Which is better: Nod32 2.0 or DrWEB

I have purchase both Nod32 and DRWEB in the past. I tend to go back and forth on using both of these good virus protectors. Recently, I have been favoring DRWEB more because it's heuristics seem to be more effective. Can anybody give any input to their opinion on both of these programs? Which do you find better and why?

Thanks.

 

Doubtless Nod32 is better
Nod32 is doing better than DrWeb in VB:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?eset.xml
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?drweb.xml

Also DrWeb is well known of its false positives.

 

To Minacross from Firefighter!

If it should be that simple! DrWeb was better in Rokop av-tests, Scheinsicherheit av-tests and VirusP av-av-test where were other stuff than viruses too!

Drweb is a bit better unpacker than NOD32 v.2.0 and that counts nowadays a lot.

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

 

Here's what Wilders says about various AV's including Dr. Web and NOD 32 based on its own testing. http://www.wilders.org/anti_viruses.htm

 

Question remains for how long. NOD32 updated its decompression module....

 

NOD32 Advanced Heuristics seem to be quite impressive; NOD & Norman were the only two we determined were able to detect Swen heuristically: Which Av's detected Swen Heuristically?

{Of course, in that thread I mentioned Symantec's Digital Immune System apparently had an early heuristic detection of Swen, but that isn't part of NAV that the home user has access to, it is part of Symantec's Corporate system.}

 

Yes you did mention that bit of news about Norton..but the fact is .....

NAV with 9/18 definitions (last LiveUpdate) call it Worm.Automat.AHB. If you download the IU for 9/19 or later then it will be detected as W32.Swen.A@mm.


And Swen or Gibe C, F. or E as it is called buy other Antivirus Companies Like Norman and Panda actually was in the wild on 9/17 and most called it that in their full definitions on 9/18....so I do not call that early detection with heuristic by Symantec..I call that being late out of the gate and it surely was not heuristics

 

To compare their heuristics is quit easy as as disabling scanstring in NOD32

 

To everyone from Firefighter!

About NOD almost everybody says that it is the best in the Wild scanner!

I have studied the REAL ability to detect the last in the free INFECTIONS between NOD and DrWeb.

I have collected the TOP 10 INFECTIONS list past 30 days to 25. September 2003 from McAfee Global statistic.

After that I would say only that I know at least one av, that isn't the best against the most popular real FREE INFECTIONS, no more or less!

http://www.virusbtn.com/resources/vgrep/

http://www.nod32.com/support/pedia.htm

http://www.dials.ru/english/


PS: You can add those missing NOD updates if you know the real date.


"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

- Trimmed image size to reduce thread width - LWM

 

some months ago I made a Anti-Trojan test and DrWeb was high at the top!!! DrWeb belongs to the best, NOD wasn´t as far so good like DrWeb. DrWeb was the fastest who detected Aphex Rootkit, just an example. KAV & the rest needed more time until they detected it.

Some false alarms aren´t that wild, TDS makes also false alarms and not only one, believe me.
Hacker Eliminator = Netbus 1.7, just one example
Prozesskiller = Trojan Horse.

 

Nod32 ofcourse its da best..

 

Maybe it would have been better if you first have startet to educated yourself about the "malware" listed in the McAfee statistics. Then you would have at least find out two points that were listed as "malware" but actually are security issues and not malware. I give you a hint: both start with Exploit.*

wizard

 

To Wizard from Firefighter!

Unfortunately I don't have time to categorize all those nasties in the web. For me, as an average customer, all those things that are bad to my puter's health, are in my vocabulary "infections" or "malware" in a way or an other!

It is frustrating to update almost ten different program twice a day when there is an alternative that updates automaticly hourly day after day.

I don't say that some av is capable to do all those protections alone, but the way is more customer friendly when all av:s should clean PC:s at least the same level as KAV (engines) or McAfee does!

Of course there are plenty of people who say that those programs are slowing down their system too much, but there is no shortcut to detect all possible nasties with a good unpacking engine, probably inside all archives to ensure that all your files and folders that you send to an other are clean and by such a wide database that can protect you against those monthly spreading "criminals", no matter to which category they belongs. Doing all this you need some energy (= time and memory), but it is a natural law, no more or less.

"The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

Best regards,
Firefighter!