Kaspersky or Nod

These forums do have a section for NOD32. That always boosts # of fans. I too use Kaspersky and experience no slowdowns. I switched to it from another good av Avast, but with Kaspersky I feel plenty safer.

 

I was referring to KAV taking a long time to run a full scan, but no impact on other operations as long as KAV option to "Concede" to other processes is enabled.

 

Kav definitely makes more use of CPU. If you look at NOD's processes you will hardly see them above 0% CPU usage. KAV on the other hand as soon as you do anything goes beyond 0%, up to 30% on my Pentium 4 2,53 Ghz which I admit is not the newst CPU anymore but I just want to point out the difference with NOD. I must admit that the impact you really "feel" when you open programs etc. is not that big.

The perfomance difference becomes more evident on my tablet PC with 1Ghz Transmeta Crusoe CPU. Everything is slowed down tremendously with KAV and with NOD again almost no impact on CPU usage, which is really remarkable and shows how efficient NOD is.

BUT what really concerns me is the way KAV monitors files. It's got its iSwift and iChecker and it only scans new and changed files and of those it still only scans certain types of files in default mode. If you apply the same settings as with NOD32 that you really unconditionally scan all files than KAV really becomes unworkable.

So if you leave KAV file monitoring settings on defaults you're almost forced to scan your system regularly as I personally think you cannot trust this incomplete monitoring. And then again NOD has big advantage over KAV as it takes much less time to perform a full system scan on highest settings (about half of the time of KAV on my system).

On the contrary KAV seems to have slightly better detection rate plus, they add signatures much faster obviously. Here on the forums you can read numerous post where NOD missed a trojan which KAV caught and NOD signatures where only updated later on. But then sometimes I wonder whether those couldn't have been infections which you could have easily have avoided by e.g. not surfing on unsafe web pages (crack download sites, porn sites etc), being cautious with your emails and peer-to-peer programs, using firewall, applying windows updates. If you follow those steps then the potential sources of catching something malicious are quite limited. I personally have never been infected to my knowledge and I do check with other programs than NOD from time to time just to make sure.

So for me the bottom line is that NOD and KAV are 2 great programs anyway (as mentioned here so many times before). KAV does consume more CPU power but there's nothing like a free lunch and if you have a bit of a modern PC you won't care anyway probably. But I would be careful with its real time file monitoring. For older PC's I think there's no alternative to NOD, it's just the lightest AV available. But even on my new Dual Core PC i will stick to NOD as I like efficiency and NOD has a good (sometimes a bit delayed) detection rate anyway (see AV comparatives) and last but not least I consider myself a cautious PC user.

 

Not yet, just trialing sometimes.

Unfortunately this was the On-Demand scan with the strongest possible settings used. Here is one file more.

BitComet_0.84_setup.exe > NOD32v2 2107 03.11.2007 error occurred while reading archive

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

well i aint a nod user, but if it couldnt scan certain archives, surely more people would be going on about this problem?

if this is the case, its a big flaw, surely?

but it has a good detection rate and av-comparatives said it was the best av of 2006, right?

how could it be if this was a a problem.

 

AMON intentionally does not scan inside archives to prevent slowdown, I think IMON does though.

Londonbeat

 

Because these were ".exe" installers, I doubt that there were many in those infected samples tested in Av-Comparatives.

Unfortunately I've lost the full scan log of NOD where were some more "detections" like these.


Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

There are at least two sides of the fence in regards to those that are knowledgeable about Nod as it relates to archives.

1) Those that attempt to make a point without supplying important info but do so time and again as a personal agenda.

2)Those that accept the fact that has been mentioned on more than 100's of occasions that AMON does not scan archives internally but will on execution and that IMON scans all files including archives during the download process.

 

doesnt bother me bubba, was just curious.

so it scans only on extraction of archives?

 

yes, AMON scans archives only on extraction.

 

But my scan results were made by this On-Demand module.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

Even tho it was possibly convenant to do so....would you mind uploading a screenshot pic of your actual program if capapble instead of this pic Please.

Regards,
Bubba

 

It's ridiculous to point out one or two exe files out of several millions that exist in the world. The only intention of such a post can only be ranting and bashing NOD32. I will analyse these files but I really don't see any problem in this - there are archives and installers that are not supported, even by other AV scanners and this could be prooved easily. I'd suggest to stop this ranting and try to understand that each AV does not support certain type of archives. The point is always that infected files are detected upon extraction.

 

somebody has hit a nerve here,

at least it wasnt me this time


whether it scans inside certain archives or not, if it protects you from whats inside, i suppose it doesnt matter really.

 

the main point from this thread is kaspersky vs nod32 is like one of the hardest questions ever.
soon i will have one on one pc and the other on another
lodore

 

every AV has something better than anyone else, ..... that will attract a paying customer.

in my opinion, kaspersky has the detection and nod has the heuristics.

take your pick and quit whinging.

 

I agree. That's what you get from AV tests. KAV is before NOD32 with signatures, but behind NOD32 with "in the wild" test.

 

Even if you ask KAV to scan ALL files, it does not, if iSwift and iChecker were enabled.

 

it will scan the files once and if not changed it wont scan them again what the hell is wrong with that?
why keep scanning a file that hasnt changed and is clean?
lodore

 

Urmmm... this topic has already been addressed already (by you) in the Kaspersky forum Howard and yes, the answer is there.

 

files need to be rescanned when there are signature/program updates.

 

and it does if i remember correctly.
haabe you read about the iswift and ichecker technlogys?
lodore

 

So, basically that feature will not be used since KAV have new signatures every day, right?

 

No.

KAV does not rescan just because signatures have been updated.

I could not find any info that stated under what conditions ALL files will be rescanned

 

Signatures are updated every hour with Kaspersky... you might as well disable iChecker + iSwift... just untick where it says "Scan new and changed files only"... It takes time for iChecker and iSwift to save the checksums of each file (thats why first scan of Kaspersky is slower than following scans)... if you refresh iSwift and iChecker every time Kaspersky updates, it'll have to save each checksum all over again, slowing the PC down... by the time its saved most the checksums, Kaspersky will update again and will have to do the whole process again making the PC constantly run slow.

Basically, if you're paranoid and want Kaspersky to scan each file all over again, untick where it says "Scan new and changed files only"