Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good? - Firewalls

This is a discussion on Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good? - Firewalls ; hi, It looks good to me but I don't know much about security. flip...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 29

Thread: Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

  1. Is Kaspersky's Internet Security Good?

    hi,

    It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.

    flip



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

    fj wrote:

    > It looks good to me


    Well, that's only good thing about it.

    > but I don't know much about security.


    So then why do you even bother with thinking about implementing a
    host-based packet filter? Especially if it's such a known crappy piece of
    software? What should it achieve even if you even lack more fundamental
    security concepts?

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

    fj wrote:

    > It looks good to me


    Well, that's only good thing about it.

    > but I don't know much about security.


    So then why do you even bother with thinking about implementing a
    host-based packet filter? Especially if it's such a known crappy piece of
    software? What should it achieve even if you even lack more fundamental
    security concepts? Dude, you're misusing Outlook Express as a newsreader!

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

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    > fj wrote:
    >
    >> It looks good to me

    >
    > Well, that's only good thing about it.
    >
    >> but I don't know much about security.

    >
    > So then why do you even bother with thinking about implementing a
    > host-based packet filter? Especially if it's such a known crappy piece of
    > software? What should it achieve even if you even lack more fundamental
    > security concepts?

    What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
    empty pontification. I wasn't aware that KIS was known to be so crappy
    but I'm sure higher authorities like yourself are aware. With all that
    superior knowledge and experience it's a pity you can't give a useful
    answer. Why does one need security concepts to use a PC?

    --
    Wilf

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

    Wilf wrote:

    > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >> fj wrote:
    >>
    >>> It looks good to me

    >>
    >> Well, that's only good thing about it.
    >>
    >>> but I don't know much about security.

    >>
    >> So then why do you even bother with thinking about implementing a
    >> host-based packet filter? Especially if it's such a known crappy piece of
    >> software? What should it achieve even if you even lack more fundamental
    >> security concepts?

    > What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
    > empty pontification.


    The OP got advice: To rethink his security concept first, instead of
    implementing wrong and non-working pseudo-solutions.

    > I wasn't aware that KIS was known to be so crappy


    Hey, it has "Internet Security" in its name, so it should be pretty
    obvious.

    > but I'm sure higher authorities like yourself are aware.


    Indeed.

    > Why does one need security concepts to use a PC?


    Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
    network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want security,
    then you need a concept first.

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


    So why didn't you say this in the first place instead of being a
    schwachkopf.
    Why do you bother posting here? There is certainly nothing here for you who
    knows everything but can't explain anything!!!!!!!

    "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    news:4u8rleF165gphU1@mid.dfncis.de...
    > Wilf wrote:
    >
    >> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >>> fj wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It looks good to me
    >>>
    >>> Well, that's only good thing about it.
    >>>
    >>>> but I don't know much about security.
    >>>
    >>> So then why do you even bother with thinking about implementing a
    >>> host-based packet filter? Especially if it's such a known crappy piece
    >>> of
    >>> software? What should it achieve even if you even lack more fundamental
    >>> security concepts?

    >> What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
    >> empty pontification.

    >
    > The OP got advice: To rethink his security concept first, instead of
    > implementing wrong and non-working pseudo-solutions.
    >
    >> I wasn't aware that KIS was known to be so crappy

    >
    > Hey, it has "Internet Security" in its name, so it should be pretty
    > obvious.
    >
    >> but I'm sure higher authorities like yourself are aware.

    >
    > Indeed.
    >
    >> Why does one need security concepts to use a PC?

    >
    > Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
    > network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want
    > security,
    > then you need a concept first.




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


    "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    news:4u8rleF165gphU1@mid.dfncis.de...
    Wilf wrote:

    > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >> fj wrote:
    >>
    >>> It looks good to me

    >>
    >> Well, that's only good thing about it.
    >>
    >>> but I don't know much about security.

    >>
    >> So then why do you even bother with thinking about implementing a
    >> host-based packet filter? Especially if it's such a known crappy piece of
    >> software? What should it achieve even if you even lack more fundamental
    >> security concepts?

    > What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
    > empty pontification.


    The OP got advice: To rethink his security concept first, instead of
    implementing wrong and non-working pseudo-solutions.

    > I wasn't aware that KIS was known to be so crappy


    Hey, it has "Internet Security" in its name, so it should be pretty
    obvious.

    > but I'm sure higher authorities like yourself are aware.


    Indeed.

    > Why does one need security concepts to use a PC?


    Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
    network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want security,
    then you need a concept first.

    Okay, Sebastian.
    Can't you get off your high throne for once and concisely pass-on your
    thoughts/knowledge? We all know by know that you are very well versed with
    respect to securing operating systems and most of us are impressed!
    I located a few sites covering the topic and offer
    recommendations/guidelines and think am able to implement as suggested.
    However, I am not computer-savvy enough to determine as to which of the
    following sites is *most* suitable (best) and kindly request an expert
    opinion as to which recommendations/guidelines to follow.

    http://seconfig.sytes.net/
    http://www.yellowhead.com/xpcfg1.htm
    http://www.5starsupport.com/tutorial...ng-windows.htm
    http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html#_chklst
    http://labmice.techtarget.com/articl...ychecklist.htm

    If all possible, I wish to utilize the Windows Firewall (appropriately
    configured) as according to some test reports most of the free software
    firewall versions are ineffective with respect to outbound filtering anyway.
    I read some time ago that "closing certain ports and practicing safe-hex
    together with good quality AV application(s) is a much better alternative
    than 'fancy' third-party software firewalls".

    And yes, I wish to stick with IE7 and don't consider using an alternate
    browser.

    TIA...................Kayman.


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

    You can do a custom install and just install the antivirus. Who needs
    scanning email and all that ****. Problem with this program is it always
    tells you your serial number is blacklisted. Just virus scan your
    computer once a year then uninstall the program.

    fj wrote:

    > hi,
    >
    > It looks good to me but I don't know much about security.
    >
    > flip



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

    Kayman wrote:

    >> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >> [...]
    >> What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
    >> empty pontification.


    I didn't write that.

    > The OP got advice: To rethink his security concept first, instead of
    > implementing wrong and non-working pseudo-solutions.


    And you copied my statement.

    Could it be that your totally ****ed up your quoting?



    > And yes, I wish to stick with IE7 and don't consider using an alternate
    > browser.


    Well, then you're lost. Misusing IE7 as a webbrowser undermines every
    security concept. Before searching for an alternative webbrowser, you
    should get a real one in first place...

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

    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
    2) excellent firewall (take a look at www.firewallleaktester.com)
    3) lightweight and will not bog your system down

    I prefer using Nod32 2.7 and outpost 4.0, but next to this combo that
    would be my choice

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

    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.

    > 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.

    > 3) lightweight and will not bog your system down


    Gotta laugh, very hard.

    > 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. But that's OK - it's
    just his system that get's ****ed up when he's following your advice...

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


    "Sebastian Gottschalk" wrote in message
    news:4u96t3F16t4glU1@mid.dfncis.de...
    Kayman wrote:

    >> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >> [...]
    >> What a helpful reply. The OP just appears to want some advice, not
    >> empty pontification.


    I didn't write that.

    > The OP got advice: To rethink his security concept first, instead of
    > implementing wrong and non-working pseudo-solutions.


    And you copied my statement.

    Could it be that your totally ****ed up your quoting?



    > And yes, I wish to stick with IE7 and don't consider using an alternate
    > browser.


    Well, then you're lost. Misusing IE7 as a webbrowser undermines every
    security concept. Before searching for an alternative webbrowser, you
    should get a real one in first place...

    Hi Sebastian,
    I hope the quoting issue is now resolved and restate my request.

    Can't you get off your high throne for once and concisely pass-on your
    thoughts/knowledge? We all know by know that you are very well versed with
    respect to securing operating systems and most of us are impressed!
    I located a few sites covering the topic and offer
    recommendations/guidelines and think am able to implement as suggested.
    However, I am not computer-savvy enough to determine as to which of the
    following sites is *most* suitable (best) and kindly request an expert
    opinion as to which recommendations/guidelines to follow.

    http://seconfig.sytes.net/
    http://www.yellowhead.com/xpcfg1.htm
    http://www.5starsupport.com/tutorial...ng-windows.htm
    http://www.ntsvcfg.de/ntsvcfg_eng.html#_chklst
    http://labmice.techtarget.com/articl...ychecklist.htm

    If all possible, I wish to utilize the Windows Firewall (appropriately
    configured) as according to some test reports most of the free software
    firewall versions are ineffective with respect to outbound filtering anyway.
    I read some time ago that "closing certain ports and practicing safe-hex
    together with good quality AV application(s) is a much better alternative
    than 'fancy' third-party software firewalls".

