alternatives for NOD32???

[radicalb21]

With all the recent problems with NOD32 what would you reccommend as a choice for an antivirus as my license is coming up for a renewal in a couple of weeks. Any and all help would be appreciated.

subject line altered to reflect the real question

[LowWaterMark]

There are many good options out there. If any single anti-virus were "the one and only best" for everyone, then there wouldn't be more products than that one in existence. But, currently there are many. :-\

The key is to evaluate a few of them yourself and decide what works best for you on your specifc system.

Best of luck in your search.

[sig]

You probably should give KAV Personal a try out if you're looking for good alternatives.

[radicalb21]

What can you tell me about KAV Personal?

[sig]

KAV is considered by many to be one of the best AV's around. Huge database, good coverage for trojans also. A bit heavy on resources for some people if one doesn't make some adjustments in the settings. (There have been threads here and elsewhere on how to do that.) Frequent updates, they really appear to keep on top of things.
Some people use it as an AV/AT all in one solution, although many people also run an AT with KAV.

There are other products that use the KAV engine but I've not looked into them. No doubt others will come and expand on KAV and related apps.

I mention KAV Personal since reportedly KAV Pro (@ around $100) is probably more than most people need or want. There'a s KAV forum here if you want to browse and ask questions: http://forums.useice.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard.cgi?s=3f88e6c614ebffff;act=SF;f=1;st=15 .

McAfee also is supposed to be good, but a number of people don't like the Security Center that comes with it and it sounds like it tends to Borg one's PC like NAV (or worse) based on some reports I've seen when people tried to uninstall it.

[Buddel]

KAV is a very good choice. Kaspersky's support - unlike the support of some other AV vendors - is great, too. However, it goes without saying that neither KAV nor any other AV is "perfect". Just get yourself a couple of trial version to find out which AV is best for your needs and your computer system.

[Q Section]

Hello radicalb21

-{ Quote: " quoting: radicalb21 link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=0#msg110397 date=1071448095]
With all the recent problems with NOD32.... " }-

Did we miss something? Please mention the problems to which you are referring. Thank you.

[Paul Wilders]

Qsection,

-{ Quote: "Did we miss something? Please mention the problems to which you are referring. Thank you." }-

No offense intended, but the above quoted is not about the question asked in the subject line. Please no off topic discussion in this thread - let's keep on target ;)

regards.

paul

[solarpowered candle]

30 day trial download links for Kav Lite /personal / Pro
http://www.nest-soft.co.uk/kaspersky/index.htm

[dos]

Personally I dont like KAV (or its users that troll ;)), it is too heavy on resources, takes too long to scan, and has too many false positives. If you're looking for an excellent alternative I'd recommend you give F-Secure a try, it's one of the best I've ever used.

[Buddel]

-{ Quote: " quoting: dos link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=0#msg110549 date=1071494433]
Personally I dont like KAV (or its users that troll ;)), it is too heavy on resources, takes too long to scan, and has too many false positives. If you're looking for an excellent alternative I'd recommend you give F-Secure a try, it's one of the best I've ever used.
" }-
Is F-Secure lighter on resources than KAV?

[JimIT]

You might also consider using F-Prot, as well. It's lightweight, and very compatible w/many system setups.

Regarding KAV clones:

www.extendia.com

This AV (single-engine version) can also be obtained in the States at retailers such as OfficeMax and Wal-Mart for under $10.

Another KAV-based AV (which I cannot find mention of anywhere) is Defender Pro, which contains a firewall, and what appears to be a version of KAV-lite.

It, too is available at Wal-Mart, OfficeMax, etc. The licensing covers all the computers in your household, so it's a good deal, as well.

Best of luck in your search.

[Straight Shooter]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Buddel link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=0#msg110550 date=1071494728]
-{ Quote: " quoting: dos link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=0#msg110549 date=1071494433]
Personally I dont like KAV (or its users that troll ;)), it is too heavy on resources, takes too long to scan, and has too many false positives. If you're looking for an excellent alternative I'd recommend you give F-Secure a try, it's one of the best I've ever used.
" }-
Is F-Secure lighter on resources than KAV?
" }-Not in my case...

Comparing FSecure to KAV, KAV ran better and was more configurable. Also, it didn't have any email scanning at all...

I would recommend as alternatives to NOD32...

