Kaspersky anti-virus for Mac
in [UK Mac]
|
From: Peter Ceresole on 26 Apr 2010 05:56 Ben Shimmin <bas(a)llamaselector.com> wrote: > People are more likely to post when they have a problem. That's pretty obvious, which doesn't make it any less true. Just as examples; I am typing this on a 667MHz TiBook, which is about 8 years old and has never given any trouble- although the original battery is effectively dead and I'm using it here on mains power because it's set up to use a modem and I'm on dialup at the moment. It's shortly (I hope) to be replaced by an iG5, now in London, about five years old, again never given any trouble at all (and also set up for modem use if I need it). Both lovely machines. Also in London, we have a 15" MBP which is too new to give any pointers to reliability but so far feels solid as a rock, and I hope a new iMac in the next few weeks. I've posted about the TiBook but mainly about the dreadful built-in modem; it was the only thing that's ever been wrong with it, and was solved by bringing across the USR Courier modem I'd been using on London before ADSL. With a Keyspan USB/Serial adapter, it's given me terrific dialup service ever since, but I did moan about the TiBook internal. Which is just about all I have posted about it. So you see the moans. Not the praise. As you might expect. -- Peter
From: Dorian Gray on 26 Apr 2010 06:19 In article <1jhi8p7.1thioe1ma9vzuN%nospam(a)nospamottersonbg.couk>, nospam(a)nospamottersonbg.couk (Duncan Kennedy) wrote: > I find it remarkable the length people will go to to justify over-priced > Macs on the grounds that they are imune from viruses. I had a number of > reasons for moving to Mac (OK I bought my first 12 years ago but > haaven't used it much - and the other 2 last year) but being imune to > viruses was not oneof the reasons. I have not seen anyone here claim that Macs are immune from viruses, nor imply that might be a reason to buy one. There are plenty of actual reasons to buy a Mac.
From: Ric on 26 Apr 2010 08:54 On Apr 23, 12:32 am, "smurf" <sm...(a)smurf.com> wrote: > Peter James wrote: > > My Bank is offering all of its on-line banking customers the Kaspersky > > anti-virus for Windows and Mac for free. > > Is this offer worth taking up? > > I'm running OS X 10.6.3. My inclination is to say no. The only > > problem is when and if my account is hacked I'm told I have no > > comeback because I'm not running anti-virus software. > > > Peter > > That is not true. Your bank is 100% responsible for your loss 100% of the > time, with the exception being that you were party to the hacking. scenario: your bank account is hacked, and emptied. Ends up being tied to a BHO keylogger on your wife's work PC. First you hear of it is on a Monday morning when all your accounts are empty. Bank can say "tough luck - your fault" or check you're not fraudulent and refund your money. I'd bet that they don't *have* to do the latter, and *could* just do the former. Natwest refunded about £4k of our money when this happened to us. If I'd pissed them off, they might not have done. Just a thought.
From: Jaimie Vandenbergh on 26 Apr 2010 09:13 On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 05:54:02 -0700 (PDT), Ric <infobubble(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Apr 23, 12:32�am, "smurf" <sm...(a)smurf.com> wrote: >> Peter James wrote: >> > My Bank is offering all of its on-line banking customers the Kaspersky >> > anti-virus for Windows and Mac for free. >> > Is this offer worth taking up? >> > I'm running OS X 10.6.3. �My inclination is to say no. �The only >> > problem is when and if my account is hacked I'm told I have no >> > comeback because I'm not running anti-virus software. >> >> > Peter >> >> That is not true. Your bank is 100% responsible for your loss 100% of the >> time, with the exception being that you were party to the hacking. > >scenario: your bank account is hacked, and emptied. Ends up being >tied to a BHO keylogger on your wife's work PC. First you hear of it >is on a Monday morning when all your accounts are empty. Bank can say >"tough luck - your fault" or check you're not fraudulent and refund >your money. I'd bet that they don't *have* to do the latter, and >*could* just do the former. >Natwest refunded about �4k of our money when this happened to us. If >I'd pissed them off, they might not have done. >Just a thought. If you'd pissed them off (what, more than they'd pissed you off by having your empty bank account?) then you take them to the banking ombudsman. The price they pay for the convenience customer self-serve, allowing them to save vast amounts of money in staff and buildings, is the ton of bricks that comes down on them if they do it wrong. Cheers - Jaimmie -- Okay, it works now. Or at least it malfunctions in all the expected ways. -- Mark Edwards, asr
From: Chris Ridd on 26 Apr 2010 09:48
On 2010-04-26 13:54:02 +0100, Ric said: > On Apr 23, 12:32�am, "smurf" <sm...(a)smurf.com> wrote: >> Peter James wrote: >>> My Bank is offering all of its on-line banking customers the Kaspersky >>> anti-virus for Windows and Mac for free. >>> Is this offer worth taking up? >>> I'm running OS X 10.6.3. �My inclination is to say no. �The only >>> problem is when and if my account is hacked I'm told I have no >>> comeback because I'm not running anti-virus software. >> >>> Peter >> >> That is not true. Your bank is 100% responsible for your loss 100% of the >> time, with the exception being that you were party to the hacking. > > scenario: your bank account is hacked, and emptied. Ends up being > tied to a BHO keylogger on your wife's work PC. First you hear of it > is on a Monday morning when all your accounts are empty. Bank can say > "tough luck - your fault" or check you're not fraudulent and refund > your money. I'd bet that they don't *have* to do the latter, and > *could* just do the former. > Natwest refunded about �4k of our money when this happened to us. If > I'd pissed them off, they might not have done. > Just a thought. An alternate approach is to sue the bank. <http://www.lightbluetouchpaper.org/2010/03/29/how-to-get-money-back-from-a-bank/> OK so the problem's somewhat different there, but the underlying issue of the contract between the Bank and $other_agency (and not you) is quite similar. -- Chris |