    And yes, I wish to stick with IE7 and don't consider using an alternate
    browser.
    --
    You've mentioned that I am misguided for using IE7, okay point taken. I was
    using IE since inception and did not experience or encounter any security
    issues. So I really need compelling reasons other than highly charged
    emotive arguments for not using IE7.

    Well, if you don't wish to assist with my original request then just ignore
    this post. There is no need adding flames and/or profanities (I bet you
    wouldn't do that if you were standing in front of me).
    Cheers....................Kayman.


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

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:

    >
    > Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
    > network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want security,
    > then you need a concept first.

    That's all true. but many (probably most) users of personal computers
    are naive users in a technmical sense who want to use their PC to get a
    job done, whether it's writing a book, simple surfing or whatever. They
    neither know nor care about all these matters, they just want it to
    work. Like their refrigerator - they don't need to be a
    technician/engineer to use that successfully. That's not unreasonable.

    --
    Wilf

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

    Kayman wrote:

    > I hope the quoting issue is now resolved and restate my request.


    Obviously not. There don't appear any quotes marks '>'.

    > Can't you get off your high throne for once and concisely pass-on your
    > thoughts/knowledge?


    As you may notice, one has first to debunk the wrong security concepts and
    replace them with some serious ones. Then, and only then should start
    thinking about implementations.

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

    Wilf wrote:

    > Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
    >> network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want security,
    >> then you need a concept first.

    > That's all true. but many (probably most) users of personal computers
    > are naive users in a technmical sense who want to use their PC to get a
    > job done, whether it's writing a book, simple surfing or whatever.


    I'm also pretty naive about cars. You know what? I don't even make the
    repairs myself, I rather pay someone qualified to do so.

    > They neither know nor care about all these matters, they just want it to
    > work. Like their refrigerator - they don't need to be a
    > technician/engineer to use that successfully. That's not unreasonable.


    It is. A computer is a highly complex implementation of an universal
    von-Neumann machine, and in modern it's interconnected with other
    computers. That's fundamentally different from electronic devices with a
    very limited target functionality.

    If they don't want to do the administration themselves, then they should
    pay someone to do it for them.

    Yes, I know, most people have problems understanding this, since things
    seemed to be running fine so far. But that's just the lack of consequences,
    and even so they're still to limited they seem to grow - people are being
    hold responsible for abused open WLANs, for participating in damaging
    infrastructure (DoS), and well, also for copyright infringement.

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

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    > Wilf wrote:
    >
    >> Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    >>
    >>> Because you may want to work seriously with it? Because you may have a
    >>> network connection that could be abused? At any rate, if you want security,
    >>> then you need a concept first.

    >> That's all true. but many (probably most) users of personal computers
    >> are naive users in a technmical sense who want to use their PC to get a
    >> job done, whether it's writing a book, simple surfing or whatever.

    >
    > I'm also pretty naive about cars. You know what? I don't even make the
    > repairs myself, I rather pay someone qualified to do so.
    >
    >> They neither know nor care about all these matters, they just want it to
    >> work. Like their refrigerator - they don't need to be a
    >> technician/engineer to use that successfully. That's not unreasonable.

    >
    > It is. A computer is a highly complex implementation of an universal
    > von-Neumann machine, and in modern it's interconnected with other
    > computers. That's fundamentally different from electronic devices with a
    > very limited target functionality.
    >
    > If they don't want to do the administration themselves, then they should
    > pay someone to do it for them.
    >
    > Yes, I know, most people have problems understanding this, since things
    > seemed to be running fine so far. But that's just the lack of consequences,
    > and even so they're still to limited they seem to grow - people are being
    > hold responsible for abused open WLANs, for participating in damaging
    > infrastructure (DoS), and well, also for copyright infringement.

    What it implies is that personal computers are not advanced enough at
    this stage as they should be fool-proof. 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. 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. To help the person, a little less
    derision and negativity, with a more constructive response would be more
    useful.

    --
    Wilf

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

    Sebastian Gottschalk wrote:
    > Kayman wrote:
    >
    >> I hope the quoting issue is now resolved and restate my request.

    >
    > Obviously not. There don't appear any quotes marks '>'.
    >
    >> Can't you get off your high throne for once and concisely pass-on your
    >> thoughts/knowledge?

    >
    > As you may notice, one has first to debunk the wrong security concepts and
    > replace them with some serious ones. Then, and only then should start
    > thinking about implementations.

    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.

    --
    Wilf

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

    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.

    > 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.

    > 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

    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.

    > 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.

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

    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.

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

    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.

    --
    Wilf

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast