Talk:Kaspersky Internet Security

Comment

The below is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, specifically flaming other users. TechOutsider now understands and apologies for being uncivil.

Pro-Kaspersky Propaganda

Lots of pro KAS propoganda getting into this article (almost as if their PR department wrote it)...including editing of certain phrases by some members to imply a positive (not neutral) viewpoint. Many marketing and PR links used to cite claims.... we should be presenting facts without hyping the software or implying how awesome it is or isn't.

Phrases such as

• "advanced web exploit detection"
• "powerful HIPS system"
• "powerful whitelisting technology powered by the Bit9 application database"
• and the number of times "intelligently" was used to describe KAS.
• and other numerous, minor edits.
• Not to mention the # of times "Suspicious files are also detected using a specialised suspicious packer recognition technology."was mentioned.
• and yet another instance about "Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 now also features improved detection for suspicious packers and advanced heuristics to proactively detect new malware and web exploits." that is like the 5th time it was mentioned in the article.
• and "Kaspersky Internet Security has the best real-time protection and self-defense capability of solutions tested"
• and "It is known for having a high detection rate (as shown with tests by AV Comparatives , AV Test, Virus Info and Virus Bulletin), mainly due to its fast response rate (on average, an update is delivered around 0 to 2 hours after malware outbreak) and built-in heuristics technology"

OMG that is the 6th time at least you mentioned it heuristics and the section is extremely vauge, and actually KAS's scores are slipping :]

• "Kaspersky Internet Security has won numerous awards from respected IT Journals, such as PC Authority, PC World, PC Professional, PC Pro, Computer Shopper and Computerbild. It is also the winner of many editor's choice of websites like CNET and Softpedia." TechOutsider (talk) 00:47, 9 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Poorly written article

One at a time ... First, awards do not go under features. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norton_Internet_Security TechOutsider (talk) 00:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)TechOutsider well why dont YOU edit it then? and by the way, "one at a time"? you only had ONE thing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.69.61 (talk) 22:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Because Kaspersky fails IMHO. And there are capitalization errors along with a lack of citations. TechOutsider (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Image sizes

I edited the image sizes to reduce them somewhat so that text does not get too squashed at the side of it. Most images around WP are made smaller to allow more readability of the text. Can we not agree to reduce the main image to at least to 300px? -TonyW (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, made it 300px. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs) 19:30, 28 July, 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It looks much better, but I also reduced the size of the alert dialog box as well. -TonyW (talk) 19:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Kaspersky Propaganda

Lots of pro KAS propoganda getting into this article (almost as if their PR department wrote it)...including editing of certain phrases by some members to imply a positive (not neutral) viewpoint. Many marketing and PR links used to cite claims.... we should be presenting facts without hyping the software or implying how awesome it is or isn't.

Phrases such as

• "advanced web exploit detection"
• "powerful HIPS system"
• "powerful whitelisting technology powered by the Bit9 application database"
• and the number of times "intelligently" was used to describe KAS.
• and other numerous, minor edits.
• Not to mention the # of times "Suspicious files are also detected using a specialised suspicious packer recognition technology."was mentioned.
• and yet another instance about "Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 now also features improved detection for suspicious packers and advanced heuristics to proactively detect new malware and web exploits." that is like the 5th time it was mentioned in the article.
• and "Kaspersky Internet Security has the best real-time protection and self-defense capability of solutions tested"
• and "It is known for having a high detection rate (as shown with tests by AV Comparatives , AV Test, Virus Info and Virus Bulletin), mainly due to its fast response rate (on average, an update is delivered around 0 to 2 hours after malware outbreak) and built-in heuristics technology"

OMG that is the 6th time at least you mentioned it heuristics and the section is extremely vauge, and actually KAS's scores are slipping :]

• "Kaspersky Internet Security has won numerous awards from respected IT Journals, such as PC Authority, PC World, PC Professional, PC Pro, Computer Shopper and Computerbild. It is also the winner of many editor's choice of websites like CNET and Softpedia."

Comments

@Jamshud ..... still a bit strong coming from the person who's selectively editing the Kaspersky articles. You said that KAS protects against malware. Then, you ramble on with a list of different kinds of malware. That's redundant right there. TechOutsider (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Techoutsider

@Jamshud .....

who is the intended reader of this article? Kaspersky PR? Average Joes looking for security software? Technical people? I believe Wikipedia was aimed towards a broad audience; right now there's a lot of techie stuff in the article that wouldn't exactly make sense or matter to ordinary joes. Make a separate article, like I did with Norton Insight, a whitelisting technology. TechOutsider (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Techoutsider

See, if you read the Norton Internet Security article, it's got the system req. up front; what most ppl care about. Then, I have a nice list of features NIS include, complete with references to related wiki articles which go in more detail; none of that "system security module" or that module crap that only people like you and me will understand (partially).

