shmu26

Level 83
Verified
Trusted
Content Creator
As far as I know, the main difference is that KAV does not have Application Control, but Kaspersky Internet Security does.
Does this make a big difference in protection?
I am asking because I want to combo Kaspersky with an app that has a HIPS component, so I need to use KAV rather than KIS.
 
H

hjlbx

As far as I know, the main difference is that KAV does not have Application Control, but Kaspersky Internet Security does.
Does this make a big difference in protection?
I am asking because I want to combo Kaspersky with an app that has a HIPS component, so I need to use KAV rather than KIS.
KAV is just Windows Defender on steroids...
 
H

hjlbx

I saw you commented the same about Avira.
would you choose KAV over Avira?
Given the choice - and I didn't have to pay for it - KAV.

Given the choice - and I do have to pay for it - Avira Free.

Avira has a lot of running processes.

There is no definitive answer as to which will work best on your specific hardware and combination of installed software without trialing both first.

I'd stick with Windows Defender and invest system resources (and money) in something other than antivirus.
 
H

hjlbx

Well, these steroids are really powerfull then :p System Watcher does a great job, I won't even compare traditional signatures.
I know what the Kaspersky System Watcher marketing materials state that it does, but what it actually does in reality is different.

System Watcher is good to have, but its algorithms are limited. This is the same issue with COMODO's Viruscope - which is nothing more than a copycat version of System Watcher.

What I am saying is not a dig on Kaspersky, but instead just pointing out reality for what it is.

So much of security soft marketing is just plain hyperbole.

What you don't know about your security softs can hurt you.