been trialing nod32 today..

as some of u know im really a kav and drweb guy, but i decided to try the nod32 trial today. set it up according to the guide above, and my own common sense, in addition i installed kav 45 pro as a backup scanner. this caused freezes until i uninstalled the kav script checker etc and i was left with only the on demand scanner and the updater, and the freezes were gone.

anyway, nod32 seems very fast and quite nice it must be said. let it scan my own collection of malware, and it found it all, except a js.trojan seeker, one that both kav and drweb identifies. that was kinda disappointing. is there a way to submit new viruses to eset ? i couldnt find a way to do that

my conclusion so far is that i dont feel as safe with nod32 as with kav(cant be beaten - except for speed) or drweb, cos of the trojan seeker it missed and the fact taht the definitions are 2 days old (how often do they update them?)

ill be trialing it a few more days i suppose and see how it goes. kav scheduled to scan at 5 am jsut in case

 

I'd like to mention that we've got a big bunch of new trojans and backdoors detected only by NOD32's advanced heuristics and unknown to any other AV.

 

NOD 32 is an antivirus program . Trojan detection is only a plus for this program . It is excellent at what it does AND THEN SOME . If you like KAV , PLEASE , stay with it . I cannot argue about KAV . It is good . Everyone has different preferences . I will say this , NOT MY PREFERENCE but , FACT : NOD 32 can be equalled but , as of yet , has not been surpassed . Again . It is a program that is for viruses . PERIOD . To really want to feel safe , using KAV or any other AV , get an antitrojan program . That simple . Good luck in your search .

 

Hi mate;

Nod is frequently updated, the forum is efficient, the soft is not a cash eater and does what it is supposed to do: makes you forget he's here.....without fancy graphic layouts.....

I have intercepted trojans with Nod32 that other AV could not find.

With Nod, TDS3 and a firewall , I do not know what trojan means and I fly online, meaning I'm spending 2 h a day going through high risk flight simulator servers....

Here's my advice: take it after your trial. Worth the dollars you pay.

Cheers

Tony

 

NOD32 is not only an antivirus program (maybe sometimes in the past it was). Now it certainly detects much more trojans than viruses, not mentioning those detected via AH.

 

The old adage again. Most AV companies are realising the threats of trojans and spyware and adding them to their databases.

AV programs, such as Command, F-Prot and NOD, in the past not known to be very good at trojan detection, have all vastly improved in this area in the last year or so.

NOD in particular has shown a huge improvement in trojan detection and in some tests I have seen it is now comparable if not better than known anti-trojan slayers such as Dr Web.

If you are a safe-surfer, NOD is more than sufficient to cover most of the bases. If visiting more high-risk sites then a layered defense with a known Anti-trojan would be more appropriate. This would be the same advice with any AV.

KAV offers the best overall protection and KAV users always feel less safe with other AV's ( I do ! ). Moreover, I would not judge any AV on one missed sample.

So let's hope that in the future, NOD users do not state that NOD is only a virus detecting program. Further, hopefully NOD bashers ( not you tahoma) cannot now trot out the old adage that this AV cannot detect trojans.

When using AV programs such as KAV and Dr Web you feel safer, as apart from any individual testing, many Security Forums state that these 2 AV's are great for overall malware detection, while some other AV's lag behind in total malware detection. Therefore, when you switch/try another AV you subconsciously 'feel' that this new AV is inferior/not as safe as your chosen AV's.

As with you, I 'feel' safer with KAV/Dr Web than other AV's and therefore these 'safer' AV's are the ones you stay with

However, of the licensed AV's I hold, NOD must be the most improved AV overall in the last 12-18 months. The future's bright!!!!!

 

WHOAAAA ! Hold on ! Geez . Are you for real ? Say what you will . YOU ARE WRONG ! Period . How can I say that ? Because NOD , ITSELF , is an antivirus program . So , that said , ANYTHING above that is a plus . I will say to you that I feel safe with NOD as is ! But , I am not stupid . I use other programs too . Just remember , it only takes one hit and you could be in trouble . Happy all you need is an AV program . If a trojan gets through , I would love to hear your complaint with KAV . Better yet , I would love to hear THEIR response . lol . Anyone wanting Trojan protection , as well as , AV protection , needs to put down the cash and get two programs DESIGNED for each particular threat . It is as simple as that . Do not allow people to make you believe all is well with the right AV program . That is crap . It is of no help to tell people such things . I thought this forum was to learn and to help .

 

Well now, I may be considered deranged. I always run Boclean as my antitrojan. Just in case Nod or Kav miss a Trojan. I've narrowed my choice between purchasing nod or kav. I feel just as safe running nod32 with boclean, as I do running kav with boclean. Presently, I'm running kav. Boclean is running right with it. See screenshot.

I know kav has a 99% trojan detection. Boclean is there for the one it may miss. I already purchased boclean, so I figure I might as well use it

 

hollywoodpc,

This forum is for learning and helping, that's a constant theme.

As for NOD32 as a pure AV, well pragmatic market forces have influenced all vendors of AV software to generalize their approach. Commercially viable solutions simply have to handle malware in general, be it a virus, trojan, worm, and so on. Does that mean there is no benefit to layering of complementary insurance? Of course not, but the benefit of layering arises as much from the finite response time of any vendor, as it does from the distinct technical paths chosen by some, or the desire to pre-emptively counteract potential targeted attacks.

Although I don't believe anyone will argue the merit of additional layers, the need for dedicated coverage beyond what I would term a generalized anti-malware application - and this is what most classical AV's have become - is strongly dependent on PC usage habits, suite of applications employed (MS Office vs. Open Office; Internet Explorer vs. Firefox; and so on), and specific AV now in use.

There is no technical reason the complete functionality of an AV/AT/other malware cannot be contained in a single application. It is more historical accident that these programs were distinct applications a few years ago, but that is certainly less true today. Does one have to necessarily plunk down cash for dedicated AV and AT solutions? Absolutely not. Are there viable generalized solutions curerently available? Of course. Do I recommend people use a layered approach with complementary applications which do possess finite overlap? Sure. Do I practice that ethic myself? Of course, and NOD32 among other applications is a part of it.

There is plenty of room for distinct approaches here - single and layered application strategies can both work and work well. The blanket statement that no single application can provide adequate coverage against a wide spectrum of malware is simply wrong. If fact, a layered approach with poor component selection can yield a decidedly worse outcome.

As this is the NOD32 support forum, let's try to keep the discussion focused on NOD32. I realize that providing context to the discussion is at times aided by a brief excursion outside that bound, as we've had here, but let's get back on target. Thanks.


Blue

 

Hello Blue .

I apologize as I had no idea that what I was talking about was in the wrong area . I certainly thought I was speaking about NOD . Anyway , to leave this alone now I will say , I strongly disagree with you . Nod is good . VERY good . I love it . Is it antimalware ? In a sense . But , AGAIN , it IS an AV . It does detect many trojans but , MOST decent AT programs will detect more . So . We will agree to disagree . