- Jul 21, 2017
- 358
So which would you choose, avast free or kaspersky free, based on level of protection & performance?
KART has the KSN based File AV while Kaspersky Free also sports KSN. May or may not be a considerable issue.what is going to conflict tho? KAR doesn't have features KAF has, and vice-versa.
i don't see the problem some files being checked on KSN twice if there are no performance issues.KART has the KSN based File AV while Kaspersky Free also sports KSN. May or may not be a considerable issue.
Might not be. However, things aren't technically as simple as they look by definition of their work right?i don't see the problem some files being checked on KSN twice if there are no performance issues.
this point is i think why some people think there might be some incompatibilitiesMight not be. However, things aren't technically as simple as they look by definition of their work right?
And the File AV of both will have the task of dealing with any identified malware (via cloud) and both may pounce on it.
these are the settings available from KART version 2.0.0.176Alright! I haven't tried KART myself yet, but if there's an option to disable its File AV (the associated KSN) and just keep the SW enabled, that will be better.
Anyways, the SW from KART will not provide complete behavior blocking like the one found in the paid versions would.
Kas Free has to demonstrate that it is not just the well-known name. What? Kas Free has less features than paid versions? yes, and? It has to offer good protection, altought it's a Free soft., we need to test it to compare it with other free solutions, because, altought there is a paid version than probably offers better protection, for people who look for a free solution do not care that at all.yes we should test KAV with a few feature stripped... Did you even check what KAF is all about?
KAV and KAF are almost identical, what's there to test? same sigs, same KSN, same AV modules that are available in both of them...Kas Free has to demonstrate that it is not just the well-known name. What? Kas Free has less features than paid versions? yes, and? It has to offer good protection, altought it's a Free soft., we need to test it to compare it with other free solutions, because, altought there is a paid version than probably offers better protection, for people looking for a free solution do not care that.
You've covered the many cases that may question many users.this point is i think why some people think there might be some incompatibilities
if both KART and KFA find a suspicious/malware file and both go to remove/quarantine it, only 1 is going to actually get it. Which one? Will the one who missed it cause a problem? Or will it notice that the file was already taken care of, so then just ignore it and keep on going? Or will both apps notice each other are trying to deal with the malware, so will both assume the other app will take care of it? so then both ignore it? etc etc
there can be many scenarios that could potentially cause problems, we will not know until we test with both installed on same system or if Kaspersky themselves tell us its ok to use both
Reading @Parsh 's message above, saying that Kas free does not have BB, seems to me that Kas free will not have the same results as KAV..KAV and KAF are almost identical, what's there to test? same sigs, same KSN, same AV modules that are available in both of them...
you sounded like Kaspersky just released some brand new product that needs to be tested cause who knows how it performs, except in this case everyone knows, like KAV.
i actually feel retarded for forgetting KAV having System watcher/application control.Reading @Parsh 's message above, saying that Kas free does not have BB, seems to me that Kas free will not have the same results as KAV..
I agree with the posted InequalityKAF + KAR > Avast
Avast free
If you're using Comodo Firewall (customized for auto-sandboxing) / an anti-exe / a behavior blocking program (like HMPA) already, Kaspersky Free will be a great choice to add. KSN is a powerful tool for detection of newer threats not detected by plain signatures.
Avast free covers most of the basic security layers needed and a separate Behavior Blocker is not needed to complement Avast.
Are you using CS settings for Comodo FW? If not and since you're into auto-sandboxing, first switch to 'Proactive Configuration' in it and then make any other changes in CFW, since switching to Proactive will reset most of the settings manually selected.Hi, I have on my PC (Windows 7OS) Avast free + Comodo Firewall configured in this way:
Comodo firewall: Enabled Firewall + Auto Contaiment.... Disabled HIPS + Web Filtering + VirusScope
Avast Free AV: Enabled "File System SHield" + Behavior Shield + Web Shield....All the other features are disabled
Do you think that using Kaspersky free instead Avast could be better or not?
Better means: performances + virus detection + less conflicts with Comodo firewall
So, your suggestion is to change some settings in my Comodo + Avast AV respect the actual?Are you using CS settings for Comodo FW? If not and since you're into auto-sandboxing, first switch to 'Proactive Configuration' in it and then make any other changes in CFW, since switching to Proactive will reset most of the settings manually selected.
If you're using CS settings, you might not need a Behavior Blocker from another AV (though I recommend enabling Viruscope in CFW) and Kaspersky Free will be great together.
The CS settings have aggressive way of handling the unknowns. You will have strict restrictions on elevation of unknown files and block outbound connections of sandboxed programs. And added folder protection...
However, there are slick chances that the File Lookup will allow a harmful file to run un-sandboxed (the file might have been set as trusted by a Comodo analyst etc.) or a malware uses a certificate of any vendor that's trusted by Comodo (this won't be a big problem if you totally trim down the Trusted Vendors List to a few well known ones in CFW). In such cases of vulnerability, having a complementary AV with a good BB will be useful in case the signatures of the complementary AV do not intercept that piece of malware with stolen certificate. Here, Avast is the forefront runner.
Another point is that better the signatures of the complementary AV, less of sandboxing work CFW will have to do. Here, Kaspersky Free leads.
As you can see different benefits of Avast and K Free, now you'll have to decide upon these points. I'll suggest you to keep Avast Free if it works fine for you. K Free apparently has no conflicts too, with CFW. Just ignore the incompatibility warning that you get while installing K Free on top of CFW in case you decide to switch.
Yes, except that you can keep Behavior Shield enabled for the rare case that some malicious program is missed by CFW auto-containment in some ways I described above.So, your suggestion is to change some settings in my Comodo + Avast AV respect the actual?
I should change the settings in this way:
Comodo firewall: Enabled Firewall + Auto Contaiment + VirusScope + Change from "Firewall Security" to "Proactive Security".... Disabled HIPS + Web Filtering
Avast Free AV: Enabled "File System Shield" + Web Shield....Disabling "Behavior Shield" and all the other features
This is the reason I always keep Behaviour Shield turned on with CF. While it's incredibly rare, if you come across malware that's trusted by Comodo or you unblock an application you believe to be safe that is actually malicious (this is assuming the AV doesn't have a signature for the malware) the behavioural blocking can save you a real headache. Especially if it's something quiet like a RAT that's recording your keystrokes/mic audio or snapping screenshots/images through your webcam.Yes, except that you can keep Behavior Shield enabled for the rare case that some malicious program is missed by CFW auto-containment