Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Rodion Nagornov

      Долгое сохранение сообщений || Delays while posting   09/20/2017

      По техническим причинам возможно визуально долгое отправление сообщений на форуме. Фактически ваше сообщение публикуется мгновенно - долго отрабатывает графика. В случае подобной ситуации, пожалуйста, сначала обновите страницу (F5) и проверьте, появилось ли ваше сообщение. Не пытайтесь сразу отправить его заново.  || Due to some technical reasons visual delays are possible while message sending. Actually your message is published immediately - just interface works long. In such case, please, do not re-send your message immediately! Press F5 to reload the page and check if your message/topic is published.
sallyanne

KIS vs BitDefender Internet Security

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
saso   
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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p2u   
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:

 

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... :)

 

Paul Wynant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dawgg   

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whizard   

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×