NOD32 in the real world

I honeslty don't hate NOD32 or I wouldn't have purchased a license. At the moment I am being protected by KAV and AVK. I'm not using McAfee either and I also own a license for it. I don't hate McAfee eitherThis has nothing to do with hate, only protection. I think these are all fair questions that deserve answers. The DSL members as here use many various brands of AV's. It has nothing to do with hating NOD32. I can't wait to feel confortable enough to go back to NOD32. I was one who made a switch many months ago to another AV due to alot of these treads and no answers..c

 

Shooter,

You don't "have the time" to send the samples? You had time to receive them and test them and post to BBR... ?!??

You're suggesting that Eset "fess up" and include samples of may be viruses to their defs, but don't "have the time" to send them the very same samples??

Surely not, Shooter!

 

Hi again - I am happy to have registered. Do people here think NOD32 would be just as good a resident scanner as KAV for me, based on these things?:

- I have a P4 Windows XP Home with 512 MB RAM. Haven't noticed much slowness with KAV, but I'm sure NOD32 would help things be a bit faster.

- In the past, I've only been infected by Java exploits (I do have the patch so I'm not sure they could do anything.)

- I use Outlook sometimes, but not often. Usually go to the Comcast page to check.

- Price is somewhat of an issue, and I'm thinking I should have gotten KAV Lite since it's $19.95 instead of $49.95. Also, I'm paying for TrojanHunter and Norton Personal Firewall already. NOD32's renewal rates are decent, but will they get better?

- Love the feel of NOD32, but wonder if KAV can provide better protection overall.

I wanted to get the opinions of people here, and not opinions only at dslreports.

 

@mvdu

Welcome to the Forum Matt. Glad you signed up and look forward to your knowledge and experience.

Regards,
John

 

Thanks to you both, John and Paul! I look forward to being a member.

Would you recommend I pay again for NOD32 since I do like layered protection?(so glad you agree, Paul - we have something big in common already.)

 

Well, I for one applaud you for registering and keeping an open mind.

I have a free license of NOD32 (thanks to this board), and after using it day in and day out for a while, have found it to be exactly what I want in an AV.

There are a few things I look for in an AV:

1. Does it catch the bugs that I am most likely to "accidentally" run across in day-to-day internet and computer usage? Particularly e-mail and attachment-borne viruses. And I want them caught consistently.

2. Does it "do it's thing" without constant "babysitting"? (IE: Def updates, scheduled scans, etc.)

3. Is it reasonably light on computer resources?

4. Are the updates timely?

NOD32 performs admirably in all respects.

KAV is very good at detecting lots of different malware in different states of "packaging", but it's heavier than NOD, and it's more prone to false positives than NOD. I use a KAV-based AV as a backup scanner.

I also use a dedicated anti-trojan in a layered defense.

As a side-note, KAV--on my box--has not caught anything NOD32 missed, to date. It did, however, cough up a couple of false alarms on files I knew were not examples of malware.

That's my take. YMMV, but regardless, be comfortable with whatever you choose.

 

Amen.

To mvdu: I've said this so many times in this forum that people here are probably tired of hearing it: NOD32 is an excellent antivirus, but it is not the only one.

Good luck,
Acadia

 

Greetings everyone,

I am also from DSLR and I too am trying to keep an open mind on NOD32.

I am interested in it for a variety of reasons but primarily because I was told it was quite light on resource usage.

I just formatted and reinstalled W98SE on my father's computer and even though it is almost six years old, it was running great - until I put NAV 2004 on it. NAV really bogs it down and also prolongs the boot up time considerably.

I would like to ask a specific question, if I may. My father is using my old computer and it is a Pentium 200 with 48 MB of RAM. From a resource standpoint, would NOD32 perform noticeably better on this computer?

I very much look forward to any and all replies as I try my best to look out for my old man!

 

NOD32 and NAV are, in my opinion, two of the several excellent antivirus. BUT, on an older system using WIN98, and I am speaking from personal experience, I would definitely give the nod to NOD (sorry about that). I would only use NAV on a new machine using either Win2000 or XP. NOD will still slow the system down a little, but nothing compared to what NAV will. Good luck.

Acadia

 

@mvdu


And I am not going to suggest to you a product for that layered defense. I do understand your criteria.
I am just proud of you for the way you post in forums and reason through your decisions.

 

Thank you very much for the prompt reply. That is exactly what I was hoping to hear. I am visiting my father this weekend as I promised him I would address this issue. Thanks very much for the feedback Acadia!

 

Thanks also for your reply Paul. I am feeling that NOD32 is the best way to go at this point. Instead of fooling around trying to completely uninstall NAV, I think I will just format and reinstall the OS again. My past experience with NAV tells me that it is not easy to (completely) remove all traces of it and as I just formatted, another fresh install won't take very long at all. I enjoy looking out for my father as he has been damn good to me.

I am inclined to just purchase the license for NOD instead of downloading the trial version as I will only be there Saturday and Sunday (he lives three hours away) and I have a feeling it is going to work out well.

I also believe in a layered approach to security and as a result, I will be putting BOClean back on his machine if all goes well. This will make me very happy as there is no way I could put BOClean on his machine now, the way it is performing with NAV.

Thanks again for your feedback.

 

I will definitely give the issue of buying NOD32 some thought. Thanks for your kind words, Primrose - I do strive to be fair and to make well thought-out decisions. I've made mistakes in the past, but we all do I guess.

Thanks again to you too, Paul - if I have more questions, I won't hesitate to e-mail you. I'll look around at the other topics, too - I'm sure there will be more stuff that interests me.

 

hmmm,
I don't use NOD or KAV but I should like to see this dispute cleared.
I've done too much reading on this issue now.
Dolf

 

Well just because products x, y and z detect a real virus doesn't in itself mean that the virus in reality poses a likely threat to your PC. That is, while a virus may be real.....where is it? Just residing happily in those AV vendors' and VX'ers collections and in their sig defs databases? Is it something that had its day long ago and hasn't been seen in the wild in ages or might even no longer be entirely functional on today's systems? Or is is something on the prowl likely to wend its way to your PC?

In part I'd venture to wonder if it may be that a significant portion of some of these comparative databases may be a case of "mutually assured detection" against things ordinary users may not ever encounter. And perhaps might in fact have to go to VX sites to find because they won't run across them in the wild threatening and infecting pc's.

Perhaps Product X has it because Y has it because Z has it (or vice versa), not because it poses an imminent threat to users. And while impressing people with capacious databases and tests with these real viruses, as more people see this sort of thing of course there is a consequential demand for inclusion in other vendors' databases as has been amply illustrated in this case, without anyone establishing what level of threat these specimens really pose.

Now of course I know nothing, really. But one might bear in mind that the AV industry grew many years ago in part by hyping threats and scaring people into using their products when the need was much less great than it is now. And a self perpetuating industry was born in some ways, especially with relationships with virus creators and collectors who may not even release these things into the wild but exchange them amongst themselves and provide them to AV vendors.

Not that AV's aren't worthwhile and serve a purpose, but there's certainly an element of fomenting FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) in users and the industry benefits from it. Not entirely unlike those popups that other people see saying "YOUR PC IS INSECURE AND REVEALING PERSONAL INFORMATION ON THE INTERNET....click here to learn more and protect your PC."

Anyway, these articles are somewhat dated, but the source of the info makes them interesting:

Stop the antivirus vendor hype
By: John Leyden
Posted: 06/03/2001 at 13:57 GMT

A senior figure in the antivirus industry has spoken out against the misinformation and myths which surround computer viruses - many of which he said arise due to hype from vendors themselves.

David Perry, global director of education for Trend Micro, said the public harbour a number of common misconceptions about computer viruses, due in large part to overstated warnings about viruses from vendors and sensationalist reporting in the media....

,,,An example of this knowledge deficit, according to Perry, is that of the 30,000 to 50,000 computer viruses routinely quoted in figures from the antivirus industry, only 800 have ever infected anybody's computer and "only 200 are in circulation".

"The rest are 'zoo' viruses - which are emailed to antivirus companies by virus authors themselves and never make it into the wild," said Perry.

Full article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/17372.html

A 2000 press release:

Norman Data Defense Systems Warns Against Over-Reaction to Deluge of New Virus Warnings

FAIRFAX, Va., Dec. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- Norman Data Defense Systems warned today against over-reacting to the many virus alerts now circulating daily and counseled IT managers and computer users instead to update their virus control software packages to protect themselves effectively.

An extremely small percentage of viruses, about which users and IT managers receive alerts, are actually in the wild. Frivolous alerts that fail to describe a "clear and present danger," spread confusion in the marketplace and also may mean that when there is a serious virus alert, IT managers are less inclined to take action.

"System managers of large and busy corporate networks have a huge number of responsibilities and virus protection is only one of them," said Hank Dugan, President and Chief Executive Officer of Norman Data Defense Systems, the North American subsidiary of Norman ASA. "They need to know that if their AntiVirus supplier issues a virus alert it is something to be taken seriously and acted on immediately." "Both the Melissa and LoveBug incidents, which occurred earlier this year, are good examples of appropriate alerts. Inappropriate alerts that warn about viruses that are not yet in the wild, or that present only a very small possibility of infecting systems, waste time and resources and, after a while, encourage managers to ignore all alerts, with potentially disastrous results," added Dugan.

http://www.kumite.com/myths/opinion/thoughts/2000/graphic/ndd-1206.txt

Anyway, just something to consider.

(An aside, I don't understand why people are reporting ByteVerify as a current problem now when the MS patch to prevent the exploit was released last spring. Have I missed something?)

 

Well, I think it is fair...and I just emailed this person.. Oh, by the way, usually I DON'T HAVE THE Time, but it was a long holiday weekend and I returned to work today..LOL. I didn't know I had to explain myself too...LOL...

Sorry, Paul... ESET is in the AV business.. It would fall on THEIR hands if their is an observation out there that NOD32 misses out on detecting certain stuff 4 other Av's have not failed on...

Only because I had a long holiday weekend..LOL..

I don't work for ESET... They should go to DSL Reports, look at the threads, cross reference the viruses found and
see what the threats are, and then either explain to the users that they don't have to worry about them, or update their def's... It's their job, their product, not mine...I honestly don't care myself if they update their def's or not... It's their business... I think I deleted the stuff by accident.. I'm looking now.. If I find them, after I get permission, I will send them out..no kidding...

And Sig, maybe these are Zoo viruses, or whatever... but I know I would sleep better at night knowing my AV can find them.. That's seems more like a logical route to me...

 

Speaking from experience I currently have a P2 266 w/192 Meg of ram that runs NOD32v2 with no noticeable speed hit and when it only had 64 Meg a year or so ago it ran version 1 flawlessly as well.

 

Straight Shooter said:

Well Shooter, I hope you can find them, because I was really looking forward to having them submitted to Eset--since a lot of us are licensed users of the product, and IMO we have an interest in making it (and others we own) better.

But hey--That's not my job. What was I thinking??

LOL.

 

mvdu, your gettin around dude!!
welcome..