I tried another AV Product and it found additional threats - WHY ?

Hi All:

I need assistance.

BACKGROUND:
Over the past 2 weeks I have decided to try out various AntiVirus & Anti Spyware products.
The reason for this is that most reviews I read were not rating ZoneAlarm Security Suite particularly well for its AntiVirus & Anti Spyware capabilities.
I was also receiving similar feedback from freinds using latest version of ZoneAlarm Security Suite.

So I decided to try NOD32.
I installed it, updated it, ran it at full strength, and it picked up threats that had been on my harddrive for many years, despite the fact that I was "cleaning" every week.
I was impressed

Over the past week I accidentally read another review, which highlighted how good BitDefender version 10 is.
So I downloaded a demo version, and updated it, and ran it, and you guessed it, it found another (approximately) 20 threats on my harddrive, which NOD32 had missed.

HELP:
So what's the story??
(1) Is the lesson here that I need to use at least two different products, or,
(2) am I doing something wrong with NOD32
(3) any comments would be appreciated

Regards.

 

In your attempt to compare finding results and in all fairness to any anti-malware program not just Nod....what was it that BitDefender actually found in regards to the "20 threats" ?

Bubba

 

Yep, what did it actually find? Perhaps they were not cookies, these are detected by Evido. Maybe benign Mydoom.log data files? At any rate, no AV is 100% perfect, what one detects the other can miss and vice-versa, that's a matter of fact if one likes it or not. We are here not to glorify one AV and bash the others.

 

Dear Bubba:

Thanks for your feedback.

I don't have all the screenshots since I deleted most of them.
Here is one of the more recent screenshots which I have not yet deleted:


Any help would be appreciated.

Regards,
Mr Greek

 

Hi Marcos:

I agree with you totally.
BTW - I am not glorifying one product over another.
I just want to understand if I have "stuffed-up" in any way.

Thanks for your feedback.

Regards.

 

Since those are Outlook PST files....I have taken the liberty to close this thread you recently started concerning "Outlook pst data files" and copied it's contents in the below quote so both identical issues can be handled\addressed together by Nod support or other knowldegeable users.

Regards,
Bubba

 

As you can see from its name, it's a crack for a particular program. Do you find it so bad if NOD32 doesn't pick up some cracks ?

Frankly, benign cracks should be of no concern if they are not picked up:

AntiVir 7.3.0.21 12.28.2006 no virus found
Authentium 4.93.8 12.28.2006 no virus found
Avast 4.7.892.0 12.21.2006 no virus found
AVG 386 12.28.2006 no virus found
BitDefender 7.2 12.28.2006 no virus found
CAT-QuickHeal 8.00 12.28.2006 no virus found
ClamAV devel-20060426 12.28.2006 no virus found
DrWeb 4.33 12.28.2006 no virus found
eSafe 7.0.14.0 12.26.2006 suspicious Trojan/Worm
eTrust-InoculateIT 23.73.100 12.28.2006 no virus found
eTrust-Vet 30.3.3285 12.28.2006 no virus found
Ewido 4.0 12.27.2006 no virus found
Fortinet 2.82.0.0 12.28.2006 Misc/TPatch
F-Prot 3.16f 12.28.2006 no virus found
F-Prot4 4.2.1.29 12.22.2006 no virus found
Ikarus T3.1.0.27 12.28.2006 no virus found
Kaspersky 4.0.2.24 12.28.2006 no virus found
McAfee 4928 12.28.2006 potentially unwanted program Tool-TPatch
Microsoft 1.1904 12.27.2006 no virus found
NOD32v2 1942 12.28.2006 a variant of Win32/Tool.TPE.A
Norman 5.80.02 12.28.2006 no virus found
Panda 9.0.0.4 12.28.2006 no virus found
Prevx1 V2 12.28.2006 no virus found
Sophos 4.13.0 12.26.2006 no virus found
Sunbelt 2.2.907.0 12.18.2006 no virus found
TheHacker 6.0.3.138 12.28.2006 no virus found
UNA 1.83 12.28.2006 no virus found
VBA32 3.11.1 12.27.2006 no virus found
VirusBuster 4.3.19:9 12.28.2006 no virus found

 

one off topic post was removed and continued via PM.

 

Is that virustotal for the file mr greek is referring to as I don't see Bitdefender detecting it?
p.s. don't think we're allowed to post virustotal reports

Londonbeat

 

I just wanted to show that it's irrelevant whether one detects a crack and the others miss it.

 

In general, crack viruses are not wide-spreading epidemics for the average consumer and are only spread through crack sites. With Eset's policy of adding virus signatures based on severity/public infection, it's easy to see why this is.

Would you rather them focus on polymorphic email infections or crack site keyloggers? Not to mention, if you're visiting said cracksites you're probably not even paying for this awesome antivirus solution to begin withm so it all makes sense if you ask me.

Obviously, if there was an outbreak of said crack viruses, it would be dealt with more seriously i'm sure, but that's rarely the case.

 

I was not talking about keyloggers, they deserve a decent priority. I meant patches / cracks for removing time limitation or limitation of other features in trial versions.

 

If you read some of the threads over the last year here you will find that
you are doing NOTHING wrong.

No single AV or ASW product free or paid EVER detects 100% or removes 100%.

In my case I use BitDefender 9.0 standard paid version as my active AV. BUT from time to time I will run some others I have attached to other primary products I own. SS has a AV that I run monthly, ZA Pro has a ASW as you know that I run when it shows an update. I'm not here to advocate any of these, just demonstrating that you can and should run more than one from time to time.

ZA is moving to Kav so that may cause me to switch to that for active AV.

 

Ah, well that's good to hear. Is the source of infection still used as a method to route priority for disinfection?