ETrust - Innoculate
FProt
Command
NAV (No kidding., it's very good...LOL)
McAFee, if you can live with the security center...

But I like KAV for the support... Some guy named Sir_Carew claims he's not happy with the department that you submit Virus samples to, but I never had a problem...

[Buddel]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Straight Shooter link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=0#msg110581 date=1071502865]
Not in my case... " }-

I can't confirm this, either. F-Secure proved to be more "resource-hungry than KAV on my computer.

-{ Quote: " quoting: Straight Shooter link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=0#msg110581 date=1071502865]
Comparing FSecure to KAV, KAV ran better and was more configurable. Also, it didn't have any email scanning at all... " }-

Some more reasons why I would not recommend F-Secure. I can also recommend the AV's Straight Shooter mentioned. They are pretty good and all of them are definitely worth trying.

[AgentX]

Hi there!
My experience with F-Secure has never been a good one.
Everytime I installed it on my WinXP sp1 machine, it caused a BSOD on startup.
(Tested with the latest Client Security demo). Maybe it's because I install and test
a new AV software almost every week. ;D

I personally don't like software which tries to solve all your problems. Hey! If you're
selling an AV, just do that. Adding a *very basic* firewall, spy stoppers, too many
addins, 50 new processes ...is way too much to bother with.

I've tested (not professionally) many AV and AT programs in past. I consider myself not
a guru of this arena but someone who likes to take the software to a ride alongwith.

Here are some AV programs I tested on my WinXP sp1 machine:-

Dr.Web 4.30a
-----------------
Overall a very good AV software. Installation footprint is very small and updates are
no different. Many dislike it for it's False Positives (read Heuristics). However, I think
they like NOD32's AH for the same reason ;)

Its heuristics are very good but can confuse a novice and convince him/her enough
to delete a system file. For this reason, I recommend it as your backup on-demand
scanner.

Kaspersky Personal Pro
------------------------------
An excellent AV *package*. Comes with extra frills like Office protection and integrity
checker (Inspector). Its engine is very robust and has been used in many others'
software like eScan, AVK, F-Secure etc. The package also features a script-blocker
which works flawlessly. Many have reported that it performs slowly than many others.
I beg to disagree. If you've configured it right, you can't get wrong with it. I've used
it on my Celeron 400/256MB SDRAM and it performed better than NAV2003.

If you can afford its terse configuration and price, I recommend it as your all purpose
antivirus software.

RAV
-----
I wonder why I'm even including it here. The mightly bubba of software industry, the
fearless Micro$oft has taken control over it. But, it was a good software. Its speed,
the unpacking capability and the *eye candy* were unmatched and unsurpassed.

Unfortunately, it's all over now. But you can still get a demo from their site.
I recommend it only to antique collectors. ;)

Symantec/Norton
----------------------
I've worked with both the corporate and the home *Norton* versions. I agree the
corporate versions are more effective, require less memory ...but neither of them perform
well enough to get recommended by me. Sorry Symantec! It's about time. Now, even
the free ones perform better than this beast.

Not recommended by me.

F-Secure
-----------
I already mentioned it crashed on my machine, so I couldn't test it to its limits. Although,
I found one of my friends using the Internet Security version (v2003) and he wasn't very
happy with it. Problems arise when you integrate too much functionality in one product.
Many are unhappy with the BackWeb, others dislike its firewall. I hate its instability.
The CounterSign technology doesn't help it perform better that its daddy. KAV still
outperforms it in many tests (except one, of course). It's like keeping three Desert Eagles
with you all the time. Bad choice!

Their product list will only confuse you more. They've got Internet Security 2004,
AntiVirus 2004, Client Security 5.5x and AV for Workstations ...all desktop products.
Which one is perfect for you? You decide! What's the point in developing a thousand
clones of something that doesn't work right. It translates to *Chaos*.

Not recommended by me, until they build a more robust architecture for their software.

Trend Micro PC-Cillin
-------------------------
A very good piece of software. Unfortunately, a very basic firewall is lurking here too. Sigh!
Had they not included this crap, I'd have chosen it as my all time favorite AV. Lately, I've
found that it's possible to remove the firewall, but you can't choose not to install it.
At least, they could continue with a checkbox choice like the previous versions.

