Best Internet Security

btw, you don't happen to have an intel ssd, and kaspersky on it? because detlev had to drop kaspersky, as it made the ssd so slow, it made it essentially useless. maybe that's your issue, too..

 

i use kaspersky for 2 years now, never had any slow downs except now with some failed update for win7.. but the next update will solve this.

The problem ppl have with kaspersky and slow downs:
they have other av´s/fw´s still enabled which "fight" against each other.. or they think they are super advanced smart and can setup everything but make everything wrong
but it might take more ressources than uac or win firewall.

I agree with false positives. But since the kaspersky security network is implemented i didnt rly had any false positives for ages (in short: it checks if the program is secure with some large database).

I soon want to try out different av´s & fw´s. I will ask for undedected and new backdoors/password stealers(only for the server.exe ofc so i guess it will be np to get them ) and run them one by one on different system setups.

@edit: i have an ssd and my speeds (with hd tune) are pretty normal
I guess this guy rly did some very wrong

 

well, detlev made none of those things wrong. a clean install of vista runs very fast on the intel ssd. kaspersky on it, and it's slow. and, i guess, a default installation + default kaspersky installation should not result in a system with conflicts? if it does, then, that's a next minus point for the software. it's not 'simple to install'

so no, it's kasperskys fault. not his super advanced smart setup. installing windows, then kaspersky, is not complicated, and should not result in issues.


and as you report similar behavior, not knowing why.. maybe look into that.

but i suggest a clean installation with never kaspersky ever on the system. why? because after removing it, the system stayed slower than it was at the start for detlev.

 

well i dont want to go threw it step by step to see what he rly that and if that made some problem

But i belive he made something wrong because its not a common problem. I have an SSD (not with vista but win7) and my hdtune benchmarks are fine. If ppl would rly had slowdowns with ssd´s and kaspersky, there would be something about it in the kaspersky forum. But i have never heard of such an issue before :x

 

his hdtunes are fine, too. his os slows down to crap. kaspersky scans each exe when starting, on the ssd this is very feelable.

and he found further info that he's not alone with it.

I've seen more than one intel ssd. install an OS on it, and it's fast. yours isn't (the OS, not the disk itself). detlevs isn't. both have ssd and kaspersky. both don't "do something wrong", as they state.

and guess what, he dropped kaspersky and now uses MSE and his system is fast.

if i would be bored, i would backup my laptop, install vista on it, and kaspersky, and look at the difference. same with win7 again. but I'm not


I can't say for sure that's the problem in your case, but it would be my first target, as it fits the situation very well.

 

its not like kaspersky scans the whole .exe u start.. it checks if the file has changed .. if yes, then it will be scanned.. and this scan is fast enough so u wont notice it.
And normally .exe files dont change.

when u install kaspersky, it already knows all the system files and .exe files.. and will not check them again if they do not change. same goes for everything else.

also: if it changes, and it changes to the same way as it is in the kaspersky security network (so e.g. a update) , kaspersky wont scan it.. cause it knows that this is an update and has changed to what it should change.

So if kaspersky checked all the files everytime they were started, he did something wrong and changed the settings.

In around 2 weeks i will test it out myself. With boot time,program startup times and also i will test different av´s /fw´s.

 

You trust the company that ships software riddled with known security flaws with plans to patch them down the line after shipping, that frequently doesn't actually bother patching them for a few months at a time? You're way more trusting than I am.

PS: Microsoft is also a business, and AV vendors don't tend to do much business if their products don't do their job.

Given 5 minutes I'm sure I could riddle those Vista systems with so much malware you'd weep.

And thousands of people every day have their Vista installs trashed beyond belief, or their WoW accounts keylogged, or their credit card info stolen. Quite why you think Vista is so bulletproof I have no idea. You do realize it is/was possible to circumvent UAC with a malicious start menu shortcut, right?

 

well, i wait for your results. till then, the by detlev proven fact stays: windows on ssd == fast. windows with kaspersky on ssd == slow. and your situation indicates a similar situation.

 

actually, no, their job is to make people feel secure.
microsofts job is to get their os secure, and they advanced in great steps during the last years. and yes, any os is insecure if not designed for security 100% by default, and no programmer made any error. so yes, i trust them because i know they have security flaws. because that's normal, everywhere. even outside the computing industry.

by doing stuff that is beyond common sense, sure.

well, those thousands of people every day are much less than the ones before on xp, which is what i said. this is not just my statement. vista is obviously more secure than xp was, that's normal evolution.

and btw, to keylogg wow, you don't need uac elevation. to steal the credit card info, you don't need uac. you just need people dump enough to fall into phishing and similar. and for this, nothing can really help. social hacking always will work, if you don't teach people. social hacking always worked even before pc's. if you work in some POS environment, you learn how people steal. not with bruteforce, but with social tricks.

and, there's a reason most attacks against consumer pc's shifted from vista/win7 over to stuff like flash, and itunes. reason: because they are more simple targets.

nothing is perfect. question is, what is good enough. and you seem much more paranoid than i am. save yourself, then. i don't care. it's just unneeded. which was my original statement, and not just mine:
with common sense in the internet, there is not MUCH that can go wrong on a vista machine.

but WoW players mostly don't have common sense anyways *runs away*

 

hm which situation?

