I'd be interested to know if any of you have had problems posting negative reviews on Amazon? I recently bought Kaspersky Internet Security 2017-mostly because as a moderator here I click on lots of links and never know whether they are safe or not. Anyhow I came across a bad bug in the product. Essentially if your router uses a 192.168.1.254 gateway, as is the case with all British Telecom routers-the UK's largest internet service provider, Kaspersky blocks access to the router settings. You therefore cannot do simple things like change the router password or the Wi-Fi settings-so not exactly trivial.
I thought this was quite useful information to include in a product review at Amazon but they rejected it. It is a bug now confirmed by Kaspersky Labs and won't be fixed until next year when KIS2018 comes out. Call me cynical but the fact Amazon refused to publish a negative review about a best selling product makes me wonder how slanted the customer reviews on Amazon actually are! Below is a copy of the review they rejected-can anyone see anything even mildly wrong there? I think the moral of the story is don't believe a word of the reviews that are posted on Amazon as their interest is sales not informing customers of the facts. Anyhow if you have KIS2017 and a BT contract this information might save you some hassle as it took me 2 hours to figure out what was happening.
This is what I submitted.
I have mixed feelings about this product. I'd rate Kaspersky as the best security software available if you have to regularly click on unknown links or visit suspect websites, which might sound dodgy but as forum moderator I do that all the time, and Kaspersky keeps me safe. However there is an horrendous bug in the 2017 version. Basically if you have BTInternet you will not be able to access your hub manager. This may not be a problem generally, but if for example you wished to change your Wi-Fi settings or turn it off you wouldn't be able to. The reason for this is the router is located at 192.168.1.254 which is contrary to Netgear and others where 192.168.1.1 is the default gateway. The genius developers at Kaspersky Labs didn't take this into account with KIS2017 and access to 192.168.1.254 is blocked and cannot be unblocked-hence you cannot control the BT Infinity hub. Their tech support say this will be fixed in KIS2018-so in 11 months time which is pretty poor in my opinion. KIS2016 doesn't have the problem incidentally. If you have KIS2017 and want to access your hub you need to uninstall Kaspersky 2017, access the hub and then reinstall Kaspersky again. This might sound over critical but for a security product to prevent you changing security parameters like a router password or Wi-Fi encryption settings makes a nonsense of their company mission statement. Hence I have given this product a single star rating and couldn't recommend it to anyone who uses BT Internet and I believe PlusNet. I Should say despite screwing up access to the router , broadband performance is not affected.
Many apologies for being so off the subject of CC, but I found just one reference to this issue on the whole web and after Google spiders our forum the issue may be easier for people in the future to track down.
I see nothing wrong with your review. I see negative reviews on Amazon all the time, 1 and 2 star reviews are common, at least here in the USA Amazon site.
Thanks for that. I do some moderation here at Adobe so am aware of the kind of thing that gets rejected, but for the life of me couldn't see anything wrong with those comments. I'm in England so maybe the policy at Amazon UK is different to the US, but I won't bother to review anything at Amazon again. I now can't but help think Amazon censors fact based adverse comments to avoid putting purchasers off. They have to let some through, but I wouldn't put it past them to write mildly adverse comments themselves just to avoid generating suspicion.
Anyhow they lost out in the end as I was going to buy 6 monitors for my group at work yesterday and placed the £3000 order with another company instead-Amazon is never the only game in town.
Although I am an Amazon Prime member I rarely buy things from Amazon. I use it mostly for the videos, Included with Prime, and to rent new released movies.
Like you said they aren't the only game in town.
But Amazon doesn't Make anything, that I'm aware of. So why they would filter out negative reviews of any product doesn't make a lot of sense. Its not like they bought 10,000 piece of any of the product they are selling. Maybe that is different in the UK. Here in the states (Colonies) they use larger distribution centers that deal with many different vendors.
Maybe the Seller rejected the remark; not Amazon?
It was one of those products Amazon supplies direct Nancy-in fact you download it directly from a link to the Kaspersky Web site-Amazon just supplies a product ID. The rejection of the review also came within a minute or two of submitting it , so I don't think there was not time for a seller to get involved. The funny thing was that I resubmitted the review assuming the Amazon system was like here and the Moderator would just read it. I began Dear Mr Moderator and addressed a question to the Mod asking if they censor poor reviews. I was expecting that to get rejected and maybe then receive an email from the moderator. To my surprise they let that one through even though it wasn't a review of the product just a rant lol It's below if your interested.
I am absolutely disgusted that you have blocked my review of Kaspersky Internet Security. I have never to date written a negative review and so it is eye opening to see how you censor product reviews. If you want input from customers you need to take the rough with the smooth.
I can only think a machine does the checking and there is no human involvement as only an idiot would have published the above
LOL . Don't you just love synthetic "intelligence?"
