NOD32 possible improvements

Hi !
First of all, let me say that Wilders.org and its forum are really excellent and have helped me to choose my AV: thank you very much.

Here's the deal:

NOD32 is the antivirus which has the most powerful scanner heuristic, it detects swen without updates (in AH mode admittedly).
And Eset does not add all the viruses, it makes it well, while putting most current.
But you know like me its major drawback is its lack of indexed malwares, aka, not as complete as KAV or McAfee.
And as it is easier to add viruses than to rewrite a algorithm to detect virus heuristically, I wonder why Eset does not add all the known viruses, which would make NOD32 the most powerful antivirus in the world !

it has already the most advanced technology, why not extend the bases ?
this is the only way to REALLY improve NOD !
I used KAV, I bought NOD32 and I know his potential and I would like that Eset gives him the means of being the best

Thank you !
Sincerely,
Nick

 

Do you think it's possible ?

 

I'm not 100% sure what you mean, but if you're saying that they're missing out on some malware, trojans or viruses just send it to them and they'll be happy to fix it up for you.

Email some unknown malware to samples@eset.com <-- I believe it needs to be zipped.

 

yes but that doesn't solve the problem:
I regret that Eset does not make more efforts, why not complete bases ?
thus, Eset would have the best AV outta there:
best heuristic, best widest bases, in one the word, the right stuff !

 

This could trigger another discussion entirely, but don't be entirely swayed by the numbers game. The numbers in the database of a product in themselves don't tell the whole story.

What are in other databases? Are they all real world threats? Do they include viruses comfortably residing in some author's collection who has provided it to his favorite AV but has no intention of putting it in the wild? Do they include things that don't work and wouldn't pose a threat to your pc if they were to go in the wild?

It's not just a matter of quantity, but also the quality of a database.

Let's say perhaps there are about 50-60 thousand known viruses. But let's also say there are only about a thousand that are circulating and pose a threat to your PC. Where would you prefer your AV to put it's primary focus, loading up tons of stuff just to play the numbers game with other AV's without necessarily significantly improving your security? Or improving the capabilities of it's AV software (such as the advanced heuristics feature introduced in version 2 or ability to unpack packed code, etc) while keeping up to date on the latest real world threats like worms and trojans to ensure that its customers are protected against the things that they potentially are most likely to encounter in the real world while using their PC?

It's not entirely an either or, but I wouldn't want an AV to just put tons of crud they know won't work or isn't a threat just for the purposes of playing the numbers game. That doesn't make me as a customer safer against the things I'm most likely to come across in real world (rather than theoretical) application.

 

What makes you believe NOD32 does not contain signatures for as many viruses as its competitors? I haven't seen any figures for this - have you?

While I'm not interested in how the numbers stack up (sig has explained lucidly why the numbers game is a pointless one), I would like to see an on-line searchable list of viruses that it does contain signatures for. For a start, this would answer the frequent questions posed on these forums about whether NOD32 protects against specific named viruses.

 

IMHO, KAV has lot of trash in their database, lot of indended etc...

The heuristic is not rewriten due the one or two particular virus detection... If you need to detect some problematic virus, special algo is added not heuristic.

Fork eset a lits of them