alternative to Kaspersky's classic avp 3.5

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by stranger, May 31, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. stranger

    stranger Guest

    No doubt avp 3.5 ranks as one of the most effective av out there. Due to it's extensive unpacking engine it's detection of trojans makes it one of the best hybrid of av/at bar none.
    With it installed you don't need a supplementary AT.

    But if you want an updated av today, what's a possible substitute for it? Keeping in mind that this substitute should offer a reasonably strong unpacking engine, above average scan speed, light impact of system's resources, daily updates and solid track record against both virii and trojans. I think an av that comes close to this is RAV antivirus. Granted it doesn't have as strong an unpacking capability such as KAV (or any av with derivative engines) or Mcafee, it's up there with them. RAV have the feel of the classic avp in terms of its light impact on systems resources, small footprint and fairly quick scan speed plus it offers daily updates.

    What's anyones take? :)
     
  2. wizard

    wizard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    818
    Location:
    Europe - Germany - Duesseldorf
    RAV might be an alternative for KAV (AVP) but you should still keep an eye on Kaspersky's future realease: The new 4.5 beta showed already some speed improvements. The next version 5 of KAV (too be released later this year) will have some more improvements on speed and resources - at least this is one of the goals Kaspersky is trying to reach. :)

    Besides RAV you might want to take a look at DrWeb as well or go with a combination of NOD32 and an additional AT program like TDS-3 or Trojan Hunter.

    wizard
     
  3. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    Yes, AVP 3.5 is (was) a classic. Version 3 was the first 'non-retail' AV I used after the usual Norton/McAfee pathway.

    The version 4 was initially a resource hog, but most problems with the high demands of the KAV Monitor have now been solved. Although some people still report difficulties.

    I would trial the recent KAV version and see how it runs on your system. At the present time, I use registered versions of F-Prot for Windows, Dr Web, RAV and KAV ( not on the same computer!!! ) and would recommend any of these as a primary AV.However, the ones which I feel come closer to your requirements are KAV and RAV.

    I have recently purchased RAV and I am very pleased with it after some tweaking of the Monitor settings and I agree with your comments. You do need sunglasses, however, for the GUI :D.

    In addition, if you renew your RAV License after the first year it is only 20% of the initial cost; a big saving!

    Another consideration may be your system spec. On low spec systems you cannot beat F-Prot or Dr Web; high spec systems you should be able to run most of the AV Monitors without any problems.

    In addition, if you consider an active forum to support your product important, KAV and NOD are important contenders.
     
  4. stranger

    stranger Guest

    thanks for replying Wizard and Blackcat

    i'm sure Kaspersky's R and D is working on improving their subsequent versions in term of speed and system load. Since avp 3.5 the 4x versions seem to have gone in the bulky and overhead intensive side. KAV is as close to an ideal av, it would be great if they could come close to retaining the lightness of their classic avp in their present version combined with their strong heuristic and unparalleled unpacking engine.

    Speaking of retaining stuff, wouldn't it be nice if Kaspersky came up with an updated, revamped, fully XP compatible, anniversary edition of AVP 3.5? one could only wish. :D

    i do like Nod32 the only thing bout it is that when you're running it it seems to give this nagging feeling that by itself it can't cope with certain classes of trojans out there - as tests have shown that's not its primary strength. i'm aware it couldn't hurt but i'm not fond of running a supplementary AT. I'm partial to an AV that can hold its own against trojans. It (Nod32) does have excellent heuristics, lightning quick speed and small footprint which by themselves are worth its price. Dr. Web is real good too; it has a better unpacking support than Nod32 but it trails behind KAV (and derivatives, Mcafee and RAV in that area.

    Would definitely follow the developments and feedback pertaining to KAV up and coming versions.
     
  5. wizard

    wizard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    818
    Location:
    Europe - Germany - Duesseldorf
    I've seen the alpha version on the CeBit show in March. KAV 5 will be a big change. Even a bigger than from 3.5 to 4.

    Rumors say that Kaspersky fired the responsible technical director. ;)

    I can remember all those discussions about 3.5 back in the days - how unsable it is and stuff like that. :D Today I read a comment from the maker of Trojaner-Info, a German security site who wrote: Kaspersky should not develop any av programs any longer - just focusing on the engine.

    NOD32 2 seems to be improved also in this area. At least their new heuristics picks up quiet a lot trojan severs in my collection. ;) But still it can't compete against KAV but do you know any other avs that really could?

    wizard
     
  6. It has been claimed by some people KAV detects more trojans than any AT program. KAV is very good with trojans and it is possible KAV will detect *a* trojan missed by others until they update, but I laugh when I read some post saying KAV detects more trojans than Tauscan or TDS. It does not. Never believe it. Sometimes people who think they are helping you are your worst enemy.

