Battle Kaspersky security cloud free vs F secure safe?

[Bryan320]

Right now i'm stuck deciding on what i should use both are very good however i do notice F secure has problems with deleting zip files which kaspersky takes care of it's kinda a turn off for me but the files wont be able to load because of deep-guard. Running full scans F secure will often fail to delete files even EICAR test file. F secure will continue to detect files during full scans it cannot delete which is very annoying... I just wish F secure would fix this as other vendors have no problems deleting these.

 

[Tiamati]

F secure has problems with deleting zip files which kaspersky takes care of it's

In my experience, Kaspersky had problem with virus compressed in 7zip files. It wanted to delete the whole file. So i just extratected the infected part and deleted it. It wasn't a problem, as the virus was inactive.

Now, answering you question, I would go with Kaspersky. It has the most consistent results considering "independent" tests and mt hub. It's not a perfomance killer and it's easy to use. F-secure is also good, but is know for finding too many false positives, and it's results are not as good as kaspersky. Besides that, a recent test form Av comparatives showed that F-secure was the only one letting all tested threats execute before stopping them. It wasn't a problem, as F-secure blocked most of them, but i would prefer it blocked them earlier.

Despite that, kaspersky is free.

 

[ForgottenSeer 67480]

Well. A problem is: F-Secure doesn't have free version which would offer you free basic Protection, but his false-positives sometimes detects incorrect file as a threat. So, my mind a better choice is Kaspersky Free on this moment.

 

[amir 957]

Both are great products
while F-secure comes with your ISP, then go with it
it's really light on resources and has great protection
web protection is good too
F-secure BB is called DeepGaurd and is one of the bests, BTW in the Hub it failed sometimes against non .exe files
I think False positives were related to Bitdefender engine and should be gone with BitDefender engine (F-secure uses Avira+it's own engine now and dosen't use BD engine anymore)

 

[cliffspab]

Both are great products
while F-secure comes with your ISP, then go with it
it's really light on resources and has great protection
web protection is good too
F-secure BB is called DeepGaurd and is one of the bests, BTW in the Hub it failed sometimes against non .exe files
I think False positives were related to Bitdefender engine and should be gone with BitDefender engine (F-secure uses Avira+it's own engine now and dosen't use BD engine anymore)

KSC free is lighter on resources than F-Secure for me

 

[Bryan320]

I think I’m going to keep kaspersky.... Every time I test F secure it cannot delete files that have been detected. The machine is not infected but the files have been left over. This is very annoying that a program has a file in its database that it cannot remove... F secure just recommends the user to skip the file. Then after the next scan it’s detected again with no way to remove!!!! what is f secure thinking??? If it can’t remove an eicar test file off a machine in a zip file that’s very piss poor.... every other security product I have tested can do this..... This has happened with almost every test!!

 

[Divine_Barakah]

F-secure BB is called DeepGaurd and is one of the bests, BTW in the Hub it failed sometimes against non .exe files

Have you ever come across such malware in real world?

 

[amir 957]

Have you ever come across such malware in real world?

yes, years ago, with ESET v8
But even if it's not happened in the past, dosen't mean it's not going to happen ever

 

[Divine_Barakah]

yes, years ago, with ESET v8
But even if it's not happened in the past, dosen't mean it's not going to happen ever

I started to believe that we are overestimating the whole thing. We sacrifice the performance and piece of mind and we burden our systems with too many layers of protection. I am not using anything more than the main security product and second-opinion scanner.

 

[Tiamati]

it's really light on resources and has great protection
web protection is good too
F-secure BB is called DeepGaurd and is one of the bests

@amir 957 hey, where did you find those info? Only on mt hub? ty

I started to believe that we are overestimating the whole thing. We sacrifice the performance and piece of mind and we burden our systems with too many layers of protection. I am not using anything more than the main security product and second-opinion scanner.

If that is the problem, you can add Hard_Config too. It will add an layer of protection without affecting performance. You can check some results om mt hub

 

[amir 957]

@amir 957 hey, where did you find those info? Only on mt hub? ty

Na, i test AVs on my own

 

[low L!fe]

I prefer BitDefender and GDATA
But among those I would have picked Kaspersky on F-secure
i choose kaspersky.

 

[MacDefender]

Have you ever come across such malware in real world?

@harlan4096 showed me one such piece of malware less than a month ago. It downloaded a standalone copy of Node.js from their official site (which of course is not malware and not suspicious). It then dropped 2 Javascript files on disk with a crypto payload (that is suspicious but their signatures missed it), and then told Node.js to execute the payload.

Because Node.js is presumably whitelisted and trustworthy, F-Secure happily allowed it to encrypt everything. This, however, I believe was the single (or maybe two total instances) of ransomware managing to encrypt files under DeepGuard's watch.... Even when he did bonus dynamic testing where the signature scanner was totally disabled. Across ~a hundred samples of ransomware, IMO that is a fairly decent result.

In my recent testing (Discuss - MacDefender Test #2, "Trojan" Ransomware ) I replicated a very similar technique but I used 7-zip instead of Node.js. It defeated basically every behavior blocker that we tried, except as soon to be reported extremely paranoid configs of Kaspersky.

Most other AVs I tested that detected the Javascript based ransomware detected it because it saw something suspicious in the .js files dropped on disk, not because its behavior blocker understood the indirect attack vector of hijacking a known binary to do your dirty work.


So yes, such malware exists in the real world but I wouldn't fault DeepGuard / F-Secure too much for this hole. It's virtually an industry-wide weakness.

 

[Moonhorse]

Definitely kaspersky, even i like mikko and i could support product from my own country

 

[Tiamati]

Because Node.js is presumably whitelisted and trustworthy, F-Secure happily allowed it to encrypt everything. This, however, I believe was the single (or maybe two total instances) of ransomware managing to encrypt files under DeepGuard's watch.... Even when he did bonus dynamic testing where the signature scanner was totally disabled. Across ~a hundred samples of ransomware, IMO that is a fairly decent result.

I'd like to know how Kaspersky (and Hard_config) would perform against this one specifically. Just curious.

The other test was with the same code?

 

[Bryan320]

Update to F secure complaint about detecting files it won't remove..... So i noticed the new Microsoft edge is the culprit!!!! it saves the downloaded files and keeps them in the download history (with out removing them) This was the reason F secure was detecting the files but not removing them. I thought this was very suspicious but i have found the problem!!! Sorry for rashing on F secure so hard it was actually Microsoft edge keeping the files in download history essentially they really didn't exist... but F secure was detecting them which is good!!