New AV-Test NOD 2.51.8 placed behind Symantec

[honeybunny]

NOD 2.51.8 placed behind Symantec's Norton 11.0. :o >:(

www.av-comparatives.org

[rothko]

but it is a great score by NOD32, good improvement on last On-Demand test, well done Eset! :)

[Technic]

Indeed, pretty good improvement. :D So we can rely on Kaspersky, Norton and NOD32.

[Stephanos G.]

Very interesting results

[Stephanos G.]

Norton is heavy, try to avoid it

[Technodrome]

-{ Quote: "Norton is heavy, try to avoid it" }-

This is very subjective. Please try to stay on topic.



tD

[Stan999]

There is also the additional consideration of how well an AV provides
proactive, zero-hour protection. I prefer an AV that does well on both.

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "Norton is heavy, try to avoid it" }-
I tried it (2005) last week, wasn't what i consider to be heavy. I personally would not buy one of the big three (Norton, McAfee & Trend-micro), because i prefer to support smaller vendors, but i was surpriced when i tried it, haven't tried Norton since 2002-2003. Certainly not in the DrWeb catagory, but better than earlier versions and the detection doesn't seem to be bad according to the last AV-comparatives. :)

[RejZoR]

Well beta of NAV2006 was even better. Can't say for speed (since i ran it in VirtualPC),but memory usage was lower than anytime before.

[SDS909]

Far more should be considered than this test when choosing an AV. Things such as heuristics, interface, how light/heavy the product is, and ease of use as well as features.

This test should be but a tiny portion in the overall picture when choosing an AV. It really really annoys me when people base everything off this single test not conducted by a commercial organization. Please people, don't put so much stock into one test site, it does the industry no good!

[IBK]

Nice, I see you read also the main site of av comparatives:
"If you plan to buy an Anti-Virus, please visit the vendor's site and evaluate their software by downloading a trial version, as there are also many other features (e.g. firewall, scriptblocker, etc.) and important things (e.g. compatibility, graphical user interface, speed, language, price, update frequence, etc.) for an Anti-Virus that you should evaluate by yourself. Even if quite important, the detection rate is just one aspect that you should consider when buying Anti-Virus software."

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "Indeed, pretty good improvement. :D So we can rely on Kaspersky, Norton and NOD32." }-
And also BitDefender and McAfee ;)

I expected six AVs to perform well in this test, and they did do well, though one of them surprised me a bit (Dr.Web - I expected it to have a better score).

[lotuseclat79]

-{ Quote: "Far more should be considered than this test when choosing an AV. Things such as heuristics, interface, how light/heavy the product is, and ease of use as well as features.

This test should be but a tiny portion in the overall picture when choosing an AV. It really really annoys me when people base everything off this single test not conducted by a commercial organization. Please people, don't put so much stock into one test site, it does the industry no good!" }-
SDS909,

I disagree on several points you try to make, and agree on selection criteria.
You fail to prove that non-commercial organizations that provide independent testing services are not up-to-commercial snuff. In fact, the results are made available about two weeks before being released to the public to allow the commercial organizations whose product is undergoing testing to comment and refute. Very fair IMHO.

It does do the industry good to have fair and independent evaluations. The AV-Comaratives.org website publishes their test methhodology - now what commercial organization wants to share that I ask you?

I understand your annoyance with people that may make their choice on just this test, but it is not one test, but a series of tests - over 400,000! A very good sample size one should think!

When one compares the results that are achieved by AV-Comaratives.org against the drivel published in terms of opinions of so-called experts in the industry, well there is no comparison! While it is wise to consider the opinions of experts, their point of view should be backed up by data they are willing to share, and bounced against the experience and opinions of other experts in a peer review.

The point is that the unenlightened public (who needs all the help that can be given them to stay safe), has no point of reference or standard by which to judge various AV products, let alone other products necessary to batten down the security hatches on a computer. Until such time that one exists, I could not agree more with your point of view that things such as heuristics, interface, how light/heavy the product is, and ease of use as well as features also need to be considered when purchasing an industrial strength product. Perhaps other comparison metrics need to be added to the evaluation methods already published by AV-Comparatives.org - I'm sure they would be willing given a standard method/procedure against which to compare, and the resouces to do so.

One other point - the industry and nastyware are moving targets - no one product can afford to stand still - and just how does a commercial organization measure inprovements in its product line against the industry of competitors? Some do , some don't, and others just do marketing! A valuable service has been provided by AV-Comparatives.org both to the industry and to the buying/non-buying public and increased our understanding on a level playing field against its test-set. Thanks AV-Comparatives.org! ;D

-- Tom

[iwod]

Even though resource usage for 2006 was lower than 2005, it is still not consider as "light".

