NOD32 2.5 Beta 2

Hi all Newbie to this forum.

Just downloaded the Beta of NOD32 to give it a try (First time user) and I came accross what I think might be a problem.

I was testing the POP3 detection engine by sending a test file from this page

http://www.aleph-tec.com/eicar/index.php

The POP3 engine did not detect the Eicar test file, although it appended a message to the email saying NOD32 had scanned the message.

When I tried opening the attachment then NOD32 quarantined the Eicar file. Is this a bug and does NOD32 not detect any Viruses as attachments or just the Eicar file ?

I was hoping the Out Of Box Experience would have been a bit better.

 

OK have tested NOD32 with a different Eicar page

http://www.declude.com/Articles.asp?ID=99

And it works ok, there must be something wrong with the original Eicar test page as other AVs dont detect the file either.

Panic over everyone

 

Well after some considerable testing with both of the above Eicar test pages AVG7 was the only AV to detect both tests. Avast on the other hand detected the second test page (like NOD32 did) and marked the first as a suspicious file (which NOD32 missed completely).

Pretty disappointing for a payable app.

 

Nod detected and quarantined the file from aleph-tec.com here.

 

Banger, which of the tests at http://www.aleph-tec.com/eicar/index.php did you use? There're like 7 different tests on that page (all eicar-based).

Thanks

 

Made my day. Thanks.

I know WHY this is included - because some of the Bagle worms sending itself in a password protected zip archive.

BUT this does not mean that you have to unpack and to scan EVERY password protected zip file! You can easily detect in the ZIP Header if there's a executable (.exe) a Screensaver (.scr) or something similiar included to build up a trigger for ZIP 'password-unpacking' - for instance for this bagle worm.

 

Is there any special timeline for testing the beta before ESET will bringt out the Final ?

 

No. It will be released at the time the developers will be persuaded by marketing the app is perfect

 

are you trialling NOD32 for the first time as the Beta?

You should not use Beta software to determine the usefulness of a particular solution - Beta is Beta - it has problems - small ones, big ones - but problems - and using any company's beta as a judge of it's solutions is:

a. skewed against the solution
b. unfair on the developers
c. going to give you poor first impression.

To be honest, I was amazed that Eset put the beta on their front page - when I saw it, I thought it a little dangerous - this has now confirmed what I though may be the risk - new users making use of the beta to evaluate NOD32 as a viable replacement for their current AV solution.

In direct response to this - I am removing the beta from NOD32USA.COM - it is not a fair way to evaluate NOD32 and we won't put our visitors in the situation where they can make this mistake - it OBVIOUSLY has the potential to harm sales, due to the very valuable first impression being tainted... no matter how vocal you think you are in advising beta testers to NOT use the software in a live environment - some obviously have - and this post demonstrates that.

hth

Greg

 

Please refrain from misleading the visitors of the Wilder's forum:

1. The new beta is more stable than the current version - if it was dangerous for the users to install it would never be made available to public. It'd been tested deeply in Eset's labs before it was released so I consider the statement that installing the beta is dangerous, as completely misleading. Of course, it's not recommended to install it on productional servers as no other vendor does.

2. Testing eicar on password protected files and, what's more, with the password listed in the email attachment as an image, is completely misleading and doesn't say anything about detection capabilities of the particular antivirus programs. The heuristics can mark particular emails even with the password stored in an image as suspicious because of other signs, which are apparently missing in the eicar file.

 

Chill out Marcos - you misunderand my post! Don't get me wrong, I love NOD32, so much so that we became resellers... don't agree with me? Fine... tell me I'm WRONG... fine... although perhaps I should clarify what I meant as "dangerous" for those out there who might mis-read my "dangerous" post ... it seems it is easy to misconstrued my original meaning...

I never said it was dangerous for users to install and that was never my implication. If you inferred that, then I definitely need to clarify - I meant it was dangerous for Eset to be encouraging beta testing from the public - dangerous to their computers? No! Dangerous to the public image of the software - Yes!

If a potential client's first impression of the software is a beta quality software, it will NOT be the best impression - that's what I meant. In as much as it can harm the perception of the software, it is "dangerous" to the Eset "brand" - if you disagree, that's your perogative... it's also mine to determine what is best for the hundreds of visitors a day to NOD32USA.COM - therefore, I have removed the beta from *OUR* site - I don't want to field support questions about things that will be fixed from non-customers... if you do... that's your business - and that's fine by me!

While I'm on the subject of Betas - they're very pretty fish... sorry couldn't resist... I was merely trying to point out that anyone using beta releases to evaluate the efficacy of a software solution is:

a. likely to encounter problems not found in the production release
b. setting themselves up to find problems in the software.

regardless of YOUR stance on this particular beta - I still say that it is WRONG IN MY OPINION to make beta testing a public exercise - the larger software companies I beta test for make their betas available to their registered users - in the M$ side of things, you have to be a registered as a developer or something (I don't beta M$). Perhaps they enjoy larger numbers of testers due to their huge numbers of users - a luxury that Eset probably doesn't enjoy.

While beta testing is a good thing - beta testing as product evaluation is not.. at least in my books.

regards

Greg Hewitt-Long

ps - I never commented on the Eicar testing - it's not perfect - never has been as far as I can see - and I don't care if NOD32 fails on some weird Eicar test - I care about REAL ITW VIRUSES!!! with that in mind, I guess part 2 of your very ENBOLDENED post was probably directed to someone else... at least I hope so....

 

Hi Greg,

To be honest, I was amazed that Eset put the beta on their front page - when I saw it, I thought it a little dangerous - this has now confirmed what I though may be the risk - new users making use of the beta to evaluate NOD32 as a viable replacement for their current AV solution.

