan seperately. Difference in practice besides the number: none.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lucian Bara
post 12.10.2006 15:13
Post #6


Are You Kidding?
*****************

Group: Gold beta testers
Posts: 56947
Joined: 28.01.2006
From: Timisoara, Romania




And lets not forget that bitdefender also has sigtnatures for cookies, which would be a great number.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
saso
post 12.10.2006 16:44
Post #7


Professional II
************

Group: Gold beta testers
Posts: 3111
Joined: 10.04.2005
From: ljubljana, slovenia




QUOTE(lucianbara @ 12.10.2006 14:13)
And lets not forget that bitdefender also has sigtnatures for cookies, which would be a great number.
*


and i think also for reg keys/values...


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lucian Bara
post 12.10.2006 16:50
Post #8


Are You Kidding?
*****************

Group: Gold beta testers
Posts: 56947
Joined: 28.01.2006
From: Timisoara, Romania




Yes those too, forgot about them.

This post has been edited by lucianbara: 12.10.2006 16:50
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sallyanne
post 12.10.2006 18:35
Post #9


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 7
Joined: 10.10.2006




I wonder why Kaspersky does also not detect the cookies and registry entries.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
King Grub
post 12.10.2006 18:37
Post #10


Kaspersky Fan I
********

Group: Members
Posts: 1585
Joined: 4.04.2006
From: Sweden




Cookies are harmless. Just text files. Delete them, or set your browser to only accepts cookies from selected websites.

Registry keys from malware do not pose a threat when the files have been neutralized.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Don Pelotas
post 12.10.2006 18:44
Post #11


Global Moderator
****************

Group: Global moderators

Posts: 28867
Joined: 7.04.2005




sallyanne

Number of signatures will tell you nothing about the detectionrate...you could have anti-virus A with 98000 signatures detection more than anti-virus B with 400000 signatures, Kaspersky is at the top detectionwise and certainly as good or better than BD in this regard.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
XpSunny
post 12.10.2006 21:30
Post #12


Advanced Member II
****

Group: Members
Posts: 490
Joined: 11.04.2006
From: India




QUOTE(sallyanne @ 12.10.2006 20:05)
I wonder why Kaspersky does also not detect the cookies and registry entries.
*



Hello,

Take a look here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Lucian Bara
post 12.10.2006 21:37
Post #13


Are You Kidding?
*****************

Group: Gold beta testers
Posts: 56947
Joined: 28.01.2006
From: Timisoara, Romania




kis does delete registry entries. It scans certain keys for entries belonging to the malware that is found. Those keys are gathered from the updatable startup.ini file (which is encrypted).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
p2u
post 12.10.2006 21:54
Post #14


Guest
**************

Group: Gold beta testers
Posts: 7775
Joined: 7.12.2005
From: Ring 0




QUOTE(King Grub @ 12.10.2006 18:37)
Cookies are harmless.
*

Not entirely true. Yes, they are text files, BUT... they also contain the settings for certain programs (e.g. Real Player cookie). If they can contain the settings for programs, why can't they contain the settings for Trojans? Some spyware doesn't work without them; if you delete the cookie, the exploit stops. This is the case with atwola cookies, for example. In general, when it comes to spyware, cookies are used by the server to determine what ads you have already seen and which ones to nag you with next! Besides, they are a tool to determine who owes who at your expense... Would you call that harmless? blink.gif

QUOTE(King Grub @ 12.10.2006 18:37)
Registry keys from malware do not pose a threat when the files have been neutralized.
*

Not entirely true. Some key remnants, for example CWS registry keys, are ALWAYS an indication that the OS has been infected. The fact that your anti-spyware solution does not recognize the infection does not make the problem go away... smile.gif

Paul Wynant


--------------------
Adblock Plus content blocking filter: * (= show text only anywhere)
Exception rule for all: @@*$stylesheet (= show style sheet only anywhere)
Default exception rule for white-listed sites: domain name/$background,image (= images only from that domain only; no scripts, objects, or other elements)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Piston Ron
post 12.10.2006 23:34
Post #15


Kaspersky Fan I
********

Group: Members
Posts: 1479
Joined: 25.04.2005
From: Lebanon, Ohio




QUOTE(King Grub @ 12.10.2006 10:37)
Cookies are harmless. Just text files. Delete them, or set your browser to only accepts cookies from selected websites.
*

It depends on your definition of harmless. The US Government (NIST) is starting to get serious about XSS.

http://www.nist.org/news.php?extend.176

http://www.nist.org/nist_plugins/content/content.php?content.61

If you consider allowing some low-life creep to use your computer for his nefarious purposes to be harmless, then so be it. I don't, and as such, I do not allow untrusted sites to use Javascript and cookies on my computer. YMMV.

That said, King Grub, you are correct that KL should not put cookies in their databases. If a cookie manager is to be added to KIS, that is fine, but it should be an optional module and/or a browser plugin.

I allow very few persistent cookies on my computer (the KL Forum Board is one of them), and I prefer to manage them myself. As big a PITA as it is, I don't even keep cookies around for vendors from whom I make routine purchases. That means that I have to re-type my credit card number, address, etc., each time that I make a purchase. As I said, a bit of a PITA, but then I don't concern myself with anyone stealing that info. Again, YMMV.

Ron smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dawgg
post 13.10.2006 02:55
Post #16


Forum Elite
**************

Group: Moderators
Posts: 9300
Joined: 6.04.2006
From: London




To be honest, the number of viruses/spyware/malware a AV says it can detect doesnt mean anything to me and i'm not sure why it does make a diffrent to users. I'm certainly not saying/implying BD has done this, but the numbers can easily be changed so it looks like its has hundreds of thousands or even millions of signatures, although in reality it may have much less. Some of the detections may also be irevilent such as hacktools and dos viruses.

Basically what i am trying to say is that the number of signatures an AV says it has is irrevelent, its the independent tests which show how good an AV's detection rate realy is.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Whizard
post 13.10.2006 04:28
Post #17


Professional
***************

Group: Moderators
Posts: 20703
Joined: 19.11.2005
From: Toronto/Canada




Also, if KAV will not pick up your infected file, please send it over to newvirus@kaspersky.com for Virus Lab analysis. If it is dangerous it will be detected at the nex update cycle.


--------------------
Networking and Security Guru
~^Whizard^~
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24.09.2014 00:23