Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good? - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good? - Firewalls ; Wilf wrote: > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote: >> Wilf wrote: >> >>> But by starting off by debunking, you just switch people off and they >>> then gain nothing from you when there was so much they might have >>> learned ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 29 of 29

Thread: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

  1. Re: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

    Wilf wrote:

    > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >> Wilf wrote:
    >>
    >>> But by starting off by debunking, you just switch people off and they
    >>> then gain nothing from you when there was so much they might have
    >>> learned from a more subtle response.

    >>
    >> If people just want to hear what they'd like to hear, they shouldn't be
    >> asking in first place. And, after all, Usenet is a medium for discussion,
    >> not a support medium.

    >
    > You're right, but the essence of a good discussion is not to belittle
    > what the other party is saying, or asking.


    Maybe that's why my postings are rather ironic: I seed the people doing
    dumb stuff, but I don't treat them as dumb and take their words for serious
    - which creates that clear contrast between what they want and how things
    are actually like.

    Just that most people seem to fail realizing that it's not my fault that
    reality bites them in their asses, and that I'm just providing a
    clearification.

    At any rate, someone needs to tell them what's actually going wrong. And
    I'm telling it outright. Yes, being honest to people is a pitiful job.

  2. Re: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    > Wilf wrote:
    >
    >> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >>> Wilf wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> But by starting off by debunking, you just switch people off and they
    >>>> then gain nothing from you when there was so much they might have
    >>>> learned from a more subtle response.
    >>> If people just want to hear what they'd like to hear, they shouldn't be
    >>> asking in first place. And, after all, Usenet is a medium for discussion,
    >>> not a support medium.

    >> You're right, but the essence of a good discussion is not to belittle
    >> what the other party is saying, or asking.

    >
    > Maybe that's why my postings are rather ironic: I seed the people doing
    > dumb stuff, but I don't treat them as dumb and take their words for serious
    > - which creates that clear contrast between what they want and how things
    > are actually like.
    >
    > Just that most people seem to fail realizing that it's not my fault that
    > reality bites them in their asses, and that I'm just providing a
    > clearification.
    >
    > At any rate, someone needs to tell them what's actually going wrong. And
    > I'm telling it outright. Yes, being honest to people is a pitiful job.



    You're right to try to be honest with people, no question about that.
    Of course an honest message can be delivered in a number of ways,
    bluntly, hurtfully, tactfully, empathetically, respectfully; you name it.

    --
    Wilf

  3. Re: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?


    "Wilf" wrote in message
    news:458022F9.6070004@wilf45728.com...
    > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >> Wilf wrote:
    >>
    >>> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >>>> Wilf wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> But by starting off by debunking, you just switch people off and they
    >>>>> then gain nothing from you when there was so much they might have
    >>>>> learned from a more subtle response.
    >>>> If people just want to hear what they'd like to hear, they shouldn't be
    >>>> asking in first place. And, after all, Usenet is a medium for
    >>>> discussion,
    >>>> not a support medium.
    >>> You're right, but the essence of a good discussion is not to belittle
    >>> what the other party is saying, or asking.

    >>
    >> Maybe that's why my postings are rather ironic: I seed the people doing
    >> dumb stuff, but I don't treat them as dumb and take their words for
    >> serious
    >> - which creates that clear contrast between what they want and how things
    >> are actually like.
    >>
    >> Just that most people seem to fail realizing that it's not my fault that
    >> reality bites them in their asses, and that I'm just providing a
    >> clearification.
    >>
    >> At any rate, someone needs to tell them what's actually going wrong. And
    >> I'm telling it outright. Yes, being honest to people is a pitiful job.

    >
    >
    > You're right to try to be honest with people, no question about that. Of
    > course an honest message can be delivered in a number of ways, bluntly,
    > hurtfully, tactfully, empathetically, respectfully; you name it.


    You forgot "obfuscated" -Sebastian's style



  4. Re: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

    Thanks for the replies,

    flip

    "fj" wrote in message
    news:RDEfh.5920$Li6.4529@trndny03...
    > hi,
    >
    > It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.
    >
    > flip
    >
    >




  5. Re: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

    Thank you for your insightful analysis. On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 01:58:19
    -0500, Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

    > J Washington wrote:
    >
    >> fj wrote:
    >>> hi,
    >>>
    >>> It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.
    >>>
    >>> flip
    >>>

    >> 1) proven antivirus, though doesn't have the excellent proactive
    >> detection

    >
    > There is no such thing like proactive detection.


    Wow, you do need to educate yourself. You aware of zero day threats, you
    know the malware that cannot be detected while 95% of AV vendors are
    scrambling to get signature updates. Please do your homework and take a
    look at reputable sights on the tests they conduct, namely
    www.avcomparative.org. You will find there is meaning to the term
    practive you idiot
    >
    >> 2) excellent firewall (take a look at www.firewallleaktester.com)

    >
    > That's looks rather quite bad. It does spend code and resource on trying
    > something obviously stupid.


    hmmm how is that stupid, seems to me that this is becoming a larger
    concern in the security industry
    >
    >> 3) lightweight and will not bog your system down

    >
    > Gotta laugh, very hard.


    Lets see.....2 process running in memory 1 that occupies less tha 4MB and
    the other around 20. Let us compare this with say Symantec, Trnedmicro
    and McAfee whose process consume a ridiculous amount.
    >
    >> I prefer using Nod32 2.7 and outpost 4.0,

    >
    > Yes, clueless people usually prefer such nonsense. After all, it seems
    > like
    > none of your arguments has any serious background.