    SSP
     
  7. xor

    xor Guest

    KAV and Tauscan ? ROFL! HAHA. :D
    Come, go play somewhere else...
     
  8. If you are so clever and you know everything about everything, why do I not see your name as the Virus Bulletin editor?

    Constantly throwing dirt at better programs to promote your own will not make you popular. It will only make you look stupid. Take it from me newbie, you have a long way to go before GAV is good enough for you to be ridiculing better programs.

    SSP
     
  9. xor

    xor Guest

    Where did i promote GAV ? :eek:

    I said only that it is nonsense that Tauscan (should) find more trojans than KAV.

    I want now facts from you that Tauscan would even be able to detect more Trojans, come on it's now your turn.
    You can speak in your slang with firefighter - for me counting facts.
    So what now ?
     
  10. Jooske

    Jooske Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2002
    Posts:
    9,713
    Location:
    Netherlands, EU near the sea
    Re-reading it was clear for me you meant comparison between the two, Xor.

    In this thread i did't see GAV promotion slamming other products.
    As the subject reads there is asked for KAV alternatives, it is open to mention other products, factual info, considerations, pro and contra, but please stay factual guys, as it would be a real pity if another interesting discussion thread would get sandboxed and locked in the end.
    It is here the AV area, but ok, KAV is known to cover AV/AT so i gues the discussion is open for such combinations.
    I'm interested in this discussion, as like most DCS users i like to cover the AV /backup scanner in the best way.
    Thanks for all your informative postings to come!
     
  11. edsod

    edsod Guest

    We LEARN from these threads as Jooske said,
    no matter if we have different tastes and opinions.
    Firefighter's posts keep alive the forum !!!
     
  12. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To Edsod from Firefighter!

    Thanks a lot! :D :D :D :D :D :D :D


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

    Best Regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  13. Tuulilapsi

    Tuulilapsi Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2002
    Posts:
    53
    That's a good question, SSP. Another good question is, is YOUR name on that list? If it is not.., well.., then it's self-explanatory, really.

    As for AVP 3.5 alternatives.., I can think of none. :( I truly like that AV. F-Secure and others with the KAV engine have the detection, but they are heavy - for many if not most, too heavy. I'm looking forward to the new KAV version(s), hoping they would have the speed of AVP 3.5.
     
  14. Primrose

    Primrose Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2002
    Posts:
    2,743
    So now that we are back on track..where is your documentation that Tuscan can detect more Trojans (hopefully ones that are in the wild) than KAV..or is that one of those truths out there that no one can find?

    o_O

    Guess I am just a newbie on all that testing stuff. ;)
     
  15. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To Stainless Steel Priest from Firefighter!

    If I had understood right that "in the Wild system", the basement of so called "in the Wild list" is based on the feedback system. That means the PC users community is the only instrument, that has the first hand knowledge which viruses were found.

    So far the activity with a common PC user is so low as it is now, it's not very far away to estimate that those in the Wild viruses were reported 80% by those administrators in the business and company world.

    So only 20% of that feedback is coming from the average people, but we can only imagine how large is the real infection rate in this section.

    As I have said in the beginning, the majority of so called "in the Wild" infections are all the time without a quick feedback to those specialists! They know mainly that what those professionals in different companies are telling them! :D

    That's why the list is more or less an illusion and KaZaa is the final deathblow to that list! :D


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

    Best Regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  16. Jonas

    Jonas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2002
    Posts:
    46
    What exactly do you mean by "if you want an updated AV"? Are you saying AVP 3.5 Swiss is obsolete? If so why do you think this? They have virus def updates daily!

    Thanks,
    Jonas
     
  17. stranger

    stranger Guest

    Jonas,

    By up to date av, i was referring primarily to AVP 3.5's compatability with windows Xp, though it can be run under Xp it wasn't designed to be compatible with it. And also it's cosmetic design and certain features that have been added to KAV's subsequent 4.xx versions i.e. revamped look, improved heuristics, and features likes office guard, integrity monitor ect.

    Though it's still one of the best hybrid of av/at out there, Kaspersky's Avp 3.5 is dated compared to it's 4.xxx versions. :)
     
  18. VikingStorm

    VikingStorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    387
    If it weren't for the resource hogging I could still use KAV as my main protection. But I guess it'll have on-demand scan duty until the next version. (4.5 Lite was tremendously faster)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.