Suspicius results of online files scanners (jotti & virustotal)

[KERANO]

As you can see on pictures NOD32 on Virus Total detect this as parasite while NOD32 on Jotti's web site does not detect it.

Here are the pictures:

http://freefilehosting.net/player.cfm?id=08465561-CF1F-D571-A8F48CB2316019EB

http://freefilehosting.net/player.cfm?id=0848EBAC-CF1F-D571-A8D23D1C1ADEAF14

Few days ago were same results too...

What is goiung on here and are online scanners reliable?

[vlk]

Jotti runs on Linux whereas VirusTotal runs Windows. This may be the cause. Or maybe a different revision of the engine?

[Culvin]

Virus Total probably has "Potentially dangerous applications" enabled, while Jotti does not.

[RejZoR]

Jotti has everything set to Max. But there is one problem because "Potentially dangerous applications" probably aren't available under Linux...

[Paul Wilders]

{QUOTE-> Jotti runs on Linux whereas VirusTotal runs Windows. This may be the cause. <-QUOTE}

Correct - but IMHO there shouldn'tbe any difference.

{QUOTE-> Or maybe a different revision of the engine? <-QUOTE}

The engines = provided to be up to date - should make no difference as I see it.

regards,

paul

[Stan999]

{QUOTE-> Jotti has everything set to Max. But there is one problem because "Potentially dangerous applications" probably aren't available under Linux... <-QUOTE}


That is a consideration for NOD32 Window users when viewing Jotti's scanner results and also distorts the overall detection results. NOD32 on a Windows machine may detect some of those types of applications that Jotti's scanner show as not detected

[djm]

{QUOTE-> Virus Total probably has "Potentially dangerous applications" enabled, while Jotti does not. <-QUOTE}
Yes, that's exactly the reason.

[DjMaligno]

The VirusTotal site uses the 'Potentially dangerous applications' function of the engine, so that's probably the reason for that difference.