 

Honestly, the best Internet Security is just plain knowing what you're doing. My friend runs commando on his computer and he's fine, but he specifically knows what he's doing. For the average user, that may prove too much...

Also, a proper network and router is key to "internet security". All firewalls can be hacked if someone really wanted to, but a router is a bit more tricky depending on how it's configured.

 

You'll find that the reason there are so many companies out there cashing in on Windows security suites because Microsoft have been so awful at it for so long.

Since you pointed out that UAC does nothing to prevent keylogging and info theft, what exactly is the point of UAC? ESS protects against it, surely if Microsoft and UAC were as bulletproof as you seem to believe then they would too?

And again if UAC was so great then surely it'd target the infections themselves, not the vehicle with which they entered the system? Whether it came in via a Flash vulnerability or an iTunes one, once it's here it should be stopped by UAC, surely?

You basically highlight many situations in which the average user can become infected and then say protection isn't needed, now THAT'S stupid.

 

My goodness. ALL software have vulnerabilities. ALL systems will be compromised in time. The same can be said of anti-virus software. They ship with known bugs and known vulnerabilities.

It's the age old adage of seeking a satisfying solution versus an optimized solution.

Now I know you are full of it. Because any programmer with user intervention can compromise any system.

It's called social engineering.

Thousands, everyday huh?

So that mean all installations of Vista will be trashed in the course of three months? Your math and statistics citing has gone off the deep end here.

You realize (of course you don't) UAC was never intended to be a security solution. Anyone who knows how UAC works will understand that. To bash it as a failed security solution is like bashing windshield wipers from preventing accidents in the rain.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/2009.07.uac.aspx

Anti-virus software will never prevent social engineering. Lets get that clear. In fact, no piece of software will ever prevent theft by social engineering. Thieves will always be one step ahead of the arms race versus security systems.

Seriously, your obsession with UAC only proves how ignorant you are of OS security. Microsoft has implemented countless security measures under the hood that casual users will never ever encounter. They will remain nameless to users like you.

Lets make this clear.

In due time, all software will be compromised.

And all this talk about vulnerabilities and bugs is driving me crazy. Your software could literally have a million bugs and vulnerabilities and still be safe. A bug and vulnerability is just that, just a door. It takes an exploit to turn a vulnerability into a security nightmare.

Just like a chained door is vulnerable to bolt cutters. However, you gotta get the bolt cutters in there first.

And just like any basic security system design, just getting into the front door is the first part. If you are then faced with more locked doors, thus your few exploit and vulnerability are useless.


Of course, all of us here already knew that. Scanning these posts, you would never think the participants here confused vulnerability with exploit with bugs.

 

Yup, at the end of the day, nothing is perfect. We recommend specific configurations and combinations, but those aren't bulletproof; they're merely the most adequate or the most simple for the average user.

Everything has a flaw, an exploit or a kind of malfunction which can be abused. That's why there are things like Service Packs, Patches and Updates with every single software.

Windows/Microsoft has made very good progress in the security department over the years. They're actually not as bad as they used to be and they're only getting better.

If you want more protection, by all means get more. I know a guy who has a personally coded firewall and uses 3 proxies whenever surfing the intenret when not on his home network.

 

I'm with ya.

It must be amateur hour here. I can't understand why this thread reads like an internet blog.

 

Well thanks for that update there, Captain Obvious.

I don't think you actually know what full of it means, you certainly don't appear to be using it in the correct context.

Quite clearly that statement was a well considered and empirically tested figure, and not one just made up on the spot.

However, yeah, considering the installed userbase of Windows, and even Vista in particular, I'm pretty sure that thousands, probably even tens of thousands of those systems are hit by god awful malware of some sort every single day.

Thanks for yet another update there Captain Obvious. However when it has already been brought into a conversation regarding computer security, then referring to it is within context, no?

Yet more Captain Obvious. However I'm not exactly sure what relevance it has since I'm not even talking about social engineering, you're clutching at straws here.

My obsession with UAC? I only referred to it in the first place due to a certain person apparently thinking it's the second coming of christ. Reading comprehension really isn't your strong point now is it?

Captain Obvious strikes again!

Are you aiming for some kind of redundant statement merit badge here or what? You've probably earned your excessive bold badge already though, so congratulations on that one.

 

I just love "debates"

I blame the OP!

 

Well, like I said, this discussion is amateur hour. I join in and no one has nothing to add. Suffice to say few here actually design and implement security systems.

 

I'm confused at what you're arguing here st0nedpenguin

You're pointing out stuff in surfasb's post but what does any of that have to do with internet security? Are you arguing it's bad?

 

Thread has deteriorated into bickering and is now closed. .

There has been plenty of suggestions, so take a look at them if you interested in a IS, but make sure to do your own research and analyze what you need vs. want you want before taking the plunge.

 

Avast works good for me.