So Terry, let's me see if I follow along with what I've read. You say that you contacted the software company first and they acknowledged the bug and said it would be addressed in a 2018 release and that you do have version 2016 and it works with your router. I would presume you've re-installed 2016 and only upgraded for added protection and security features. If you haven't then I'd recommend re-installing it. You've been around the forums long enough to know how software works. Not often do these upgrades or new versions come out completely baked and Adobe has it's fair share. I myself have an old Dell Optiplex 990 that's at least 7 years old running an ancient Windows 7 OS that's practically no longer supported, with a meager 16 gigs of ram; a couple of HD's at a paltry 150 megs apiece. The only software I have installed are Adobe Illustrator CS6 and Photoshop CS5. Everything; I mean everything, runs beautifully without a burp or bump. It's happy and I'm happy. I have no antivirus installed other than what came bundled with Win7 and have had no problems whatsoever. My modem I rent from my internet service provider and it works fine. I'm in absolutely no hurry to change anything or upgrade to anything. I'm not fixing nothing or tinkering with anything if it ain't broke and is working fine. Take my advice leave well enough alone. Amazon, Adobe, Windows, Apple or anyone one else don't always listen to anyone...just like you don't have to listen to me.
No until recently I just used Windows Defender and didn't have any commercial anti virus software. I switched to Kaspersky a few months ago after I started moderating here on the Adobe forum. I don't know if you realise, but Adobe goes to lengths to protect the people who come to these forums. The boards JIVE software scans most of the incoming input but anything it is not sure about gets put into a queue for a human to moderate. If the moderator gets it right you don't see harmful links, spam, potential fraudsters, obscene language- that sort of thing. However, this does mean the moderator needs to check out links and maybe some check downloads-must admit I don't do the latter though. You therefore need sound antivirus software better than the free stuff that comes with the OS.
I discovered last week that I could not access my router through any browser to change its configuration. At first I thought the web server in the router had failed , but quickly realised Kaspersky was blocking access to it's IP address. I did the obvious and uninstalled Kaspersky and straight away my router was accessible. I then put Kaspersky back and the router was inaccessible. Knowing what was wrong I went to the Kaspersky Labs forum online and found just one reference to this from an OP-that OP had contacted the paid for Kaspersky technical support and been told it was a bug in the latest version of KIS2017 and there was no plan to fix it. In effect the fix will be to buy KIS2018 when it comes out in late Autumn. For now downgrading to KIS2016 will fix it, but unless you regularly need to access your router configuration that is hardly worth it. As this is an acknowledged problem I therefore decided to tell Amazon customers about it through a validated buyer review, but for some reason Amazon didn't want their customers to know. You can't talk to anyone at Amazon , it seems to be totally automated. So in order to make information on this problem searchable online I posted here. Google spiders the Adobe forums and so in a few days anyone else with this problem will now be able to find the solution. In some ways posting here is more effective than posting a review at Amazon as Amazon blocks Google bots indexing their reviews and so they are not easily searchable. The review I posted was fair and not particularly negative about Kaspersky , but took five or six minutes to write and I felt Amazon wasted my time maybe to prevent sales of the product being affected-Kaspersky is a best seller. It's nothing to me but I won't give feedback on anything I buy from them in the future or believe the reviews from others on their website.
Finally I disagree that Adobe would allow CC customers to wait a year over something that can be easily fixed. Sure Creative Cloud has bugs that aren't fixed, but most of those require a radical rewrite of some of the apps to fix them. Kaspersky could fix the issue I identified simply by telling it's software not to block access to IP: 192.168.1.254 through a 'rule' - a simple patch would do that but they don't want to spend any money it seems. Well it's their reputation that gets damaged!
Sadly I think the fact you tried to post your IP address may have been the reason for rejection?
The IP she posted is a Private address. All 192.168.x.x addresses are in the Private domain and can't be reached from the internet. They are for home/office networks. The computer that I am posting this reply from has an IP of 192.168.1.100. My router is 192.168.1.1 and my Cable modem is 192.168.100.1.
The AT&T/Bellsouth modem/router combo box I use to use, when I was using Bellsouth/AT&T as an internet provider, used 192.168.1.254 as the router sections IP address.
that's quite right, but Eternal Warrior could have a point if Amazon don't know the difference between public and private IP addresses. From what I've heard Amazon is a pretty tight fisted company and pays even senior management people a fraction of what other companies do. It is possible they may have thought they were somehow protecting me I guess. A classic case of if you pay peanuts you end of with employees having the IQ of monkeys
Well I don't know what the exact IQ of a monkey is (especially as this is a social concept - rather than a defining measure of intelligence) but last I checked I was definitely in the 100+
Otherwise you are correct. That is what I was implying - hence "sadly"
Technically even Public IP addresses have limited value as this is also quite easy to get hold of Just Shoot Me.
However, I wouldn't go as far as saying that Private IP's have no value as was implied.
Well I disagree on the point that Private IPs have any value. If you check the IP address of your computer on your home or office networks I can 99.9999% guaranty it is in the 10, 172 or 192 range just like the multiple Millions or even Billions of other home/office LANs.
That is like saying the number 1032 as a house street address has value. Om what street in what city in what state/region in what country. Without all that other data that number is just that, A Number.
So much sarcasm and it's only 10:25 AM over here....