    So what did Kapersky do to you anyway. Hey, I don't use it, but the data
    speaks for itself. Little effort researching the web will show you that
    it is a reputable suiteI think the data points I mentioned already
    shutdown that assertion But that's OK - it's
    > just his system that get's ****ed up when he's following your advice...


    we'll you can always take an image of your system using ghost or acronis
    true image, if it does mess with the system, restore the image taken
    before installing the suite

    btw, I am not certain what the opinion is on this forum for ZA, but the
    new version 7.0 will be using kapersky's AV engine....oh my God, we better
    steer clear then



    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

  6. Re: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

    John Washington wrote:

    >> There is no such thing like proactive detection.

    >
    > Wow, you do need to educate yourself. You aware of zero day threats, you
    > know the malware that cannot be detected while 95% of AV vendors are
    > scrambling to get signature updates. Please do your homework and take a
    > look at reputable sights on the tests they conduct, namely
    > www.avcomparative.org. You will find there is meaning to the term
    > practive you idiot


    That*s not proactive, but generic detection, you idiot.

    >>> 2) excellent firewall (take a look at www.firewallleaktester.com)

    >>
    >> That's looks rather quite bad. It does spend code and resource on trying
    >> something obviously stupid.

    >
    > hmmm how is that stupid, seems to me that this is becoming a larger
    > concern in the security industry


    It's stupid because it's a theoretically and practically unsolvable
    problem. Concerns won't help, especially not if they're misguided and just
    focusing on the symptoms.

    >>> 3) lightweight and will not bog your system down

    >>
    >> Gotta laugh, very hard.

    >
    > Lets see.....2 process running in memory 1 that occupies less tha 4MB and
    > the other around 20. Let us compare this with say Symantec, Trnedmicro
    > and McAfee whose process consume a ridiculous amount.


    Interesting how these huge memory-hogging processes (hint: Wipfw takes 70 K
    code + 600 K data to do a way better job) are ****ing up your network and
    slowing down your computer.

    > we'll you can always take an image of your system using ghost or acronis
    > true image, if it does mess with the system, restore the image taken
    > before installing the suite


    You know that's not a serious alternative.

    > btw, I am not certain what the opinion is on this forum for ZA, but the
    > new version 7.0 will be using kapersky's AV engine....oh my God, we better
    > steer clear then


    Why? It would make ZA less worse.

  7. Re: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

    David Smith wrote:
    > "Wilf" wrote in message
    >>
    >> You're right to try to be honest with people, no question about that. Of
    >> course an honest message can be delivered in a number of ways, bluntly,
    >> hurtfully, tactfully, empathetically, respectfully; you name it.

    >
    > You forgot "obfuscated" -Sebastian's style
    >
    >


    Doesn't end in "ly" though :-)

    --
    Wilf

  8. Re: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

    In article , flippingflapjacks@hotmail.com
    says...
    > Thanks for the replies,
    >
    > flip
    >
    > "fj" wrote in message
    > news:RDEfh.5920$Li6.4529@trndny03...
    > > hi,
    > >
    > > It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.
    > >
    > > flip
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    >

    Post at kaspersky forums
    http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?

    me

  9. Re: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

    In article <4uad31F178cugU1@mid.dfncis.de>, seppi@seppig.de says...
    > Wilf wrote:
    >
    > > What it implies is that personal computers are not advanced enough at
    > > this stage as they should be fool-proof.

    >
    > Nothing is fool-proof, especially not with computers. However, if you want
    > a good idea of how a fool-resistent system could be like, just take a look
    > at the Mac Mini running Mac OS X.


    Is that what santas wasting on you this year?
    >
    > > If you have to be ultra
    > > technical-savvy to own one then it's a device for the nerds and most PC
    > > users are anything but nerds.

    >
    > The "ultra" is a bit too overthrown. But yes, a PC is most likely not
    > suitable for many people. A quite big contrast to the actual distribution.
    > Well, that's exactly the source of the problem. And after so long time some
    > dudes are still claiming that computers would be advanced enough to be
    > easily usable for Joe Average, and with Windows XP everything gets
    > better... or with Windows Vista... whatever... and our legislation can't
    > even hold them responsible for these lies.
    >


    Ive always thought that about cars too.

    > > To deride a non-technical (or technical)
    > > person's attempt to make his PC as safe as possible by using what, to
    > > him, seems a reasonable approach of installing some firewall software,
    > > for example, is wholly wrong.

    >
    > How that? After all, it will only make things worse. The computer doesn't
    > become any more secure, rather becomes more insecure and Joe Average still
    > believes he can keep on being dumb and clicking on everything - no,
    > actually he can click on even more, since his super-duper-hyper firewall
    > protects him !!!11#


    Yes its nice to have that security isnt it.

    >
    > Now wake up. There's no alternative to user education, and software can at
    > best play a supportive role, as a toolset to a user who actually knows how
    > to use that software.


    Now thats the first sensible thing youve said all year

    > > To help the person, a little less derision and negativity, with a more
    > > constructive response would be more useful.

    >
    > And personal software **** negates every constructive approach. After all,
    > what about not running any pseudo security software at all and practicing
    > common sense? That's way better than any such software, with or without
    > common sense being applied.
    >


    Awww...there you go again with them negative waves.
    me

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2