My experience is their on-demand seems to have huge difference compare to on access. ( I.e many virus are only detected when scanning on demand ) Although i am not sure if this is still the case for 2005 / 2006.

NOD is much lighter in resources. And has better heuristics........ On paper NOD looks too good to be true.......

[Don Pelotas]

-{ Quote: "On paper NOD looks too good to be true......." }-
I agree. ;) ;D

[Live]

McAfee did better than NOD32 at Windows and Macro viruses...I thought NOD32 was the BEST at detection of Windows viruses...:/
but it did a great job!

[webyourbusiness]

lotuseclat79 and SDS909 - you both make good points - but miss something that really is quite important I think - each individual and/or company, has their own criteria - for instance:

My own organisations criteria:

we handle a LOT of bounce messages from SPAM and viruses/worms because I run mailservers in our hosting environment - this make zero-day a major issue for me - many others don't have this problem, so zreo-day is LESS IMPORTANT (not insignificant).

I wanted to see activity on staff's machines - ie, the enterprise features are important

I wanted to password protect the settings so that protection can not be turned off

I wanted it to LESS memory/cpu intensive than our previous solution (a mixture of Norton 2003/2004)...

Cost was also an issue...

those were MY COMPANY requirements - and once I'd shortlisted products, the one that we chose became the clear leader... but that's the process WE used... every company/individual must make their own mind up - and as pointed out - results in tests are only PART of the complete picture...

[pykko]

I am dissapointed by NOD32! :( ..they could have behave better and they could have been the number one, but it seems ESET stuff son't want this and they know what I am talking about!!

[SDS909]

-{ Quote: "lotuseclat79 and SDS909 - you both make good points - but miss something that really is quite important I think - each individual and/or company, has their own criteria - for instance:
" }-

EXCELLENT point.

[Chuck_IV]

-{ Quote: "lotuseclat79 and SDS909 - you both make good points - but miss something that really is quite important I think - each individual and/or company, has their own criteria - for instance:

My own organisations criteria:

we handle a LOT of bounce messages from SPAM and viruses/worms because I run mailservers in our hosting environment - this make zero-day a major issue for me - many others don't have this problem, so zreo-day is LESS IMPORTANT (not insignificant).

I wanted to see activity on staff's machines - ie, the enterprise features are important

I wanted to password protect the settings so that protection can not be turned off

I wanted it to LESS memory/cpu intensive than our previous solution (a mixture of Norton 2003/2004)...

Cost was also an issue...

those were MY COMPANY requirements - and once I'd shortlisted products, the one that we chose became the clear leader... but that's the process WE used... every company/individual must make their own mind up - and as pointed out - results in tests are only PART of the complete picture..." }-

But then again, what's the basic reason people use AV programs for, in the first place? To catch viruses and other "nasties". With that said I'd think that while detection rates shouldn't be the only reason to buy/use a particular AV, it should be a major part(along with Heuristics and the like) of everyone's criteria, since that is basically why you are using an AV, in the first place. No?

As for the results at AV-Comparatives(referenced in SDS909's first post), IMO they hold more credence to me, than most commercial sites, because one, AV-Comparatives shares their testing methodology, thus we can see if it's biased or not and two, commercial sites can easily be influenced by outside forces, especially money/advertising and other such things and are usually not as forthcoming about how they carried out a test.

[webyourbusiness]

I agree that the main reason to run protection is to be protected, but like I said, everyone's criteria are different, and are slanted by different factors - if cost was more of an issue, perhaps we'd run a freeware solution. Protection is the biggest reason, the other reasons are all secondary to that fact - but nevertheless, ALL of our factors played SOME part in the decision, and back when we opted to move FROM Norton, one of the biggest factors that turned our head towards NOD32 in the first place, was that it played nicely with Windows XP SP2 - and no-one else did at the time, not Norton, not McAfee - it was incredible to us that running Norton fully paid up and we were being told that we had no valid AV solution - and we heard it almost hourly from clients too... I forgot that little gem when posting earlier! ;)

[SDS909]

-{ Quote: "But then again, what's the basic reason people use AV programs for, in the first place? To catch viruses and other "nasties". With that said I'd think that while detection rates shouldn't be the only reason to buy/use a particular AV, it should be a major part(along with Heuristics and the like) of everyone's criteria, since that is basically why you are using an AV, in the first place. No?
" }-

Ok but whos criteria do you base this off? A few hobby test sites? VB? Or word of mouth from security professionals? Or trial and error and experiance in real world circumstances?

