Nav 2003 vs Dr.Web

Hello all, long time reader/lurker 1st time poster. Thanks to everyone for great info! Now to my question. In reading about NAV 2003 they advertise it as a scanner for IM, such as msn. However, doesn't the resident scanner in 2002 provide protection from harmful files via IM? Doesn't seem to be a really new feature. Again, it would be a different story if you just used NAV as an on demand scanner but as a resident scanner running in the background i thought you would already be protected. So is there really anything new there? Also, NAV 2003 preportes to have anti-worm & anti-trojan abilities but doesn't NAV 2002 also protect from worms and some common trojans? Hell NAV 2002 has caught both trojans and worms on my system before...so whats new here?? Finally, how would those that have used both(Dr.Web & NAV 2002/2003 beta) compare the performance and detection rate of each? Seems Dr.web has new updates daily that far exceed NAV's weekly updates as well and it daily manual updates? Also, Dr.web is SO MUCH smaller than NAV, does this mean less protection is some capacities?

P.S. One last unclear question i have is does Dr.Web protect against Hostile Scripts like NAV says to do? eg. JS viruses and the like.


Thank you all. I look forward to reading your responses.

JC

 

Yes!

DrWeb32 is much better AV/AT scanner then Norton (even 2003)!


Technodrome

 

Your quoting is little bit off....

"I still want to verify that myself someday "

Trialware is always available!


Technodrome

 

I have never tried NAV 2003, but I do know that Nortons previous versions of NAV seems to have mixed results on different machines. I have had to clean up several clients machines where NAV was used. I have seen it miss the most common viruses and I know they were in the database. A good example is one of the Marker viruses.
I know NAV is doing pretty good at Virus Bulletin testing. I know several intelligent people that seem to like Norton very much and don't seem to have any problems with it.
I do not consider myself to be a dyed in the wool Norton basher, but I do not like the "Norton bloat". I just believe that Norton products seem to be very sensitive to the environment into which they are installed. Simply put, I do believe Nortons AV may work great on one machine, but not another.

I am using DrWeb now, and have been for 3 or 4 weeks. It has caught every virus I have tested with it. I do not have enough experience with it and do not know enough people that are using it to say it is a great AV yet. So far I am very pleased with it and do not know anybody that has complained about it missing anything, except for some strange stuff Techno came up with.
My personal call on your question would be to go with DrWeb. However, I still believe that for people that can use KAV without a system slowdown, KAV is the best AV ever. NOD32 is also an excellent AV, but still needs some work for trojan detection. I am interested in seeing what the new NOD is going to be like.

 

I haven't been using NAV for detection tests. Norton is not listed on the "Heureka-2" AntiVirus Tests March 2002 on http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/ so you can't compare both.

 

Thanks for all the great feedback. I just grabbed the trial of dr.web, but i run NAV2002 as my resident scanner (running 24/7 in background). Anyways, when i began to install Dr.web (i intended to try it as an ondemand scanner) i got a warning that told me Dr.Web had detected that i was running NAV2002 and that installing Dr.Web could cause unstable result. My question is: is it safe to install dr.web as an ondemand scanner and is it safe to do so while runnign NAV2002 as my resident scanner?

Thanks all.
JC

 

So are you basically saying it just depends? Could be stable or it could be unstable just luck of the draw? I do not wish to run Dr.Web as a resident scanner. Just an on-demand scanner. Like i said, i do not wish to replace NAV2002 with Dr.web, just add to it by using Dr.web as an alternative on-demand scanner. Do i have a choice while installing Dr.Web to make it just an on-demand scanner??

Thanks again.
JC

 

I have been running NAv 2002 and Dr Web without any problems so far.


However the New Kerio 3.0 Beta sucks, Nothing but trouble..

 

In fact, comparing NAV2002 and 2003, the difference is very small, and not worth to put your money in an upgrade NAV2002 >> 2003.

My personal opinion about comparing NAV(2003) and DrWeb is, that DrWeb is the better choice.

 

I disagree with several posters here. Just look at the antivirus poll at dslreports: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,879883~root=security,1~mode=flat

Norton wins hands-down!! IMHO, NAV 2002 is the finest and best av-product in the world!!

And regarding DrWeb's warning, I think that's just a marketing ploy myself: ignore the warning and do a custom install -- choose not to install the resident DrWeb scanner, and you'll then have DrWeb as a backup on-demand scanner, LOL.

