How many virus detects NOD32?

[backfolder]

Well, its a simple question (and quite topic too), but how can I know how many virus has NOD32 in its program´s database? Why so low rates in trojan detection? This last question I don´t really care so much, because I use a firewall and a safe surfin´ but I´m quite curious about that.

TIA.

backfolder.-

[Blackspear]

This has been discussed in other threads, as far as I am aware, Eset do not release the amount of viruses caught, their detection remains number one at www.virusbtn.com

Trojan detect is being vastly improved as more and more samples are sent to Eset.

Hope this helps...

Cheers ;D

[Jaska]

{QUOTE-> Trojan detect is being vastly improved as more and more samples are sent to Eset. <-QUOTE}

it is hard to believe it has been lack of samples that has prevented Nod32 getting a decent anti-trojan capabilities. There are surely enough virus and trojans out there to build a decent protection.

It is nice to know though that Nod32 has been improved in this area too.

[mrtwolman]

{QUOTE-> Well, its a simple question (and quite topic too), but how can I know how many virus has NOD32 in its program´s database? Why so low rates in trojan detection? This last question I don´t really care so much, because I use a firewall and a safe surfin´ but I´m quite curious about that.

TIA.

backfolder.- <-QUOTE}
The only real and true answer is: NO ONE KNOWS. It's has been and still is ESET's policy not to take part in "we-detect-so-much-and-so-much-viruses" race. Due this the exact number of scanstring is not known. If even the number would be released to the public the answer would still be NO ONE KNOWS due the strong implementation of heuristic and advanced heuristic.

Best regards.

[kjempen]

Since 18th of December 2001 (that's how far back the updates listed on NOD32's web page goes), the number of malware variants that have been added are close to 26 000.

[steve1955]

I notice Nods "much improved trojan detection" is being consantly highlighted when,in the past,Nods poor trojan detection was mentioned by myself and others we were consantly told:-"nod is an anti-virus not an anti trojan" why has this now changed if it wasn't thought important before?

[ronjor]

{QUOTE-> " why has this now changed if it wasn't thought important before? <-QUOTE}

Probably because people want trojan detection with NOD included.

As long as NOD isn't turned into a creaking slug, I see no problem detecting trojans.

[steve1955]

{QUOTE-> Probably because people want trojan detection with NOD included. <-QUOTE}
I think it was always wanted but only recently have eset taken notice of this, could it be they have been loosing sales to the avs with good trojan detection?
Its a pity their website always claimed you would be safe from them without actually delivering on that claim until very recently leading to some users catching them whilst thinking they were protected!

[dvk01]

It's probablly because recently, that is within the last 6 months or so, the actual numbers of new VIRUSES has been very small but a massive amount of worms and Trojans have been released and all the experts agree that viruses are no longer a major problem as there are only so many ways for a virus to attack a system and they all appear to have been dealt with. Very few of the viruses seen nowadays actually do much damage unlike the viruses of yesterday which were intended to damage systems but the new problems are trojans which take over the system do do their foul deeds

[backfolder]

{QUOTE-> ESET's policy not to take part in "we-detect-so-much-and-so-much-viruses" race <-QUOTE}

This way of seeing this from every company who see in that race´s way is very poor and nonsense. More of all if "my av" (company´s name here) have a huge database but a poor heuristic or engine, so the AV only will detect a few viruses. I don´t think of change from AV System due only to the amount of virus in its db. Also firm numbers given by ESET will be under real number of virus that can be detected, due to the heuristic engine. ;]

Anyway I will like to know it, a curious though... I don´t want exact numbers, aproximately would be fine.

Thanks,

backfolder.-

[ronjor]

Anton has stated that NOD will never have the database of other antivirus companies. NOD does not count harmless files with SOME virus code in them.
They can do nothing to harm your system.

Edit/LWM to add link (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?p=198429#post198429)

{QUOTE-> anton
Eset Moderator

Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 208
Default Re: What happend ESET?
Hi Guys,

Eset appreciates (a lot) all and every sample/s sent to its labs (samples@eset.com). Every sample is logged and examined using various methods. Addition of a sample-signature into the database is made on a need-to basis. Extraction of a signature of a sample is an automated process and could be completed in no time. However, Eset does not want to take part in a 'maximum-size-of-the-database' race and prefers to keep the database clean, i.e. without 'meaningless' benign signatures.

Some of the forum participants may recall the Rosenthal Utilities (RU) tests performed by CNET two years ago. All the 'simulated viruses' generated by the RU were benign (non-viral). 100% detection of the RU samples (achieved by some of the products) meant 100% False Alarm Rate. Detection of non-viral samples may lead to a couple of things: excellent results in some 'tests' combined with a false sense of security, a huge 'virus' signature database and 'dinosaur' update files.
Exponential increase of the number of new malware samples may often lead to a 'path-of-least-resistance' approach: automatic addition of all sample signatures, regardless of their viral nature.

Eset exchanges samples with several av vendors. Opposite statement is incorrect.

Speed of update and reaction time is of essence. Eset is fully aware of that. Advanced Heuristics has been developed and implemented with that in mind. The only acceptable reaction time is equal to zero. NOD32 achieves that often, e.g. it detected the infamous Netsky.A and Bagle.A heuristically. <-QUOTE}