For most of my applications, how light an AV operates, and how spartan/minimal every bit as important as raw detection. But once again, protection based on what criteria? My own of course..

Generally I throw an AV on a exposed honeypot and watch its performance after a few months. If i'm happy with it's ability to catch malware, and it is light enough, it gets pushed to my networked computers. I pay almost no attention to actual test data from hobby or commercial test houses because their data really wouldn't apply to my circumstances. (and in some cases, biased or flawed)

As such, Dr.Web and VBA32 are the most used AV's pushed to our network.

[trojan]

now i dont think nod users exspected these results hate to say i told you so but im sure the nod users will make up some excuse for such poor results i bet thier crying right now lol :-*

[bigc73542]

I don't see where they have to make any excuses for the test results they got. They are very respectful and Nod still remains a very good antivirus.

[trojan]

tip) nod users ditch the nod and put that free norton back on that came with your dell pc's lol :D

[LowWaterMark]

trojan,

If you keep entering threads with the sole purpose of trolling in them, then your posts will be removed. Try to add some intelligent thoughts or go elsewhere to post your one-liner bashes.

[YeOldeStonecat]

-{ Quote: "i think maybe the nod police are a little sore at the results look at thier boasting in other threads now they are quiet and considering a change to norton lol" }-

Never. There are also many things to consider that these "tests" do not consider, that many of us consultant/VARs run into in the real world. Based on these, plus personal experience with seeing NOD32 in action on machines previously "protected" by other AV products, where NOD32 finds baddies.

For one...the top several antivirus products are very VERY close in score on this test...the actual difference between them is pretty much negligable.

After years and years of selling/supporting Symantec, I've run into many instances where the complicated software has had issues running effectively on "real world" machines. Live update, real time protection, constant scripting errors. More so on the home user consumer versions than the Corporate Edition, but still. And don't get me going on Mcafee.

Most of us who are experience in this field know there are viruses/worms out there which actually seek out the top several antivirus products on a workstation they attempt to infect and try to "knock them out", disable them...so they may continue to spread. Similar to Windows vulerabilities which some exploits take advantage of. Here's one reason to stick with an alternative AV product. Add to this, a few modify to hosts file so AV updates grind to a halt. Not many have Esets update server on this hosts file hack.

[Get]

@trojan: I don't really get your point. Nod is almost catching up with kav and nav in this test (if it keeps going at this pace it will have a score above 100% next time), has a firm first place in last retrospective/proactive test, has a small footprint on my pc and I never had a virus/trojan since I use nod and I ,as one of the old nod-ladies and former nav-user btw (don't get me started on that), shouldn't take all this seriously?

[ronjor]

Last post by Trojan removed due to non-compliance of warning.

[IBK]

Just a short comment from my side: did anyone read the whole pdf report?

[trojan]

-{ Quote: "Just a short comment from my side: did anyone read the whole pdf report?" }-
yes i read the pdf kav came first in all catogry's nod came 3rd or 4th

[Detox]

Off topic bickering etc removed (again) as per LWM's warning and Ronjor's later action.

[IBK]

-{ Quote: "yes i read the pdf kav came first in all catogry's nod came 3rd or 4th" }-

read the last page too ;)

[SDS909]

-{ Quote: "Never. There are also many things to consider that these "tests" do not consider, that many of us consultant/VARs run into in the real world. Based on these, plus personal experience with seeing NOD32 in action on machines previously "protected" by other AV products, where NOD32 finds baddies. " }-

Agreed, at the very least, this test doesn't factor real-world whatsoever. Real world is Jotti's and VirusTotal. Real world are the hundreds of threats I collect a week on my honeypots.

When IBK said VBA32 scored less than 85% I had to roll my eyes.. Consistantly, day after day, thousands of samples, VBA32 finds everything other products consistantly miss.

The importance of that in comparison to a closed hobby test with select samples is absolutely relevant and should be considered. I'm already up to 350 samples this week that VBA32 detects that almost no other AV detects.. I've showed many shots of some of those as they arrive here to prove my point.

In my lab, VBA32 is a 95%+ product(depending on threat) for real-world, new threats, that are out and about, infecting PC's on a daily basis.. Not some dead samples from 10 years ago nobody knows about.