 

OK Paul, I'll concede that DrWeb is known to have excellent heuristics...but I think NAV has a better VB test record.

Actually NOD32 has the very best VB test record, but I still stick by my statement: NAV is #1, and will remain that way for some time to come.

Just ask Vamp, and he'll say the same thing. Indeed, he has posted the same opinion more than once at dslr security forum. So it isn't just me who feels this way.

No flames y'all, please, LOL.

 

IMO excellent heuristics is the most important issue of an antivirusscanner, and I fully agree with Paul that the updates of NAV are updated less than needed.

I don't feel the way Vamp and you are, and I agree again with Paul, that because NAV is updated less than needed, in conjunction with heuristics that are not satisfying, it can't be the antivirusproduct #1 on the market.

Besides that, a poll is for me a nice item to read, and that's all.
It has nothing to do with SERIOUS testing of product x,y or z.

 

Thank you all for your insights. I guess that was my point for having a backup AV in addition to Norton's. Since Norton is automated and has somewhat slow updates and its hueristics are know to not be very strong such is why i turned to Dr.Web for consideration. they update everyday, sometimes more then once a day. Now thats staying on top of things in my book. Also, they are regarded for strong hueristics which i believe is a great tool for extra security. Just to through one more into the mix, if you were to choose a back up AV scanner would it be dr.web or F-Prot give the two as the only choices?

Thanks all.

JC

 

I have a friend who uses Kaspersky (KAV) as his primary and resident scanner, with DrWeb and F-Prot as backups...with no problems at all, LOL.

 

NAV does have what it calls bloodhound technology, which is its built-in heuristics. Besides, heuristics can cause false alarms...you can't depend on heuristics, IMHO.

Everybody entitled to an opinion, including yourself. Besides, it is an inaccurate statement, that NAV isn't updated as often: just checkout the daily intelligent updater (IU) threads at dslr security forum: http://www.dslreports.com/forum/security,1. Those who wish to update NAV daily with IU (rather than weekly with liveupdate or LU) are free to do so, indeed that's what I've been doing for some time now.

For those who are lazy and only use LU to update, it comes out more often when there's a virus alert or special threat: I've seen LU update as many as three or four times in a single week.

Well, as I said, you're entitled to your opinion, as am I to mine. BTW, it isn't just dslreports poll -- Editor's Choice at CNET, ZDnet, and PC World goes to NAV 2002.

For the record, I have sent an IM to Vamp through dslreports, inviting him to come and post to this thread, hopefully he'll have time to post here, as he has some informed opinion supporting mine, LOL.

 

Give Randy a break here I have encouraged him to get out and about

 

Read VB test criteria you may learn something! How about ZOO viruses? (no need to mention trojans/backdoors)

Actually NOD32 has one of the best heuristics engines!

Yup, as long as they are spending money on advertising...

Sorry but who is he! AV/Virus Proffesional?

NP


Technodrome

 

1. Every poll is bias! This one is useless! The name of this poll is What kind of Anti Virus Program do you use? If I use Norton, am I going to vote for KAV or NOD32?
@ Around 450 people voted out of 400 million computer users (around 100 million AV users)!

You are wrong! I know a few people who had problems! Every system is different!

It's only your opinion! Thanks god!


Technodrome

 

Come on Man! Are you serious?


Technodrome

 

I prefer a separate antitrojan product, like TrojanHunter or TDS-3 ( or BOClean, The Cleaner, Tauscan, take your pick) -- to supplement an antivirus product: AVs are designed primarily for virus detection, although they do detect the more common trojans; whereas ATs are obviously better fitted to detect and remove trojans. Among AVs, Kaspersky (KAV) has the best trojan detection rate, but it has a poor VB test record compared to NAV and NOD32.

I never made any negative statements towards NOD32 or other AVs, only I think, when all factors are considered (including interface and ease of use), NAV is superior.

IMHO, you don't gain the lion's market share through advertising alone...product quality must back it up!!

If he responds to my IM, hopefully Vamp will show up here, and you'll see for yourself he is no novice with viruses and trojans...he has helped many people at dslreports with trojan infection problems, LOL. I just mentioned him as a for-instance, but there are many, many NAV-supporters, just examine my link to dslreports' AV-poll for yourself.