Krapspersky does it again
"Cheap second-rate virus scanner doesn't work properly!"
In other news, the car I made from old cardboard boxes and masking tape failed its MOT yesterday.
Kaspersky's security software created confusion on Wednesday after it blocked the redesigned BBC News site and other web properties. The Russian security firm's widely used Internet Security 2011 package labelled the revamped news site as a phishing risk, warning users against visiting it. The Auntie-blocking behaviour extended …
"Cheap second-rate virus scanner doesn't work properly!"
In other news, the car I made from old cardboard boxes and masking tape failed its MOT yesterday.
OK, so Kaspersky is a "Cheap second-rate virus scanner" - what AV system do people recommend for a Wintel box these days then?
(Yes, am quite willing to pay a modest sum for it.)
So Kaspersky is a "Cheap second-rate virus scanner doesn't work properly!"? Based on just this one problem or your own second-rate uninformed opinion? If you’re going to make statements like this back them up with facts of some sort, it might make the post worth the bandwidth it took up.
I checked www.av-comparatives.org (there are undoubtedly other sources). It rates Kaspersky as one of the most effective, and publishes details on how and what it tested to come to that conclusion. Kaspersky obviously screwed up this time with a false positive, but the problem was fixed in a couple of hours. Irritating but not nearly enough to dismiss it as a useless product.
Antivir anti virus, not let me down on a windows box in over 7 years.
Free for personal use, extended capabilities for ~ £15 per year. Works very well with spybot and tea timer.
...so here 'tis!
Wintel - just don't do it!
It's free, every Vista/7 box I've installed it on doesn't suffer from the usual AV performance hit. It's also not far off in detection ability compared to the paid for ones. I've put it on my families PC's and some of them are highly inept when it comes to technology one's PC was part of a botnet and that was with AVAST installed. She's not had any problems with security essentials in 6 months.
My other suggestion is to always run as limited user, you can't really do it on XP but on Vista/7 there really is no reason for you to be logged in as administrator.
Phishing is a human hack, you con the mark into giving you the details you're after. No matter what O/S you use it can't cure stupidity.
I'd rather my security software be slightly overcautious than not recognise a potentially valid phish / badware site when I happen across it.
At least Kaspersky doesn't do Really Bad Things, like BSOD machines after laxly-compiled definition updates... Been a pretty satisfied KIS user for a couple of years now. Even better, Barclays online banking pays for my three machine licence, but I'd cough up for it anyway because me and KIS... We've become rather attached. I actually TRUST it, and I'm paranoic about online security.
KIS isn't without its foibles and slightly 'odd' behaviours, but on the whole it's one of the best all-in security suites.
You can't watch videos on the BBC news site if you don't allow the flash player to allow cookies.
I can confirm a rollback worked fine on my boxen.
given the travesty that is the new bbc news site. If anyone from the beeb are reading please brink back the old one, it worked much better, needed far less mouse clicks to navigate to the areas i wanted, now i have to f**k about with bookmarks - like i need more of them.
No? It has to be paid for somehow.
The problem with BBC News was that it was excellently laid out, easy to navigate and comfortable to use.
Can't have that lads, can we?
It looks like the BBC news site has gone altogether except for a redirect back to the main site. The redesigned news pages are now on the main site at www.bbc.co.uk/news/ instead of news.bbc.co.uk/.
>The redesigned news pages are now on the main site at www.bbc.co.uk/news/ instead of news.bbc.co.uk/
They did two changes at the same time. They've been trying to merge all the websites in under bbc.co.uk for a while now, it was news' turn to move.
The redesign was unrelated, but the timing was convenience - "hey, you're moving the urls around, how about we do this redesign now so we have less to migrate". I've seen that happen in quite a few places, it's just simple change piggybacking.
Whatever you feel about the redesign, doing it at the same time as the url reorganisation makes sense.
...of why lumping all your sites under one core domain is not such a brilliant idea.
Kaspersky's blacklisting of "bbc.co.uk" kills more now than it would have done a couple of days ago.
It's also not so bright if you have one site that uses far more resource than the rest (as, for example, I would think is the case with news.bbc.co.uk).
… Kaspersky has done everyone a favour by denying access to a nastily-coloured and senseless revamp of the BBC News site.
I hate the new design. From what was acknowledged as a very good design they've dropped to the bottom of the league!
