Some Americans Are Still Using Kaspersky's Antivirus Despite US Government Ban (techcrunch.com) 29
An anonymous reader shares a report: At the end of September, Kaspersky forcibly uninstalled and replaced itself with a new antivirus called UltraAV on the computers of around a million Americans, many of whom were surprised and aghast that they were not asked to give their consent for the change. The move was the end result of the U.S. government ban on all sales of Kaspersky software in the country and -- at least in theory -- marked the end of Kaspersky in America.
But not everyone in the U.S. has given up on the Russian-made antivirus. Some Americans have found ways to get around the ban and are still using Kaspersky's antivirus, TechCrunch has learned. Several people who live in the U.S. said in posts on Reddit that they are holding out as Kaspersky customers. When TechCrunch asked them about their motivations, their reasons range from being skeptical of the reasons behind the ban, or having paid for the product already, to simply preferring the product over its rivals.
But not everyone in the U.S. has given up on the Russian-made antivirus. Some Americans have found ways to get around the ban and are still using Kaspersky's antivirus, TechCrunch has learned. Several people who live in the U.S. said in posts on Reddit that they are holding out as Kaspersky customers. When TechCrunch asked them about their motivations, their reasons range from being skeptical of the reasons behind the ban, or having paid for the product already, to simply preferring the product over its rivals.
Re: (Score:1)
Utter nonsense. Kaspersky has been a trash AV long before it was widely known to be developed in Russia. It's existence as malware is easier to explain than it's inability to perform basic AV detections.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose NOMINALLY those are separate problems.
But being basically competent at the core job of software is realistically a prerequisite for doing it in a specific arena.
Now as a separate issue, I've literally never had an anti-virus have a true positive on a threat to my computer, and I feel as though they're all security theater.
Re: (Score:1)
In the late 90s and the 00's, Kaspersky was one of the best AV packages out there.
It was in the top three regarding virus detection.
It was literally the only software in town that detected trojans, RATs, and botnet infections.
Until Microsoft got in the AV business, you couldn't even rank Kaspersky for this since there was exactly zero competition, nothing else thought a remote access tool you didn't install was a problem of any sort and not worth adding to definitions.
What's even more off with your claim, t
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Nope. You are just regurgitating propaganda here. Paid shill or useful idiot?
Just to demonstrate how full of crap you are: https://www.av-test.org/en/ant... [av-test.org]
There are countless other comparisons that say the same thing. Kaspersky is actually very good as AV goes.
Incidentally, Kaspersky has never hidden that hey are based in Russia. That is just more lies you are spewing.
Re: Makes sense (Score:2)
Kaspersky has an acceptable detection rate but the resource use is obscene.
What's weird about that is that back in the win2k days my associates and I all used it because its performance impact was lower than any other credible performer.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin thanks you for your efforts
Not a problem for most (Score:4, Informative)
If you're an average person who is not employed in an area that might be of interest to the GRU, and you paid for the service already...
Sure. Why not?
If you need a security clearance to work, probably a really stupid idea.
Re: (Score:1)
Why not? Well it doesn't work or detect anything remotely useful, for starters.
Re: (Score:2)
Heard a lot of accusations, that's never been one of them before.
Re: (Score:2)
If you need a security clearance to work, you never used Kaspersky to begin with.
Re: (Score:2)
Oddly, that never came up in my interview. My finances, questions about patriotism, everywhere I'd ever worked, lived or travelled, everyone I had any kind of relationship with, what social media I used... nothing about my choice of AV software.
Re: Not a problem for most (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Many Americans ignorantly believe their government's propaganda, including the vilifying of Kaspersky software.
Re: (Score:1)
silly, Russia isn't communist. Rather they have ex-KGB mafia of which Putin is boss, capitalism raised to ridiculous extreme over law... for some.
We're the government ... (Score:3)
don't use their spyware (Score:1)
No name brand loyalty (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not "in the industry". I am a private user who uses my computer for general activities, work and projects at home, and for my professional but non-business work (research, papers, etc.). I remember when computing was bleeding edge fun and exciting, and no one would have imagined bad actors trying to mess with your stuff such that you needed an anti-virus program. Sadly, times and people have gotten progressively more perverse, and security software is an unavoidable necessity.
But, I also know how to practice "safe sex" computing and keep my dongles out of the wrong holes where I might get infected, so I rarely EVER see any malware, and I haven't had to reload a system image or do a major cleanup in 20 years. I sleep just fine not worrying about my rig or data.
Over the past 30 years, I have used PC-cillin, Kaspersky, Norton, - I can't remember them all. For me, they are all just a commodity item. At any time, I use the one that is compatible with my system and is highly rated by independent reviewers to work as advertised or expected. In the Windows 95 through XP eras, I seemed to replace AV programs about once every two years. Reasons to switch were always the same : the company issued an upgrade that was no longer compatible with my system; or, I upgraded the OS and the old AV was not compatible; or, independent reviews said that that particular product had seen better days and was no longer doing its job. Sticking with that strategy, and being sensible, I have had no problems.
I understand why some people want to stick with Kaspersky, or any product, if that has been working fine and meets your needs. But, I also know you will do just fine if you switch to something else, because a hamburger is just hamburger, not much difference how the name brands taste. And frankly, there are quieter, faster, less obtrusive products, so you might be pleasantly surprised if you make the switch. So, if you are one of those holdouts, I can relate, my sympathies are with you, but I'll bet you will be happy you switched. Even if you don't, the current installation won't last much longer as the malware landscape continues to evolve, and the security program doesn't, so you may be forced into a switch in a year or two or three. Do it on your terms, not in a panic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Especially when it removes the file from its original location without asking. If you're blocking execution, you don't actually need to remove the file without my permission. Especially on a removable drive. It's not being a good "citizen" to make unannounced changes to removable drives that may belong to someone else.
Especially if I'm running a password stealing tool to retrieve my own password, for example.
Re: (Score:3)
With AV, generally you want one that is well maintained but doesn't dominate the market. The more popular the package is, the more hackers are likely to target it bypass it.
Whatever is number one on the list shouldn't be number one on yours.
Re: (Score:2)
they are all just a commodity item. [...] I use the one that is [...] highly rated by independent reviewer
Very much not the same as a commodity, then. A commodity just has to meet a basic threshold of quality and you can substitute one for another interchangeably without thinking. Highly rated is a bar too high for that.
It's the difference between buying wheat from a barge vs buying a bag of boutique organic wheat flour.