AV's are more or the less the same to an avg. person looking in wiki for product information. And I have disclaimers, such as incompatibilities, right there. Then, I got the techie stuff and boring stuff; a brief history, info. about macs, and a nice long section of criticisms. Then a short, condensed section about third-party testing in detection capabilities; no references to product reviews. TechOutsider (talk) 03:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Techoutsider

BTW, I like Kaspersky 8.0 preview for windows 7 :) TechOutsider (talk) 04:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

@Jamshud .....

“ active user forum ... ”

I don't like "active" TechOutsider (talk) 03:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)Techoutsider

@Jamshud .....

“ very effective at blocking new, unknown malware and succeeded in blocking around two-thirds of their malware test set on first execution, not taking into account any of the other protection components of KIS ”

Is that a quote or your own interpretation of the results? TechOutsider (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

@Techoutsider.... I really don't appreciate being addressed in a smartass manner so cut it out. I really don't care who you are or what flag you are waving but seeing as I use the product I thought I would contribute to this article. I hope that isn't illegal yet. I have condensed the articles and removed some of the parts you were screaming about....speedy deletion tag again, no?

Jamshud (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

.... bit rich coming from the guy who is selectively editing Kaspersky and Kasperksy Lab related articles. The user history does wonders you know :). The Norton articles have a healthy critism section; actually, that section is longer than any other section in the article. And guess what? I was the one who added some criticisms! If you don't like the product its one thing but to mark articles as adverts because you want your company to do better is just plain stupid. If you can find one bit of advertising or otherwise slanted POV in any of the Norton articles then I'll be surprised. TechOutsider (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

---

@Techoutsider.... bit rich coming from the guy who is selectively editing Norton and symantec related articles and doing exactly the opposite of what you just tried to highlight. The user history does wonders you know :) Also why did you nominate the kaspersky article for speedy deletion when there was nothing wrong with the article apart from the alleged "pro-kaspersky" content? Nominate the article for neturality checking if you wish....

• "advanced web exploit detection" > Kaspersky implemented a web exploit emulator...ref: http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=86632

• "powerful HIPS system"> Reference to av-comaratives.org, 2/3 of samples blocked proactively by HIPS

"powerful whitelisting technology powered by the Bit9 application database" > Whats wrong with that? Kaspersky uses bit9, reference given

Then how bout I say that "norton uses a powerful whitelisting technology, Norton insight ..."? I don't think so.

• and the number of times "intelligently" was used to describe KAS. > Sorry, who made you the dictionary police...does kaspersky do it stupidly, then?

:A computer program can't be intelligent! It just follows a set of directions and makes some limited choices. If I used all the words you used to describe Kaspersky in teh Norton articles, then people would be all over me!!! .... "Norton intelligently blocks threats with it's browser protection feature" .... "Norton's powerful SONAR protection" .... ehh, no.

• and yet another instance about "Kaspersky Internet Security 2009 now also features improved detection for suspicious packers and advanced heuristics to proactively detect new malware and web exploits." that is like the 5th time it was mentioned in the article.< Specific change to this version, nothing wrong with mentioning it.

• and "Kaspersky Internet Security has the best real-time protection and self-defense capability of solutions tested"
• and "It is known for having a high detection rate (as shown with tests by AV Comparatives , AV Test, Virus Info and Virus Bulletin), mainly due to its fast response rate (on average, an update is delivered around 0 to 2 hours after malware outbreak) and built-in heuristics technology" >All reputable sources quoted and properly referenced.

Please for the love of all that is good keep fanboyism out of it. If you don't like the product its one thing but to mark articles as adverts because you want your company to do better is just plain stupid. :This is plain advertising. No need for all those weasel words to imply a falsified image of how good a product is.

Jamshud (talk) 01:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

@Jamshud So how do you explain Mr. "I am not Mr. Kaspersky PR", the fact that you are ignoring my comments? The only reason I can think of is that it is questioning the integrity or reputation of (your?) company! Let readers decide for themselves based on FACTS; don't lure them using weasel words/phrases! This article still reads like it was thrown together using a bunch of phrases from kaspersky.com!!! You didn't even bother to get the internal links right! You didn't unify the hyphenation of certain words!!! At least make it sound professional. This sounds like a half-hour's copy/paste marathon! Are you getting bonuses for this?

