Battle Kaspersky KSN vs Bitdefender Brain

[Emsisoftuser]

I wanted to know with pleasure sometimes what you find better?

 

[Ink]

How exactly? These are back-end systems for the Kaspersky and Bitdefender product line, for Consumers and Business.

You cannot measure the hardware usage, user friendliness, interface and protection levels.

 

[Emsisoftuser]

I cannot change this any more around,

 

[Azure]

How exactly? These are back-end systems for the Kaspersky and Bitdefender product line, for Consumers and Business.

You cannot measure the hardware usage, user friendliness, interface and protection levels.

Supposedly the BRAIN technology it incorporated into all its products
http://forum.bitdefender.com/index.php?s=e3f9e9cf9c25a59f064ebe285bbf25e4&showtopic=56630

Though personally, I would understand if you take that with some skepticism.

 

[Kate_L]

BitDefender Brain it is a joke. If someone can please show me that works, some BitDefender fans maybe ?

Symantec Insight works and you can see it in action.

 

[Nightwalker]

I dont know about Bitdefender Brain (good marketing), but Kaspersky KSN seems to be really good, just take a look at "UDS DangerousObject.Multi.Generic" detections here in Malware Hub.

With KSN you can check file reputation at real time too:

 

[jamescv7]

When it comes from maturity of this technology then KSN from Kaspersky hands down at all, very effective component for such layered protection.

 

[Cch123]

They cannot be compared that easily. The misconception is that Brain is integrated into all the 2015 consumer products, which is false. It is implemented into their servers, of which the 2015 products can connect to. It is similar to KSN in operation, but their implementation is different (different algorithms etc.)

You can't compare them by using "zeroday" malware and see their responses (like time to detect, detection ratio etc.) The only way to compare them is to look at the methodology used in their systems and decide which is the best. Not that easy, considering Bitdefender does not publish much about Brain.

 

[darko999]

BitDefender Brain it is a joke. If someone can please show me that works, some BitDefender fans maybe ?

Symantec Insight works and you can see it in action.

The insight works for me blocking all my legit files, symantec at it's best.

 

[kiric96]

we have almost no information about BRAIN, but i think that we cant compare both products even they are intended to achieve one thing, they work completely different.

BitDefender Brain it is a joke. If someone can please show me that works, some BitDefender fans maybe ?

Symantec Insight works and you can see it in action.

all we know that bitdefender uses a "special" terminology to name a specific malware.. almost always we see... trojan.generic***, gen.variantkazy****, etc.. so there is no way to determinate if a threat is detected by their cloud or no. (under a given name)

I dont know about Bitdefender Brain (good marketing), but Kaspersky KSN seems to be really good, just take a look at "UDS DangerousObject.Multi.Generic" detections here in Malware Hub.

With KSN you can check file reputation at real time too:

i have seen many times that KIS flag in KSN a PUP or malware as a safe file and also some times a malware that is detected by signatures is marked as unknown in KSN, even worst some PUP are marked as trusted :/. Cloud may fail, if you are able to compare a file agains 1 AV cloud it doesnt mean it is good or no...


well for me... KSN and BRAIN are the same thing i mean in other words... is what we call "cloud" cloud is intended to go beyond signatures by blocking malware in real time so, essencially both products may be able to do that... but they work different for example:

while an unknown file is blocked by the cloud by a generic name (KSN) , bitdefender uses AVC to watch a program and if it start behaving in a weird way bitdefender connect to the cloud to see if there is an specific rule for that threat if not... AVC will automatically block or allow the file (by following a threshold) then the file and all of these stuff will be sent to the labs for proper analysis, the rules that user take etc.. will be recorded, so if other user finds the same file it will be blocked by the community just like emsi....

this may not be the real scenario what i want to point is that KIS gives a name for the threat while bitdefender uses another technique... of course every cloud have to work in a different way.. but in simple terms they work in the same manner... cloud services are just that "in the cloud" which means that the user has nothing to do to get extra protection, just only an internet connection

 

[Kate_L]

all we know that BitDefender uses a "special" terminology to name a specific malware.. almost always we see... trojan.generic***, gen.variantkazy****, etc.. so there is no way to determinate if a threat is detected by their cloud or no. (under a given name)

That is an old way of making Gen signatures, look at how BitDefender always detected malware (with gen signatures). They are also using more ways of having signatures and you can see it in the reports in which they took signatures from Kaspersky and other AVs.

If this system is how they say it is then why they don't have top detection, how this new technology is so amazing since Panda, Symantec and other AVs had it before ?

 

[kiric96]

That is an old way of making Gen signatures, look at how BitDefender always detected malware (with gen signatures). They are also using more ways of having signatures and you can see it in the reports in which they took signatures from Kaspersky and other AVs.

I dont think it is "an old way to detect malware" as long it detects (...) i dont care what name they use... and well since i know they do have a name for eacht malware.... dont know how... but if you look at the fórums for a malware name eg: trojan.generic****** they will thell you what kind of malware it is... And well you said that Bitdefender uses "generic signatures to detect (..)" so how is posible that they are taking signatures from other vendors.... another thing is the fact that mcaffe, qihoo and others products dont use a proper name for malware.. they use generic signatures... and no one complains... about them so???...

If this system is how they say it is then why they don't have top detection, how this new technology is so amazing since Panda, Symantec and other AVs had it before ?

No system is perfect... i remember that panda once said that they are the best AV and they detect 100% of malware... every product has their pros and cons.... the AV you mentioned are by far of having top detections rates... so... it is all act to you and what you want to see... here.. the top AV are qihoo and eset.. in other places the tops are KIS or AVAST.... even in AVtest... they put AVIRA in first place... so... there is no perfect product and again this is only the "cloud" it essencially has no different among others AVs.

 

[Nightwalker]

For who wants to know more about Kaspersky Security Network, there are some whitepapers out there.

http://www.kaspersky.com/images/KES8_Whitepaper_4_KSN.pdf

 

[Malvareland]

Kaspersky KSN -> its good

​

 

[Tony Cole]

Yes, Kaspersky KSN is very good. I've been using Kaspersky for 3-4yrs and it has never let me down; the ability to right click on a file and check the reputation within seconds is something Bitdefender should do, otherwise how do you know BRAIN is even working/there.

 

[Atlas147]

I think BRAIN is only in the total security products, so far using Internet security I haven't encountered anything to show that BRAIN is functioning on my computer