The AV engine is among the best ones, despite of the fact that it doesn't feature many
unpackers. Remember that AV business is not about unpacking only. A good in-memory
scanner should stop an unpacking trojan/virus right in its way.

The new version (Internet Security 11 aka PC-Cillin 2004) adds many new features.
See their product description for a full feature set. Overall, it's a good product.

I recommend it to novices and experts alike. Though, I know experts like to keep a backup
handy ...just in case ;)

McAfee Enterprise 7.1
---------------------------
This is the AV I'm currently using on my PC.
Earlier, I had enjoyed the 7.x Peofessional edition very much. *Unfortunately* that version
also came with a firewall. Oh man!! When the version 8 came, I decided to give it a try.
What a disappointment! Take my words for it, version 8 is doomed to fail. It's detined to
unfortunate, not unlike Norton 2004.

I was almost going to try something else (eXtendia/GDATA AVK), when I found the
Enterprise version on Network Associates. Believe me, this version is very sleek (7.5MB),
very fast and much more reliable than many in this list. Fortunately enough, it doesn't
even come with a firewall this time ;D

It detects the Virii/Trojans/Malware as you enter into their respective directories. It's also
quite good at stopping malware from the net. Though I still haven't taken it to an extreme,
from what I see, makes me say that it's impressive.

I recommend it as your on-access scanner along with an on-demand scanner like DrWeb
or Kaspersky.

Bottom line - You have to test it to believe it. Try as many as you can and continue
using which you like best. I think most of the regulars here will agree that it's good
to keep separate on-access and on-demand scanners.

Even though some AV's like Kaspersky can detect most of the trojans, you should arm
yourself with a good AT software. TDS-3 comes to the mind. Others like The Cleaner
and TrojanHunter are good too. BOClean is the best in-memory trojan scanner money
can buy.

There are many other good AV products which I've not tested yet. eXtendia/GDATA AVK
is one of them. Would someone please post a full review of this product in near future?

Hope it helps!
AgentX

[Godzilla]

-{ Quote: " quoting: AgentX link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=0#msg110634 date=1071517022]
Trend Micro PC-Cillin
-------------------------

The AV engine is among the best ones, despite of the fact that it doesn't feature many
unpackers.
" }-


:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Based on what tests ? With polymorphic viruses i doub't this result....

[AgentX]

I made it very clear in my previous post that I didn't test all those AV programs in a very
professional way. I collected a rather small set of different virii like old DOS ones, CIH types,
rootkits, a few worms, and many ItW malware. I also packed some myself using readymade
tools available everywhere.

My post was meant to help someone finding alternatives to NOD32, which itself is a very
good antivirus. It wasn't meant to compete with VB or Rokop tests in any manner.
You are advised to disregard it in case of any doubt. However, I'd like to see more such
posts (like BlackCat did with F-Prot) ...as they seem to help novices more than mere pie
charts.

I know PC-Cillin never had the brightest record when it comes to polymorphic virii. But, no
one can deny that it's a robust product. IMHO, not a single AV software is capable of
handling every sort of evil-code out there. Let me tell you, Dr.Web missed the Blaster worm
once on my PC, even when Anti-Hacker was installed. So would you call it a mediocre one
just because it missed one of the most common nasties? I woudn't. I know I never had a
problem with my PC-Cillin 2002. It handles Blaster et al quite well. The network virus alert
is a very good feature and can really save a novice's day.

Also, I recommended it as an on-access scanner because of its speed. I know many who
own KAV but use it only as an on-demand one. KAV is certainly not the best in heuristics,
but it's still recommended as one of the best ones. I never saw someone backing McAfee
for its superb polymorphics abilities and unpacking. Rokop confirms this, by the way.

As you can see, I never posted any test statistics at all. So calling it a *test* is not true,
at least technically. It was only a short review, a pros here and a cons there, that's all.

Regards,
AgentX

[illukka]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Straight Shooter l. Also, it didn't have any email scanning at all...



-{ Quote: "" }-

you're wrong on this or perhaps another trial download is in order Jim.. f-secure av 2004/f-secure internet security2004 DOES have an e-mail scanner, for both incoming and outcoming mail!
unlike kav f-secure scans mail attachments at the same time they're transferred in or out of your pc..
you all probably know that IMO the e-mail scanner is one of the most useless features an av can have..

i use both kav and f-secure, f-secure has less options but this can also mean that it is easier to configure.. try to excludea folder in kav... then try to do the same in f-secure.. about the resource thing, i'd say that f-secure rtm is slightly less hungry( on optimal settings, see f-secure beta thread)

[solarpowered candle]

illukka thats a pretty tidy defence . you proberbly wouldnt need an anti trojan , but just out of curiosity do you run one?