As for the Norton and related articles, I can only find one word that slants in a particular point of view; and that word is "improved". Which I now deleted. Looking at your user history, all you've edited were the Kaspersky IS articles! I edited not only the Norton articles, but basically every AV's article for grammer, consistency, style, POV, spelling, and just recently helped the Jetico Personal Firewall article back on it's feet, neglected since 2007. And don't forget returnil.

And guess what? I got a peer review for Norton Internet Security! No where in the peer review did Uncia mention "advertising". Wikipedia:Peer review/Norton Internet Security/archive1 TechOutsider (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

>And guess what? I got a peer review for Norton Internet Security! No where in the peer review did Uncia mention "advertising".

Congratulations. No sarcasm intended.

>Looking at your user history, all you've edited were the Kaspersky IS articles!

I am a newly registered user, still getting the hang of wikipedia. Apparently I should start from a specific article that isn't a Kaspersky one?

>The only reason I can think of is that it is questioning the integrity or reputation of (your?) company!

Ridiculous. I am an independent malware researcher and have no financial or official connection with any vendor Kaspersky or otherwise. I do frequent security communities, however.

>You didn't even bother to get the internal links right! You didn't unify the hyphenation of certain words!!! At least make it >sound professional. This sounds like a half-hour's copy/paste marathon! Are you getting bonuses for this?

I am sure you realise that putting together an article when it has been edited by a number of different people is quite a challenge and will require a numerous edits before it looks or sounds professional again. And please stop with the bonuses and kaspersky remarks, you yourself admitted that you are a norton "fan" on the Kaspersky Lab talk page so it is obvious your comments here are negative because you assume I have some sort of connection (employment?) with Kaspersky, and Kaspersky/Norton fans seem to have a history. Just relax and drop it...I'm here to try and improve articles, if my edits are non constructive revert them or leave a message on my talk page so I can review them. Maybe I was hot headed in my previous comments above if so I do apologise. Are we "cool" now (as they say)? Jamshud (talk) 23:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I looked at both the Kaspersky and Norton articles, and I saw that the Norton article was a lot more developed and detailed then the Kaspersky article. Kaspersky's article could really use some cleaning up. Bryzal (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality check

I have nominated this article for a neutrality check, have tried my best to remove any overly positive references and add some critism. Will also add a section exploring some complaints raised about the program Jamshud (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As far as neutrality goes, this article is fine. Suggestions for improving the article as a whole include putting Kaspersky in context to an average reader. Specifically the "Features" section. Less one sentence paragraphs and embedded lists. Aim for well organized, structured prose in paragraph form. Remove the names of options found inside Kaspersky, except for the most important ones. TechOutsider (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider

Thank you for the input. I will try to retwig some bits when I have some more time. Jamshud (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Parallels Desktop Included Program

If you have a Mac and you buy Parallels Desktop for Mac, Kasperksy Internet Security is included on every virtual machine configured. Shouldn't the inclusion of such an anti-virus program be included with this article?--megamanfan3 (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you back that up with a source? PlantRunner (talk) 01:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Kaspersky's Sound

A lot of people have been saying that there has been too much positive facts about Kaspersky in the article, and I noticed that they did not mention its "screeching" sound in version 7.0 which was complained by PcWorld. I didn't add much, just a sentence, so it might need some lengthening and more information. Bryzal (talk) 03:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I read in the source, they noted it, but did not identify it as a complaint or negative. It would be mischaracterizing the source to identify it as such. Also, it seems trivial to mention, since the sound can be turned off or changed. --HamburgerRadio (talk) 11:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading a review in PCmag, they also complain about the noise in 7.0, but since I'm rather new to wikipedia, I'm not sure if referencing reviews would be considered being biased or not, but if not, that may be a good thing to include. Stormstream (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

2011 Section inaccurate.

Kaspersky 2011 will not be released until August. The section states that it has already been released. Stormstream (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Correct, but the Beta version is out and being used, I corrected that. I also reworded part of the 2011 section to avoid confusion. PlantRunner (talk) 22:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality/Cleanup Check Necessary Still?

This article was nominated for a Neutrality and Cleanup check over a year ago. I made some edits, and after reading the article, it now seems to be neutral. Should they be removed? It doesn't seem necessary anymore. PlantRunner (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Needs information about alternatives

The article could use some information about alternative software products, like at least references to some competitors, if not explicit comparisons.

Kaspersky internet security is discontinued.

It is TheMaggster (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

• @TheMaggster: I noticed the lead section uses the past tense. If this is true, please mention it in the article with a reliable source. Hairy Dude (talk) 10:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)