Emsisoft Internet Security vs Kaspersky Internet Security 2017

Sort by date Sort by votes
askalan said:
Kaspersky Internet Security with maximum settings protects you better but has many bugs. The last week one user couldn't start Kaspersky - even with a reinstall. Yesterday one user couldn't start Kaspersky because of patching it...
Click to expand...
The one about KIS not starting even reinstall may be because of HMP.A beta.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parsh, simmerskool, frogboy and 1 other person
Upvote 0 Downvote
askalan said:
Kaspersky Internet Security with maximum settings protects you better but has many bugs. The last week one user couldn't start Kaspersky - even with a reinstall. Yesterday one user couldn't start Kaspersky because of patching it...
Click to expand...
that's just wrong on so many levels. you call them bugs but they're all related to other conflicting software..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parsh, simmerskool and ZeroDay
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lighter or heavier is quite system dependent. As I've said many times when I purchased my current Kaspersky license I was testing Bitdefender as everyone said it was lighter than everyone else. My computer became quite slow with it back then and eventually crashed forcing me to go into safe mode to fully uninstall Bitdefender. Does it mean I wouldn't consider buying it in the future? Not at all. When my current license is nearly over I'll probably test it again as well as other solutions although I'm quite satisfied with Kaspersky right now and will probably renew it.

Also many people seem to think that RAM usage is related to software being light/heavy. That's just not the case. Windows is actually quite smart, yes not quite as smart as it could be, I know, with memory usage and if the software is not slowing down your computer, you can safely ignore RAM usage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ItsReallyMe, dinosaur07, Parsh and 2 others
Upvote 0 Downvote
askalan said:
Kaspersky Internet Security with maximum settings protects you better but has many bugs. The last week one user couldn't start Kaspersky - even with a reinstall. Yesterday one user couldn't start Kaspersky because of patching it...
Click to expand...
I believe the user trying to patch Kaspersky was using the Beta patch C that is not for general use as it's still in beta.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Parsh, harlan4096, simmerskool and 1 other person
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lockdown said:
6.4 files out of every 100 files. LOL. Anyway they implemented auto-resolve so a user will not have to make any decision.
Click to expand...
I love the new feature.

No matter how many reminders and training a person gets he'll make a wrong decision one day. Security software should make decisions for the user to overcome this weakness in a security system
 
  • Like
Reactions: YURY, Parsh and simmerskool
Upvote 0 Downvote
HarborFront said:
I love the new feature.

No matter how many reminders and training a person gets he'll make a wrong decision one day. Security software should make decisions for the user to overcome this weakness in a security system
Click to expand...

I like it more when a Anti-Virus ask me what I want to do. If a Anti-Virus blocks a false positive and doesn't ask me then I need to open it and add this file to the exclusions list.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AussieKenDoll, YURY and Fritz
Upvote 0 Downvote
askalan said:
I like it more when a Anti-Virus ask me what I want to do. If a Anti-Virus blocks a false positive and doesn't ask me then I need to open it and add this file to the exclusions list.
Click to expand...
Agree on this point on FP.

However, if the security product is of high protection and of low FP reputation then you can safely say that the probability of getting a FP is very very low as compared to getting a malware infection, a scam mail etc

One incident of FP may be that you are running a pretty unknown software (like very new in the market) then many security software will surely flag this as a FP if they are using a common database like VirusTotal which itself do not even have the signature of that software.

Try installing a known software like from BitDefender, ESET, Kaspersky, Firefox/Chrome browser etc and see whether your security software will flag them as FP or not
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HarborFront said:
No matter how many reminders and training a person gets he'll make a wrong decision one day.
Click to expand...

You cannot make a wrong decision by blocking by default. When in doubt just quarantine. After a bit of investigation and it turns out to be legit, then simply restore and re-run.

HarborFront said:
Security software should make decisions for the user to overcome this weakness in a security system
Click to expand...

No, the user should educate themselves and\or be educated on the subject matter so as not to be entirely dependent upon a security soft to protect their system and data. A fully automatic 100 % accurate and effective solution that will protect against anything possible just ain't gonna happen. Maybe when electric sheep are real the industry might be half-way there - and just another half-millenia to go...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fritz, XhenEd and simmerskool
Upvote 0 Downvote
Lockdown said:
You cannot make a wrong decision by blocking by default. When in doubt just quarantine. After a bit of investigation and it turns out to be legit, then simply restore and re-run.



No, the user should educate themselves and\or be educated on the subject matter so as not to be entirely dependent upon a security soft to protect their system and data. A fully automatic 100 % accurate and effective solution that will protect against anything possible just ain't gonna happen. Maybe when electric sheep are real the industry might be half-way there - and just another half-millenia to go...
Click to expand...
Agree that there's no 100% automated accurate and effective solution and that also applies to decision-making by humans
 
  • Like
Reactions: simmerskool
Upvote 0 Downvote
Peter2150 said:
Interesting about making decisions. When I test my whole suite that I run, if I am presented with a decision, I always chose the wrong one. If I can do that then I know I am protected.
Click to expand...

You lie !!! You ain't ever made a wrong decision in your life !!! Besides, you have a full back-up recovery plan in-place. You cheat bad decision-making !!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ravi prakash saini
Upvote 0 Downvote
Peter2150 said:
Interesting about making decisions. When I test my whole suite that I run, if I am presented with a decision, I always chose the wrong one. If I can do that then I know I am protected.
Click to expand...
This is not just about protection. It's about whether, as a user, you are achieving the desired end result with the RIGHT decision.

If you BLOCK something which is intended to do a useful task then you make a WRONG decision! This applies similarly to QUARANTINEE something which is intending to do a useful task
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HarborFront said:
This is not just about protection. It's about whether, as a user, you are achieving the desired end result with the RIGHT decision.

If you BLOCK something which is intended to do a useful task then you make a WRONG decision! This applies similarly to QUARANTINEE something which is intending to do a useful task
Click to expand...

Well guess what, auto-resolve is going to quarantine safe, legit files. So the next complain from users will be "It is auto-quarantining my safe files !!" Really ? Then don't use auto-resolve. "No, I cannot make a decision. AV must tell me what to do or else it is garbage." Keep going in circles.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Fritz
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.

You may also like...