Forums
New posts
Search forums
News
Security News
Technology News
Giveaways
Giveaways, Promotions and Contests
Discounts & Deals
Reviews
Users Reviews
Video Reviews
Support
Windows Malware Removal Help & Support
Inactive Support Threads
Mac Malware Removal Help & Support
Mobile Malware Removal Help & Support
Blog
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Reply to thread
Menu
Install the app
Install
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
Security
Video Reviews - Security and Privacy
UltraAV Antivirus 2024
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BarrierMaze" data-source="post: 1103107" data-attributes="member: 117074"><p>I'm guessing that it lacks any kind of application control which was one of Kaspersky's shining features (such granular controls and the user could add more, I mean stellar interface for it) or at least any with any level of significant control like Kaspersky Internet Security/Total Security/Premium?</p><p></p><p>Personally that's why I liked Kaspersky, that and the online network reputation system. I'd check all new files in it for how much they'd been seen. Even something that evades detection by heuristic analysis is bound to look a little weird if it's masquerading as something else that should have a larger install base. It's true the heuristics were pretty good too of course but default-deny is more my speed or at least informed allow which Kaspersky helped with.</p><p></p><p>This leaves a sour taste. The fact that it wasn't a choice given to customers definitely speaks to a selling of customers in a way you rarely see (they'd get more if they forced all customers onto this software as opposed to making it a choice customers have to exercise). I'd have definitely chosen to keep the Kaspersky software installed but without updates with application control set to auto-assign to low or untrusted as I have over this. I didn't blame Kaspersky for all the US targeting because they didn't play ball with western intelligence like all the western AV companies (whether by hook or crook, whether by the fact their top people are "ex" NSA/CIA/FBI or via national security letters) and after the anger from Stuxnet and the embarrassment of their Vietnamese contractor (sheesh, back in the day governments used their own citizens for intelligence operations) who had Kaspersky installed, but this is a choice.</p><p></p><p>It's a betrayal of customers who in the end were not responsible for the actions of their government and who via keeping Kaspersky installed long after the smear campaign against it began showed trust. From a purely mercenary point of view of maximizing profit this was a good decision, they sold out their customers and made additional money before being kicked out rather than walking away with nothing. Those customers who know nothing of AV's and quality may even see this as a positive. They burned their bridges with technically proficient users in a market they're realistically never returning to anytime soon.</p><p></p><p>These people look like a untrustworthy company AT BEST (VPN with low privacy ratings held by a holding company in the US also doesn't scream trustworthy company that cares about its reputation to me which is a big no-no for something that has complete and unfettered access to my system and all files and activities, seem like at the very least like the kind of mercenary people who'd sell access to customer data to intelligence or anyone with a bag full of money. And I never forget the existence of In-Q-Tel or the fact that the NSA/CIA ran CryptoAG which means holding companies are immediately even more suspicious). Kaspersky was actively able to fend off state actors attacking their company network and uncover sophisticated hacking campaigns against their iPhones, they uncovered Stuxnet/FLAME, their products consistently ranked highest in independent testing, that's who I paid.</p><p></p><p>Ah well, back to default deny and shopping around for more hardening software and an on-demand scanner.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BarrierMaze, post: 1103107, member: 117074"] I'm guessing that it lacks any kind of application control which was one of Kaspersky's shining features (such granular controls and the user could add more, I mean stellar interface for it) or at least any with any level of significant control like Kaspersky Internet Security/Total Security/Premium? Personally that's why I liked Kaspersky, that and the online network reputation system. I'd check all new files in it for how much they'd been seen. Even something that evades detection by heuristic analysis is bound to look a little weird if it's masquerading as something else that should have a larger install base. It's true the heuristics were pretty good too of course but default-deny is more my speed or at least informed allow which Kaspersky helped with. This leaves a sour taste. The fact that it wasn't a choice given to customers definitely speaks to a selling of customers in a way you rarely see (they'd get more if they forced all customers onto this software as opposed to making it a choice customers have to exercise). I'd have definitely chosen to keep the Kaspersky software installed but without updates with application control set to auto-assign to low or untrusted as I have over this. I didn't blame Kaspersky for all the US targeting because they didn't play ball with western intelligence like all the western AV companies (whether by hook or crook, whether by the fact their top people are "ex" NSA/CIA/FBI or via national security letters) and after the anger from Stuxnet and the embarrassment of their Vietnamese contractor (sheesh, back in the day governments used their own citizens for intelligence operations) who had Kaspersky installed, but this is a choice. It's a betrayal of customers who in the end were not responsible for the actions of their government and who via keeping Kaspersky installed long after the smear campaign against it began showed trust. From a purely mercenary point of view of maximizing profit this was a good decision, they sold out their customers and made additional money before being kicked out rather than walking away with nothing. Those customers who know nothing of AV's and quality may even see this as a positive. They burned their bridges with technically proficient users in a market they're realistically never returning to anytime soon. These people look like a untrustworthy company AT BEST (VPN with low privacy ratings held by a holding company in the US also doesn't scream trustworthy company that cares about its reputation to me which is a big no-no for something that has complete and unfettered access to my system and all files and activities, seem like at the very least like the kind of mercenary people who'd sell access to customer data to intelligence or anyone with a bag full of money. And I never forget the existence of In-Q-Tel or the fact that the NSA/CIA ran CryptoAG which means holding companies are immediately even more suspicious). Kaspersky was actively able to fend off state actors attacking their company network and uncover sophisticated hacking campaigns against their iPhones, they uncovered Stuxnet/FLAME, their products consistently ranked highest in independent testing, that's who I paid. Ah well, back to default deny and shopping around for more hardening software and an on-demand scanner. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Top
