3 ms·
>The reasons for choosing Kaspersky were the great reputation and the admin console. >Any other suggestions for protecting a mix of Windows workstations and se
by Jerry2 11y ago
>The reasons for choosing Kaspersky were the great reputation and the admin console.
>Any other suggestions for protecting a mix of Windows workstations and servers?
I don't understand your line of thinking. Why choose something else when Google's working hard on making sure Kaspersky works properly? It's not like any other solution you pick will be bug-free. At least now, after Google's hard work and heavy 'tire-kicking', you can be safer that major bugs in Kaspersky are being taken care of.
- justinschuh 11y agoTavis' work isn't enough to significantly improve the quality of any of these "security" products -- that would take a big investment that isn't really feasible for a third-party. Honestly, he's just demonstrating that these products are all littered with trivially found and exploited vulnerabilities, and that they generally make their users less safe. Microsoft Defender is the only product that Tavis didn't repeatedly knock over in a matter of days. If I were to venture a guess as to why, I'd say that Microsoft's incentives are more in line with their users here. They understand secure development process and aren't selling Defender. So, they're starting from a better security baseline and have no reason to add tons of attack surface in the name of market differentiators.