[Q Section]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Paul Wilders link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=0#msg110495 date=1071474782]
let's keep on target ;)
regards.
paul
" }-
We hereby withdraw our inquiry. We apologise. 8)

[illukka]

SPC they're running on different computers.. i run trojan hunter just in case on both...

[Tuulilapsi]

-{ Quote: " quoting: dos link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=0#msg110549 date=1071494433]
Personally I dont like KAV (or its users that troll ;)), it is too heavy on resources, takes too long to scan, and has too many false positives. If you're looking for an excellent alternative I'd recommend you give F-Secure a try, it's one of the best I've ever used.
" }-

I find it hard to believe KAV uses more resources and has more false positives than F-Secure when F-Secure uses the KAV engine along with Libra (Was it?) and Orion. I've run both, and F-Secure is the heavier of the two. And faster? F-Secure is just as slow as KAV. (As if that meant anything. These are AV scanners, not F1 cars.)

[Buddel]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Tuulilapsi link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=15#msg110825 date=1071571667]
... And faster? F-Secure is just as slow as KAV. (As if that meant anything. These are AV scanners, not F1 cars.)
" }-
Good point. I don't care how long an AV needs to scan my computer as long as it detects all viruses. There is no point in using an "F1 AV" ;) if it fails to detect some nasties.

[illukka]

the libra engine seems to add the resource demand of f-secure..

but the 5.41 version with f-prot engine was easier on resources than kav. true it utilizes the kav engine but it is coded differently than kasperskys monitor.. let's call it intelligence or optimization or something, but it was a lot faster than kasperskys..
actually i've read from somewhere that kaspersky were aiming towards f-secures rtm style in the forthcoming 5x version..

still i like kaspersky better, i like to tweak settings and using them both i've noticed that kaspersky adds new nasties faster..other thing is kasperskys very detailed reports after scan..
for some one who likes it simple but effective f-secure is very good. it's designed to be completely automatic(transparent) and it's default settings are very safe..it's for those people that happily click on everything.. geez what is this new cool screensaver uncle ben has sent me......LOL

as for detections i do not believe f-secure detecting more than kav. with the f-prot engine it was possible that there was signatures for some viruses that kaspersky did not have coz f-prot have been around for a long time.. longer than kaspersky i believe.. f-secure and kaspersky seem to share updates.. how could it be that with same signatures other detects more? heuristics...? no i don't believe, orion is a very good heuristic engine but better than kav's code analyzer...

sorry about being off topic here

[bigc73542]

I realize a lot of people don't like mcafee but I have never had a problem with it since version 6 came out. At present I am useing mcafee 7.03 and I like it very much very easy on resourses considering it is a large program. ;D

[Buddel]

It's true. There are also people who have never had any problems with McAfee. If you are one of them, you should use it. It's a very good AV.

[illukka]

the mcafee scanner is a very good one, i have had no problems with the scanner.. it's the darned spyware security center!

easy on resources?.. i have found it to be as intensive as kav, usable on optimals settings

[Buddel]

-{ Quote: " quoting: illukka link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=15#msg111121 date=1071654105]
the mcafee scanner is a very good one, i have had no problems with the scanner.. it's the darned spyware security center!

easy on resources?.. i have found it to be as intensive as kav, usable on optimals settings
" }-
The security center is one reason why some people don't like McAfee. I also think that this AV is quite "resource-hungry". Nevertheless, it can be regarded as one of the best AV's on the market.

[driftalong]

A lot of ppl complain on the length of time NAV takes to do a full system scan, takes about 1 hour on my 20gig machine that's about 60% full. NOD takes about 10 minutes. What I have noticed at the end though, is that NAV scans about 130,000 files compared to NOD's 30,000. I have all the scanning options checked in NOD.
So, I suppose this would be another consideration regarding choice of AV. I am now not certain that NOD is doing as full a scan as NAV does when you see the difference in the amount of files scanned. ???

