D

Deleted member 65228

I won't touch Kaspersky with a pole either
I think that Kaspersky have great technology and I also like some of the employees which I have seen around in the InfoSec community (one of them specifically I see over on OSR forum and on Twitter/their blog posting useful things) but I don't like how Kaspersky always seem to coincidentally expose government operations by the US for things like counter-terrorism. I get that their job is to document malware and not to perform attribution but the recent one with the Slingshot APT, it was sort of obvious that it must have been from a government agency and given the targets it was also sort of obvious what it was for. It was clearly for intelligence and not for income of money which a normal malware author would have gone for.

I don't see it happening for Russian government operations? Unless I have missed public posts from them or are blind. If they haven't and I am not blind then I doubt the US stuff was coincidental.

So I perfectly get why people defended Kaspersky for it and Kaspersky's response, it did make sense, I just don't like it that much.
 

Mahesh Sudula

Level 17
Verified
"no leased technologies"
"Dual engine(Home grown + Bit defender)"
are you okay mate or trying to make April fools jokes?
I dont understand your Q..Can you elaborate in detail.
Yes- E scan doesn't use any leased technologies except Bit defender engine
Yes- It is a dual engine product...they have their own engine not as G data but similar to F secure!!
I'am saying truth why should i emboss that product when i use G data.
It is my responsibility to share truths not myths/False.
Thank you.
 

ZeroDay

Level 28
Verified
Malware Tester
Who said you @Opcode that E scan is unknown to anyone. All the north and middle east enterprises are protected by Escan.Their cloud is gigantic after norton.
During the initial ransomware outbreak...all E scan customers are protected...without out a hitch of single encryption.
The thing is they never advertise like Dr web and G data. Just use it and arrive to a conclusion.
Since its inception they always focused on Preventive than Detection capabilities. I rate E scan very high.
Their firewall is very tough blocks even port scans from Microsoft servers!!
Kaspersky is good...but E scan is better..in all terms. Disinfects a file rather than deletion!!
My vote goes to E scan!!
Don't under estimate any av without testing/using. He is one of the top 5 in my zero day tests.
Automated BB...Nil Fp's... Dual engine( Home grown+Bit defender)..every one hour updates..
No leased technologies ...their PBAE technology actually works than Eset UEFI:ROFLMAO:....
Never sits beside VT and copy the detections and flags valid sites as PHISHING:LOL::LOL:
Escan is nowhere near the level of Kaspersky. I think the fact that even the US government chose Kaspersky for years proves that.
 
D

Deleted member 65228

Kaspersky have more than a few user-mode hooks. They have real hyper-visor implementation like COMODO, except COMODO is not on the level as Kaspersky in terms of usability for general people.

Despite not using it myself or not liking their recent activities, there is no denying from me that they do have good technology. If I say otherwise then that would be stupid.

As for Eugene Kaspersky, he is an excellent reverse engineer I would imagine.
 

mekelek

Level 28
Escan is nowhere near the level of Kaspersky. I think the fact that even the US government chose Kaspersky for years proves that.
how can anyone take this seriously with this UI


ran a few samples, it's all BD signatures, turning off AV leaves "Proactive Behavior Monitor" to enabled, but it let through whatever i executed.

updating signatures took 7 minutes
barely any options
 

Slyguy

Level 43
Escan is nowhere near the level of Kaspersky. I think the fact that even the US government chose Kaspersky for years proves that.
It's funny, a lot of top cybersecurity guys I know will only use Kaspersky. Remember, it was an NSA-Man himself that was using Kaspersky when to his shock, his 'secret tool stash' triggered Kaspersky. My guess, they weren't used to AV's triggering on their tools so he didn't even consider the AV as something to consider. What a buffoon. But it is telling he himself was using Kaspersky!
 
Top