Confusion About the Need to Run Nod32 with Another AV Product

I find it interesting that so many wish to talk about the trojans and malware and other baddies that NOD detects . This is for everyone . The question was about WHAT NOD is made for ~! GEEZ ! Bottom line : NOD is all you need as an AV . PERIOD . It is excellent at what it does . Is it perfect ? NOPE . Nothing is . But , this is , by far , the best rated and best performing AV of all . As for trojans and other malware . It detects some . But , this is only a bonus for God's sake ! It is an AV program . Again , the question was , would this be enough . Yes . Plain and simple . YES !

 

er... not so much. The original question was:

The 'others' that TAZ is referring to are those that run Kaspersky etc. and those others that chimed in on why they use Kaspersky, e.g. because it excellent in virus detection and in the Trojan department, despite being an AV. It's also pretty darn good in the malware department as well.

Neil

 

NOD does not even try to claim they catch them all. Quote from here

...

Most 'missed' viruses in VB tests are due to them not being detected. Most 'false positives' in VB tests are due heuristics being triggered by a clean file.

I don't know a thing about KAV but I do know that in one VB test for example NOD took less than a quarter of the time of KAV to scan and KAV missed 4 viruses. NOD got its 23rd VB100 award that day.

Personally I'm not looking for any an all-in-one anything program. Nod in a tremendously fast and effective modular application. New features in NOD don't weigh heavily on each other. If ESET continue (and I'm sure they will) using the same tested and proven design philosophy and principles they've practices so far then their customes will continue to enjoy the same leading edge technical excellence that they've had the privelidge of so far..

It doesn't make any difference who you are, every signature update is an improvement. As long as there are viruses and malicious software there'll be more things to be done. I'm glad that ESET are active in tackling the problem. Seems they've developed the best solution currently available. Use something else if you want to but don't complain to me if it is not as fast or as effective as NOD.
More reading about independant testing? HERE

 

I believe in a layered approach. I run nod32 as my antivirus, and boclean is my anti trojan. I do have 3 other on demand virus scanners. That's right 3

I seldom use them. There there more for tinkering with.

 

I just have one av at a time, at the present I am running Nod. I never have the single av do anything, I don't know why I would need two. Safe surfing makes a huge difference. I do run antitrojan and antispyware. Several each of those.

bigc

 

Your quote is taken out of context. I agree NOD does not claim that. We all know that NOD does not claim that, but thanks for pointing out the obvious. In CONtext, my above statement was to the fact that NOD does very well on the VB tests, HOWEVER, the VB tests are very limited. Going on the amount of times VB has been quoted, it would appear that some people actually believe that NOD will catch all the viruses they may encounter. Again, in the real world, NOD will not catch everything. I say this to put the limited VB tests in the proper perspective.

Your knowledge on KAV is quite clear. Again, KAV scans are at a much deeper level; a level that NOD does not. NOD’s scanning engine is fast partly because it doesn’t go as deep, but also because it is a fast engine. No one is arguing that.

See the above comments on the limited testing of VB.

I’m in the “I use both” camp. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, NOD is fast. Its advanced heuristics are great. Its detection rates are great. The fact that it leaves a light foot print is incredible, but if we are to compare the two mentioned products from the original post, one has to be honest. KAV’s scans are deeper. Their detection rates on Trojans rivals the dedicated AT programs. Their detection rates on viruses are outstanding. On top of all this, KAV detects malware. NOD is improving on this, but that’s just it. They are improving, they’re not there yet.

Don’t take offence in my postings, or towards your chosen AV, after all it’s not personal, it’s just software

Neil

 

I also agree with flyrfan111's statement. My pet peeve is HC/HE setup in IMON. If High Efficiency is so much better, why not have that as the default? If you have problems, then you can change it. I always have to check to make sure everything is set to High Efficiency. My mind is never at ease because I always seem to find something there set at HC. Just a tiny little rant. Hey come on, it's the only thing I could think of to complain about.

 

Nothing personal at all.
I agree the VB tests have their limitations. I expect from your reply you didn't follow either posted link - thats O.K. - I believe we're basically in agreement on the VB issue although a 100% detection rate for the 'wild list' should be a minimum standard IMO.
As for KAV scanning deeper - thats great but if it still misses more than NOD then whats the point. Work harder for less result?
If any AV software detects non-virus malware thats a bonus. If it's AV/Malware detection software then its expected.

 

Yes I did read the link, however, you are basing your oppinion of kAV solely on the VB tests. The problem with that is you can run a hundered different virus scan tests and get a hundered different results with a number of the same AV programs. Virus scan test results can only be used as a guide, and not as the diffinative answer to which AV is better. To really understand what I am saying, look for links other than the 'unbiased' ones posted by the manufacturer. Congrats to NOD for making the latest VB100% test, but do look around. There are other tests out there. The results may surprise you.

Neil

 

I'm sure that KAV is an excellent package. I realise theres lots of other results out there. I understand that VB100 often don't indicate what it seems to and several of the reasons why that is the case. Whoever does whatever test - 'wild' viruses are 'wild' viruses. New, old or yet to be invented and regardless of if its you, me or somebody else doing the testing, they're either detected or not.
You obviously like KAV and thats great - I'm really not in a position to pass judgement on it personally, but from all the research I have done I remain unpersuaded that there is a better alternative to NOD presently available.