On another topic, I would have thought the BBC could sue under English law as Kaspersky effectively libelled them.
You can't libel a corporation, only an individual.
There is a slightly grey area when a corporation is closely associated with an individual (as in, e.g., Rupert Murdoch with News Int'l), in which case he *might* try to argue that nasty comments about NI were actually aimed at *him*, but that would be a difficult case to make. Particularly for the BBC.
It was meant to say "www.bbc.co.uk" will waste your licence fee with websites to provide dull information about dull reality TV shows.
Sorry, but seeing the Sport (aka Football) section getting 'demoted' is no great loss, given there are more important things in the world happening than football.
The level of football hype and coverage in the UK would make even an Apple Marketeer blush. When I hear a 4th division Manager talking for 10 mins about what biscuits he likes with his tea on prime-time news, I'll know it's time to leave the country.
Digestives = solid, the teams not moving.
Hobnobs = the team has aspirations beyond its budget, watch for a promotion followed by relegation
Custard Cremes= The team's going down, no drive. (bloody nice biccies, but not the choice of champs)
Bourbon Cremes= Jackpot, drive, ambition and the ability to work within their means. Premiership material.
So what if I practice Biscuit Snobbery, it's not like there's any law against it (yet).
The BBC should not waste license fee payers money on covering a silly game that only 20 Million+ people in the country are interested in.
The news should be a continuous deluge of sorrow and misery giving disproportionate coverage to every bad thing that has happened and repeating it ad nauseam until something else really bad happens to replace it. The only break should be the occasional 'fluff' piece about an animal that does something cute like a cat that can play ping-pong or something.
Sports should be hidden from view in a secret and password protected page and should only cover real sports like cheese rolling, unicycle hockey and extreme morris dancing.
"Sorry, but seeing the Sport (aka Football) section getting 'demoted' is no great loss, given there are more important things in the world happening than football."
Totally agree with you that cricket is the ultimate.
"The news should be a continuous deluge of sorrow and misery giving disproportionate coverage to every bad thing that has happened and repeating it ad nauseam "
You mean, like Ingerland's departure from the World Cup?
"When I hear a 4th division Manager talking for 10 mins about what biscuits he likes with his tea on prime-time news, I'll know it's time to leave the country."
Because that's the news every day here.
If I want to read Sports stories, I'll click the f**king Sports link. When I'm looking for regional news stories, I'm looking for *news* (sport isn't news, really).
Not only is this no great loss, but a great improvement!
I could care less about BBC sports coverage, but that takes more effort than it's worth.
We still get occasional football headlines on our papers here in Australia.
If it isn't one footballer bashing up his wife, cheating on his wife, dropping his wife for some floozy,or has taken drugs. Again.
Seriously, you could create a template and just change the footballer's name.
'Course! That's what a style sheet is for!
No, I don't follow Aussie Rules either.
I see the demoting of sports coverage as no bad thing, or great loss. Perhaps if the section were deleted all together I would take great pleasure in hearing the wailing and gnashing of teeth from idiotic sports fans.
The new site is pants...
Perhaps it's good for "Mobile, Table, Pad, iPod" users, but they could have detected this and laid out .mobi pages on their own.
now I only have volesoft.com, rogister, and inq... Inq is soon to get dumped too if they revamp the subpages ;P...
I agree. Most of the links in the Welsh language section end up on 404 pages.
I was quite worried about the revamp given the mess they made of the front page, but actually it's pretty good - compact navigation all along the top rather than wasting my page-width, and as a bonus I don't have to guess where to scroll to on the page to find the sport link or whatever - they're all right at the top. And how's sport demoted? it's the second link on the page
Tried viewing it on a net book? It is very irritating to scroll past all that red at the top of the page to get to the news. I find it far more confusing. The software is right about one thing though, the bbc does steel 140 quid of my cash every year......
Any decent security software should block sites that advocate the use of Adobe bloatware.
As for the site revamp, it appears the BBC don't appear to have noticed the tendency for screens to be wider these days or maybe they have a stake in the manufacture of scroll wheels for mice. Before I get corrected as to the prevalence of wider screens by the increasing number of mobile devices with small, narrow screens, let me say that I don't see any of these being used for serious browsing, only for serious posing.
