PC World Review of Nod32

Disable Amon,Imon,Dmon and Emon, Or just hit the quit button which unload the module drivers complete

edit: I use this with avira PE not Kaspersky.

 

All 900,000 samples are really malware, just like AV-comparatives sample set. Every sample is verified to be malware, don't worry about that. I have seen this "are they really malware" statement being bandied about many times, and IMO this statement is only valid if the testing site is not reputable.

AV-test's results have always showed NOD32 differently than AV-comparatives. But then, AV-test releases tests at random, not at scheduled dates like AV-comparatives. This means that Eset cannot release huge updates to "prepare" themselves for AV-test.org's tests. Besides, Eset adds many samples only during specific times of the year and AV-test doesn't necessarily test at that time of the year.

So this should give you a picture of why AV-test's results are different for NOD32 compared to AV-comparatives.

 

@firecat,
what is the removal rate of avg in the 7.5 versions like?
is the 7.5 version better at removing malware than the 7.0 version?
lodore

 

I never tried the 7.0 version so I am not sure. I've never had anything infect my PC so I can't really tell about removal rates. But from what I see, yes it is better in version 7.5 than version 7.0.

 

im just wondering if i could use avg antimalware on my sister's computer when her antivir license runs out.
it is just as easy to use.
lodore

 

Back on topic please. There is another thread with AVG vs NOD.

 

Since you mentioned "student accommodation"... Does her school provide an AV for students and faculty to use for free? I know at my old university the IT department provided McAfee Enterprise 8.5 and Kerio firewall free of charge to all students and faculty. Might want to check into it.

 

i dont know her UNI might.
lodore

 

Where can you see the AV-test.org results? I can't find them on their web site?

Thanks.

/jab

 

You won't find it on the website. AV-test's tests are only published in certain websites and magazines from time to time.

 

I can hardly believe this thread. The reviewers gave 1st place KAV an 85 and the next three an 84 rating. Hardly anything to get excited about. Someone around here has too much emotional energy invested in their commitment to their AV scanner. No software is perfect, nor is any test of software perfect.

 

The thread is centered around the malware detection rates of NOD32 in the PC World test which was performed by AV-Test and not the overall rating of NOD32 given by PC World.

 

Thats the problem. The focus is on one number that is being taken out of context and not the result as a whole. There is obviously some explanation in the testing methodology, about which everyone does speculate.

 

Someone also said that it's a bad idea to have two AV's on your pc. If you have KAV or Nod there is no reason for another AV to be installed on your pc. If you're that paranoid use a limited account with a SRP.

 

Same for me
And honestly, 90% detection rate and common sense keeps my computer safe.

 

Are NOD's less-than-stellar results in these past tests due to limits in its scanning engine or only to missing definitions?

 

I have been a happy NOD32 user for the last 2 years. But with each AV review I read, I am slowly starting to have doubts as to whether or not it is worth paying for. When the free programs like AOL AVS, Antivir, and Avast are producing similar if not better detection rates, why pay for NOD?

In the past, I have paid for NOD32 because I felt it was the best or at least one of the 2 best. But I can't say that I still feel that way. I still think it is good, but it appears to have slipped from the elite. If I pay for an AV next year it will probably be made by Kaspersky or I may simply go with one of the many very good free options.

That's really kind of disappointing because I am a NOD fan. It's light on resources and has been very effective. It is exactly what I look for in a security program. And ESET seems like the "underdog" to me. I enjoy pulling for the non mass marketed, smaller but high quality products. But if free AV products have caught up, I can't justify the expense. And if I am going to justify the expense by buying the very best, I can't say that NOD still meets that criteria. I am hoping that ESET rebounds this year.

 

Is that based on one or more of the current tests that have been the subject of a lot of discussion around here lately? The reason I ask is because I wasn't aware that any of those tests included *free* versions of the AVs tested.

Okay, so you "buy the very best", I assume based upon the latest tests and/or reviews, and you're content, for the time being. *Now* what do you do if several months later the most recent testing reveals that the new AV you purchased has slipped?


Bottom line is if you don't want to pay, then don't pay.....use one of the free AVs. OTOH, if you are going to pay, switching from a product that, apparently, has served you well for a couple of years to another, based solely on tests/reviews, *could* prove to be a mistake. The problem is *you* will have no way of knowing for sure *until* you get infected and/or have issues with the new AV *and* all the testing in the universe can't guarantee either/or won't happen.

 

I don't know if before me someone sad already this, but i must say that..
When I was using NOD32 on my old machine, I was downloading specially some number of exe. viruses to test my AV. In these tests testers only scan viruses with AV's but nobody executes them right?
So I had often cases when some viruses wasn't detected by all AV's in virustotal list including NOD32, but when I was executing these viruses, my NOD32 detected them with his great Heuristic! So if someone will tests AV's and executing viruses, I think NOD32 will be one of the first detecting them and of caurse tests result will be diferents and NOD32 will be higher in the list.
Yes always good detect viruses by signatures before executing them, but in other case AV's scoring highet in this test having especially signature detection will unused in these cases (I mean after executing undetected viruses).
So I think NOD32 is still great AV !

 

Well...I got infected using NOD too. A trojan slipped right by NOD, then disabled it and my firewall. No program catches everything and no program can compensate for end user error. Still, with as good as free AV's have gotten to be, I will only pay for the very best and am simply no longer convinced that NOD32 falls in that category.

 

Unfortunately, there is no such thing.

NOD32's heuristics are just that - heuristics. Not a behavior blocker. Unless the on-access and on-demand modules use different scanning engines, or they're using different settings, there is no way the on-access scanner is going to heuristically detect a file that the on-demand scanner missed.

 

Maybe such a situation can happen with NOD32 if the file was not packed by a known packer, or there was a self extracting archive of a format Eset does not scan (not sure).

 

I don't know why but I often had such cases, trust me NOD32 was detected nearly 100% executet viruses, undetected before!

 

Most likely this happens with embedded files. Many scanners (avast! and KAV appear to be notable exceptions) are unable to detect files embedded within the main "body" of the malware itself. NOD32 might be able to detect these files when they're released upon the execution of the malware, but the same easily applies to any antivirus software, not just NOD32, and this is not the same case as flagging the main body of the malware itself, which might have been already up to further mischief.

And no, tsilo, I don't trust your claims. Not unless you can back them up, because to the best of my knowledge this is just not the way how scanners work (much less the "nearly 100%" part). Nothing personal, of course.

 

executable malware,

hmm, an argument ive used myself before, but with no clarification of any of this from the testers themselfs, its pointless for me to keep arguing the case.