[optigrab]

-{ Quote: " quoting: driftalong link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=15#msg111176 date=1071663811]
I am now not certain that NOD is doing as full a scan as NAV does when you see the difference in the amount of files scanned." }-

Hi Driftalong

Have you considered the default extensions on NAV? Do you have NOD32 check ALL (incl. extensionless) files?

I don't have NAV, just hoping to help you account for the difference in "files scanned" you described.

Regards
Optigrab

[VikingStorm]

-{ Quote: " quoting: Buddel link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=15#msg111137 date=1071657371]
-{ Quote: " quoting: illukka link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=15#msg111121 date=1071654105]
the mcafee scanner is a very good one, i have had no problems with the scanner.. it's the darned spyware security center!

easy on resources?.. i have found it to be as intensive as kav, usable on optimals settings
" }-
The security center is one reason why some people don't like McAfee. I also think that this AV is quite "resource-hungry". Nevertheless, it can be regarded as one of the best AV's on the market.
" }-
They should just replace their consumer product with VS 7.10 Enterprise, it's so much faster (no security center either). Seems incredibly light, loads quickly.

[swisscoms]

I absolutley agree with you Vikingstorm, I have just loaded an evaluation copy of McAfee V7.1.0 Enterprise on my machine, and it has found umpteen bugs. I was using Nod32, and Dr.Web before. It even scans the Restore files of XP. I have never seen so many files opened and scanned before. It is very fast, and does not slow surfing down either. Thanks for the advice. How come this app. does not get more exposure?

[controler]

Hog wash

Most good Av's scan the restore files now days.

Your System is now in your own hands with Mc afee :(

con

[swisscoms]

That was RUDE! I am fairly new to this, and don't appreciate having a reply like that Controller.

Total files scanned Nod32: 23,432 files
Dr.Web 24,580 files
KVP 4.5 63,645 files
McAfee 7.1.0 186,432 files

Total infected files found: 6 VBS/Psyme Petcha, 3 Exploit-ByteVerify, and 1 Eicar Test file in the Restore, ALL missed/unable to delete with the others, and not disinfected either. McAfee Enterprise found these, and removed the offending files. Surely this is what an Anitivrus Programme should do.

[VikingStorm]

My only gripe with Mcafee is the weekly dat updates (minus updates for big outbreaks). It's strictly weekly, 3 or even 2 updates a week would be much better.

[swisscoms]

I saw that on their wesite too VikingStorm, it is a concern. Have you had any experience with their daily updates at http://vil.nai.com/vil/virus-4d.asp
as I notice Trend Micro have the same idea on their site?

[controler]

well um who started the thread alternatives to NOD?

I won't say Mcaffee can't find nasties, I WILL say it messes with your system and always has. I have never
installed oe seen a Mc affee product and not had it screw up my system. That is my only warning.
Sorry you missunderstood.
My remark was not arrowed at you but rather Mc Afee

con

[illukka]

-{ Quote: " quoting: controler link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=30#msg114105 date=1072686106]

I won't say Mcaffee can't find nasties, I WILL say it messes with your system and always has.
con
" }-

alongside that the biggest problem of mcafee av's is their weak signatures.. the scanning engine is probably the best and most advanced at the moment(unpackers etc.).. but come on, text based signatures, even case sensitive ones, icons& other reshackable things..(i've done some hex editing..)

NOTE: i do not have any knowledge on the virus detection of mcafee products( i don't hex viruses, or make them undetectable, only trojans) all written above is about trojan detection.. i've used mcafee corporate at work for 5 years now, only viral infection so far has been nimda..but there's other reasons to that than just the performance of mcafee.. like the fact that our mail server drops all attachments that don't have zip,doc,xlr,pps,txt,rtf,jpg,pdf extensions..(we have learned something LOL)
i must state that mcafee is one of the better scanners in trojan detection too(big database), it's just that it's so easy to fool it with changing A to a

[VikingStorm]

-{ Quote: " quoting: swisscoms link=board=24;threadid=17886;start=30#msg114104 date=1072686025]
I saw that on their wesite too VikingStorm, it is a concern. Have you had any experience with their daily updates at http://vil.nai.com/vil/virus-4d.asp
as I notice Trend Micro have the same idea on their site?
" }-
I use to use them every couple days, it's a bit of a hassle after a while. I don't see why they can't just have an advanced feature to enable daily updates.