Sure I can't send you a letter at "216"... I sure as hell could try to hack your public IP and use your Private IP to provide me a basic floor plan of your virtual "home". Perhaps that wouldn't get me very far... but that depends on what my goals are?
But again this depends on where we are assigning value and in what context.
Sure, in the context of an amazon review, the moderator is being over safe about something which as pointed out - won't get you very far.
So again... Not quite sure why a very small comment suggesting that the "monkey moderators" at amazon would probably not have distinguished the difference, or taken the time, between public and private IP and that's why the comment was rejected - get's this much blast back?
Admittedly I took a tiny bit of offence at the grouping of my comment and the term "IQ of Monkeys" as well as the rebuttal from yourself.
But aren't we going a bit over board now? I only commented to be helpful after all...
I wasn't suggesting you or your comment was brainless or represents a low IQ in any way-not sure why you took it that way? The term if you pay peanuts you get monkeys is a common English expression meaning you get what you pay for, in this case maybe the Amazon moderators aren't very well informed about computer science? The fact remains if they had passed my review it would have helped other customers but they seem more interested in not losing sales.
I actually had a broadband engineer fix an issue on my line last week and I asked him when here whether BT were aware of the Kaspersky flaw and it seems they are. There is nothing they can do about it as it is a Kaspersky Lab problem . At least by publicising it here anyone going to Google can find this thread and avoid wasting their time trying to fix a software bug.
Ok Terri - I apologise.
I must be being a bit overly sensitive today - not been a good day ... Thank you for clarifying anyway.
No hard feelings I hope?
Oh by the way I live at 216. See if you can send me a letter.
Apologies also. It seems I am having difficulty recognising impassioned speech from emphatic sarcasm.
Think this post has been played out for all it was worth don't you think. I wish a intelligent moderator would button it up.
A moderator took your advice cowboy and locked the thread, but I'm a moderator as well and so have unlocked it. I agree the discussion has run it's course but I don't support locking threads that are active and only a few days old. I don't know which mod locked this thread but unless there was something nasty going on and there wasn't then their judgement was flawed. If people want to post to this it is up to them and not us to truncate the conversation. Like all threads it will die a natural death.
I agree with Terri. Locking threads is only warranted when a) there's a duplicate post, b) the original post is several years old / totally out of date and c) when the discussion devolves into contentious name calling or worse. Fortunately, none of that applies here. We are all civil adults.
Getting back to Private IP addresses for a moment. I just saw a TV program about a real life cyber attack by a jilted lover. She (the attacker) was so mad at her former fiance for calling it quits, she waged an all out assault on him personally & professionally by exploiting his private IP addresses (home and work) to make it look like HE was harassing her. I won't go into details except to say she was relentless and her antics got this poor man fired from his job & falsely arrested 3 times.
Ultimately, she messed up & left a traceable path which landed her in prison for 9 years + 19 years parole. The victims however are still dealing with the aftermath.
Posting IPs in a public forum is probably not a good idea. You don't know who is on the receiving end or how much access to other information they have about you: ie. phone numbers, Amazon accounts, etc... that can be traced to your physical address.
You can't Exploit a Private IP address without knowing the Public IP that Private IP is behind.
At my home my Private IP range is 192.168.1.xxx, .100 to .150.
At my place of work, when I'm there, the office network uses 192.168.1.50 to .150
When I'm at the remote jobsite and use my notebook it get the IP of 192.168.1.10, or .11 or .12 and so on depending on who else is connected to that network. That network is set to hand out Private IPs in the range of .2 to .100 and there are 8 devices, computers, printers and whatever else, on that network all the time so the first computer to connect get the .10 IP.
All these networks are using the same exact IP range. The only way to get to any of them is to know the Public IP being assigned to the routers, Gateways, WAN/Internet port by the Internet Service Provider (ISP) for each of them. I'm on cable the office is on DSL and the remote office I don't know what ISP is being used. All of them have different Public IP addresses.
Along with that the router/gateway has to be forwarding incoming request to that Public IP on a specific port number to the Private IP they want to reach behind it.
The X girlfriend must of either known his Public IP, and he wasn't smart enough to ask his ISP to never assign that same IP to his gateway/router, or she had hacked into his router/gateway and setup port forwarding to get to his computer, She could of done that with physical access to the router while they were going out, or Spoofed his Public IP to make it look like whatever she was doing was coming from his home IP.
As usual don't believe everything you see/read on/in the news.
interesting stuff. The safe thing to do is to switch of the router from time to time, that way the ISP will assign a new public IP address by DHCP-you do need to keep the router off for 10 minutes though otherwise you'll just get back the IP you vacated. Not sure about the US but here in England you pay extra for a fixed IP as that allows you to run a low volume webserver, but here its mostly DHCP that prevails.
thanks for your support Nancy. I treat anyone who posts their public IP in the same way as if they post their non Adobe email addy and just edit it out during moderation. Your completely right if someone knows your public IP they can cause mayhem. I'm not a hacker but I do know it's easy to bombard a public IP with pings to the point someones internet connection slows to a crawl.