This statement actually implies that it's not safe to install the beta. I must agree this is true for productional systems.

If we had no beta version, releasing it without prior beta testing might result in discovering a severe bug after the component update has taken place and Eset's reputation would be significantly damaged (I know what I'm talking about as it happend once in the past, not that long time ago). I for one do not agree that we should make the paying customers beta testers (I'm sure this is not what you meant). The beta versions released by Eset must first pass in-depth tests on all operating systems available to minimize potential issues discovered during the beta testing. Also, all main distributors get the betas for testing a longer time before they are released to public.

You said that only registered users should be entitled to download and install the beta. However, based on my experience there used to be a huge number of trial users in the past inquiring us for username and password when the beta was released only for registered users.

Another question is what could make more prospectives turn off from NOD32 - if they discover a serious bug in the current version (it actually still suffers with some incompatibility issues) or a POSSIBLE bug in the beta which, by the way, has the detection and cleaning capabilities improved significantly and that is highly appreciated by the users.

To be honest, no serious issues have been reported with the beta as opposed to the current release version. Based on the feedback we've got, a lot of clients were amazed with the progress made to the beta version which convinced them to purchase NOD32 even if it's still in the phase of beta testing. A lot of them would certainly not purchase NOD32 if only the current version 2.12.3 was available.

 

I do agree, webyourbusiness, although I think this could be offset by a strong warning of what beta actually means. With any beta there will always be users that download it not really knowing what beta is, and then get bent out of shape when it doesn't work 100% properly. I think a very visible bolded warning that the beta WILL have bugs and that by using it you agree to report those bugs for development purposes, could help the situation quite a bit. I don't think public betas are a bad idea at all, as long as the users are aware of the nature of beta testing.

 

It doesn't necessarily mean a beta suffers from some bugs. For instance, it seems the current release version suffers from many more incompatibility issues than the beta 2.50.

 

Marcos: Indeed, it has been very stable for me, with the exception of a few minor things. However users should always enter a beta expecting to encounter bugs, and understanding that the purpose of the beta is to report any bugs found to help ensure that the final works "perfectly" I don't mean to suggest that the user should be made to think that the beta is terribly buggy and only for professionals, but a fair (and visible) warning that some glitches are to be expected, worked with, and reported, seems more than fair. As an example you may want to see the thread in "Software and Services" regarding Pivx' PreView.. many people had all sorts of concerns about the program but jumped to conclusions and never reported anything. I think a good warning of what Beta software is all about could have averted some of that.

 

I disagree - my understanding of the sentence (and I'm the one who wrote it), is that "new users using the beta software to evaluate NOD32 as an anti-virus solution is potentially dangerous to sales".

Like I said, I perhaps needed to clarify my meaning - particularly as a number of participants of the forum have english as a second language.

I understand the risks - and I also think that there are enough resellers and dedicated devotees of the software to form a significant beta test of registered users (it might need a little effort - ie, some COMMUNICATION with the resellers as opposed to the mushroom management currently employed)...

it certainly is not. I meant that a very keen number of registered users and resellers, such as myself and many of the other occupants of this forum would be a great starting point for a closed beta - but I appreciate that the numbers might not be as large as the number generated from opening the NOD32 2.5 beta to anyone - registered or not.

not us mushroom resellers though...

There is another way... what about making Beta testers fill out a beta tester registration form? My point being making it a LITTLE less easy to install the beta, rather than the "proper" trial version.

I don't care about how large the beta test is - I'm sure to Eset it's a very significant portion of the development cycle, and more beta testers are better than less - but I still stand by my original statement that I don't think using the Beta as a software evaluation is the way to go. You obviously have more in-depth knowledge about the significant issues within the current production system to give you some in-sight as to how this might, or might NOT be significant.

My over-riding impression of the beta SO FAR - is that the gui is full of graphical holes - if that is the first impression of potential purchasers evaluating the software for purchase, it is not ideal - nor is finding functionality problems (in either a production release, OR a beta).

Sure - but it's not as polished GRAPHICALLY - and to many purchasers, that is every bit as important as having a remove button for a specific threat.

Different buyers evaluate on different criteria - I think you might alienate as many as you enamour with the current state of the beta... ymmv...

Us mushrooms don't have access to either information unless passed through this forum... so only you would be qualifiied to make such a statement... good news though!

I too am amazed - trust me.. it's a nice solid beta - but go get a non-techie user, sit them down in front of it and listen from behind a screen or two way mirror - I bet they comment on the way the GUI has big white spaces, and massive holes when it draws the right hand panel - those non-techies are potentially being alienated if they get the beta INSTEAD of the "final" - no matter the version. That's my major point... not the improvements, not the lack of failures, the amount of improvements or anything else...

Again - ymmv...

regards

Greg

 

ok - fwiw - I've just installed the beta on a second machine - one of my personal machines, and I don't see the holes in the gui AT ALL - I'll submit to the beta address a picture of the GUI on my wife's machine at home when I get home, then perhaps Marcos will understand what I mean by my "swiss cheese" gui - this install looks NOTHING like the previous one I've been testing.

If I had seen this install prior to my swiss cheese version, I would probably be a bit more defensive about the beta as well...

regards

Greg

 

behold: swiss cheese gui...

 

full and complete gray boxes... which would affect my argument against the public beta if it were the default installation mode... however, swiss cheese was the default when installed on top of my 2.12.3 installation... even though some of my other settings where thrown away, use of graphics remained, and messed up in a big way!

On my desktop at work, the same installation over the top of an identical 2.12.3 install resulted in a ZERO hole (more like a nice cheddar) gui...