[Get]

Well a lot of posts were removed so it's a little strange thread now but what the heck. @trojan: my point is that I don't choose my av on just one positive test or just one positive irl-experience and stick with it whatever happens. It's a combination of a lot of things and at the end of the day, for me, Nod32 came out best. The speed of nod, the interface, the beginning of trust I had in it due to tests in the first place and growing trust I have in it due to experiences I had with it along the way make it that. Is it the best than? No, of course not. It suits me best and that's all that says. Could it be that another av will suit me better today now they have a newer version? Could be, but I will only test another av again when Nod32 let's me down in an inexcusable way. And it has never done that...

[Paul2]

''New AV-Test NOD 2.51.8 placed behind Symantec''


damn ! i just bought NOD32 today (54 euros) ....:(

[Stan999]

-{ Quote: "Agreed, at the very least, this test doesn't factor real-world whatsoever. Real world is Jotti's and VirusTotal." }-

Direct quote from Jotti's site.

"You're free to (mis)interpret these automated, flawed statistics at your own discretion. For antivirus comparisons, visit AV comparatives"

[Blackcat]

-{ Quote: " In my lab, VBA32 is a 95%+ product(depending on threat) for real-world, new threats, that are out and about, infecting PC's on a daily basis" }-
Does your (security) lab have a Home page and have you published your results?

[Stan999]

-{ Quote: "''New AV-Test NOD 2.51.8 placed behind Symantec''


damn ! i just bought NOD32 today (54 euros) ....:(" }-

I would much rather have an AV that does well on both Reactive tests and Proactive, zero hour, tests.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1850851,00.asp

Even with a fast Reactive signature update it can still take several hours or much more before you are protected from the major outbreaks.

[Live]

The problem of some users here is that they think that there is a "THE BEST" antivirus on the market. There is no "THE BEST" antivirus. It´s just a choose of the user for his necessities... My necessities made me choose NOD32, the necessities of user X made him choose KAV, the necessities of user Y made him choose NAV, etc.

There is no the best antivirus for all, but the best antivirus for me, or for user X, or for user Y.

[Honyak]

-{ Quote: "The problem of some users here is that they think that there is a "THE BEST" antivirus on the market. There is no "THE BEST" antivirus. It´s just a choose of the user for his necessities... My necessities made me choose NOD32, the necessities of user X made him choose KAV, the necessities of user Y made him choose NAV, etc.

There is no the best antivirus for all, but the best antivirus for me, or for user X, or for user Y." }-

Well stated!!!

[trojan]

-{ Quote: "Well stated!!!" }-

the term "best" was in referance to a post that stated "nod32 is catching up to kav" what your saying is that other antivirus have benafits in other ways like the big deal nod32 users make about the "foot print" yes if thats a main proitry for you then use nod for me its trojan detection. to say thier is no best is silly at the moment thier is choices to make for detection then kav is best for detection+light foot print then nod is best, the best in all departments just has not been written yet the context i used the term "best" in was related to the august test results read my previous post again and you will grasp the point 8)

[Live]

The "best" that I´ve mentioned is not referance to any post, and not about "that other antivirus have benafits in other ways"...

KAV is the best solution of a detection+light AV for you and for a lot of users, but is not for another lot of users...its just a subjetive question...there´s no doubt that KAV has the best detection rates, but the best AV is not necessary the one that have the best detection rates.

Best detection rates is a objective question, we can determine wich one has the best detection rates by visiting sites like av-comparatives, but we can not determine wich AV is the best in a objective way, but just in a subjective way.

That´s why I don´t understand users that bash NOD32 or NAV or McAfee or any other AV, or bash users of these AVs, `cause this users that bash an AV is not in the context of those users that choosed the AV that was bashed...these users that bash think they are "ilumminated" and know which AV is the best, and the other users did not "saw the light yet..."

Who these users think they are? Are these users the owner of the truth?

Just to say....I use McAfee VSE 8.0i, not NOD32...

Sorry about my english...

[JRCATES]

I think IBK said it best in the AV-comparatives August2005 results released (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=95589) thread when he said:

-{ Quote: "
"Products belonging to a category can be considered to be as good as the other products in the same category regarding the on-demand detection rate. All products in the ADVANCED+ category offer very high level of on-demand detection. Selection of a product from this category should not be based on detection score alone. The quality of support, easy of use and system resource use should be considered when selecting a product."" }-

The products that scored an ADVANCED+ rating include:

Kaspersky
Symantec (Norton)
NOD
McAfee
BitDefender

I guess users of these products can compare, brag, pound their chest or disparage others if they wish.......but to me, I really don't see any good coming from that. I think users of these products should feel confident and take comfort in the fact that they are very well covered and have excellent AV protection, no matter which of these products they are using.....

[ronjor]

Thread is closed due to off topic postings that have been removed.