|
|
#1
February 28th, 2005, 09:34 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Ok no one seems to know this answer.
The question is simple:
How does Nod32 Advanced Heuritics compare to Panda TruPrevent? Is Panda Better? Less False positives? or is Nod32 better? Both when looking at trojans, viruses and spyware. Thanks
__________________
I have a computer and my browser tries to make me fat by feeding me cookies. "You need to delete your video card and format your modem, and install AOL on your motherboard" |
|
#2
February 28th, 2005, 09:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ok no one seems to know this answer.
I think NOD32 is still better than Panda TruPrevent. While Panda is a very good heuristic engine, I believe I saw somewhere that NOD was slightly better.
When a certain virus outbreak occurred (I do not remember which) ony NOD32 AH and Panda TruPrevent caught it on-the-fly without signatures. Regards, Firecat
__________________
Last edited by Radu : Today, at 5:32 AM. Reason: Found new malicious code |
|
#3
February 28th, 2005, 09:54 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ok no one seems to know this answer.
Panda's True Prevent is not as good as NOD32 AH. I also find it to be a quite heavy on my machine.
Panda's true prevent is more comparable to Norman's sandbox in terms of detection then is to NOD32 AH. tECHNODROME
__________________
Classic Trance Hit: PPK - Resurrection |
|
#4
February 28th, 2005, 11:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ok no one seems to know this answer.
You cannot prevent them actually. NOD32's AH is a file scanning heuristic, combined with static and generic unpacking. Panda's TruPrevent is a behaviour blocker which relies to catch the suspicious action while it is performed by the *activated* malware.
I think you actually need both in a good AV - because there are runtime compressors around which you simply cannot unpack in a resonable time anymore. All the crypting & packing is usless against a behaviour blocker - but then a behaviour blocker is a client-side feature. You cannot use it on a server (mailgateway for example).
__________________
Chuck Norris does not use any antivirus software. He knows the hashes of all clean software on earth. Even those that are not compiled yet. It is not known if he got that list from dividing by zero or counting to infinity. |
|
#5
February 28th, 2005, 02:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Ok no one seems to know this answer.
tru Prevent is a little different . Which does a better job ? Again . Each are a bit different . If for no other reason , NOD should be chosen as their ITW is hard to discredit . I know ITW is something different but , the point is NOD is more familiar in this area as their record proves . Hope that helps and good luck in your quest
__________________
http://tallemu.com ALMOST all you need  
|
|
#6
February 28th, 2005, 02:32 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ok no one seems to know this answer.
Quote:
__________________
Last edited by Radu : Today, at 5:32 AM. Reason: Found new malicious code |
|
#7
March 1st, 2005, 08:07 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ok no one seems to know this answer.
Indeed, Panda is improving... but NOD is still better in this way... I still have my doubts about NOD32 too, their heuristic is good, but their "normal" detection is still pretty behind McAfee and Kaspersky... It's about compromises my friend
|
|
#9
March 1st, 2005, 12:07 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ok no one seems to know this answer.
Titanium's pretty light...but the 2005 version hogs more than 2004 because of the added Spyware/Adware detection I think...But still its pretty light.
__________________
Last edited by Radu : Today, at 5:32 AM. Reason: Found new malicious code |
|
#12
March 1st, 2005, 12:23 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ok no one seems to know this answer.
From what I've seen it seems its just as light as KAV or slightly heavier.
__________________
Last edited by Radu : Today, at 5:32 AM. Reason: Found new malicious code |
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
