• BombOmOm@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    73
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    I’m surprised at how many companies still use a Russian AV. You are relying on this singular piece of software to keep your computer safe, and you pick the Russian one? Particularly when Windows Defender is right there. All you have to do is…not install the Russian AV.

    • jubilationtcornpone@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      55
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Probably because old habits die hard. Kaspersky used to have a pretty good reputation as far as AV software. In the past, I used TDSSKiller to resurrect many PC’s where other antivirus software failed.

      Unfortunately, the whole Russia being a malicious actor negates any reasons to continue using Kaspersky.

    • skooma_king@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      I used to work for a major research university and they switched to Kaspersky. It baffled me that any foreign AV was permitted, let alone one made in a hostile country.

        • BassTurd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 days ago

          Not really. It’s the nature of how software like AV has to work. In order to protect against the baddies, it has to run at the kernel level, which is unfettered access to the system. If it didn’t run there, it would be borderline useless for security. Bad practices like poor code review like Crowdstrike is the real crime.

          • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            3 days ago

            Kinda like the government… They say there are here for YOUR security but are they really?

            I haven’t used AV beyond windows spyware most of my life and mint Linux doesn’t even have it. I don’t think. I guess enteprise might different situation… Not sure if there is real benefit to them.

            I see no benefit for normal use case but I am open to hearing if I am wrong.

            • BassTurd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              3 days ago

              Every business that has connected devices should be running an AV solution, at least for Windows, which is the vast majority of users. In many sectors, it is a requirement to do business. I’ve never worked in a Linux based business environment, so I’m not sure what the AV solutions are. Many reputable businesses will have network wide monitoring via SIEM tools and other agents.

              AV does exist for the end user’s security, generally even the likes of Kaspersky. The inherent nature of running at the kernel level means that if something malfunctions, malicious or not, the effects can be significant. Generally speaking, these products aren’t malicious because that’s bad for business. The problem with companies like Kaspersky is that they have to comply with government requests which could mean access to private information.

              The most important part of IT security is the human element. Don’t click bad links, don’t give out secret information, etc. AV products help when people mess up but also help protect against drive-by threats that don’t require human interaction.

              I don’t run anything in my person Linux machines and used free Windows Defender on Windows for years. For anything not needing corporate level security, the free Defender is going to be more than enough and in most cases the best option for performance, not just cost.

              • sunzu2@thebrainbin.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                3 days ago

                Thank you for providing additional context…

                Seems reasonable so have to point this out tho

                The problem with companies like Kaspersky is that they have to comply with government requests which could mean access to private information.

                How is this different from any US based company or EU based company for that matter?

                • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 days ago

                  If you are a US based company, you already have to comply with US government legal requests. However, if you are a US company and using a Russian AV, now your AV will have to comply with Russian government requests. Russia is well known for asymmetric attacks, and giving that geopolitical adversary kernel level access to your entire corporate network is … unwise.