Couldn't give a monkey's about sport and I actually quite like the new design (although I do view it on a huge monitor, so I'd concede that people with tiddly screens might have an issue).
As for Kaspersky, all that's left to be said is [cue Nelson Muntz voice]... Haa haa!
This so-called 'BBC' has been stealing about £12 a month from my bank account for years....
I like the way the menus are easily found at the top of the page but the rest of it is pants. Seems to scroll on forever, too much content on one page......
It looks like it was put together by someone trained in the mid 90s on AOL. They probably took one look and went 'the server's been hijacked by script kiddies, better block it'.
Yes, I KNOW I can adjust font sizes, but the 24 point arial all over the place? Why?
Usual disclaimer... all IMHO etc....
#1. The new Beeb site design:
Shame there isn't a "part fail" tag for the Beeb's re-design. I like the way they have moved the masthead, menus etc to the top (I'm viewing on a 15" laptop screen), but if I had a cellphone or a Netbook size screen, I'd probably be ticked off at having to scroll down (perhaps a couple of times?) before I actually get to read anything of value (news!!!!!) to me....
The main content area does not have enough contrast between the background, text and border area .... actually IS there even a border area or is it just the same color as the main background?
El-Reg has two gray/blue bars down each side (helps to keep eyes on the main part of the screen) and uses lines and spaces between entries very well. This all helps to keep your eyes working in a natural (easy to use) way. Shame the Beeb ignored this need.
The "new" site design is very "2003", when most people were moving towards using larger screens and could accommodate the "longer/taller" design as all the "widgets" like maps etc are now further down the screen, rather than in side bars than in the older more 3 column oriented design. Now in 2010, while it's not perfect - and did need work - I think the design they just moved away from is possibly better suited to an era where more and more smaller/mobile devices are in use.
They once billed me for a product I never purchased, and were terrible to deal with trying to get the issue sorted out. I have been very cautious about anything that comes from them ever since and this kind of false alarm should have been identified before they released the update. It's almost like the Russians were trying to punish the west in a very cold war manner... oh wait! We just did a very "cold-war" spy swap... Nah... couldn't be, could it?
It did look a bit dated... well, very dated in places.
However now it looks *very* cluttered and is much harder to skim read. Which, after all, is what the majority of readers do when looking at a website.
Now we have 3 "main" menu bars, an annoying animated new ticker thingy, and everything else seems to be larger than before and still in a retarded fixed-width vertical band.
The only visible accessibility feature on the new BBC News site is a 'help' link stuck to the footer like a fleck of dog turd. Not-so-accessible, methinks.
And, the only place where keyboard accessibility seems to work is... on the accessibility page itself ('My Web My Way, So F*ck You').
IIRC Beeb used to implement the same keyboard mapping as uk.gov. Well it's gone pear-shaped now.
According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2010/06/update_news_and_sport_low_grap.html
the new accessibility profile isn't ready yet. I'll leave it to other to get or stay angry about that. I am interested in turning off all the Flash because my work machine has an elderly and inefficient version of that. It doesn't favour The Reg either.
The "mobile edition" at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/ seems to put fewer stories in front of you at once, you have to drill deeper for details, but isn't overloaded with Flash?
Point taken. But I'm concerned less with small mobile devices and more with the fazzands of peeps who are less mobile than the rest of us.
Hope they don't feel they're getting the bum's rush from auntie beeb.
Half of those errors are the Beeb using CSS3 properties- opacity, border-radius, rgba values, etc. They're hardly the only site doing this.
So much for accusing the BBC of poor user interface design. The message quoted in the article given by the Kaspersky software "http://www.bbc.co.uk is used to steal passwords, credit card numbers and other confidential data. Access denied" is worse. Is this message libellous?
Surely the message should have said "http://www.bbc.co.uk has been flagged as a security risk by firm XYZ. If this assessment is accurate then this web site could be used to steal passwords, credit card numbers and other confidential data. Access denied".
Is there a lawyer reading who cares to comment?
I know of a test case in Australian law that any text displayed on a computer physically located in Australia is deemed to have been published in Australia and the author (regardless of their location) can be tried for libel. So at least in Australia the BBC could sue the software vendor for libel for each case where the message was shown on a computer in Australia.
That could add up to a very big payout - maybe enough to give everyone a TV license fee holiday!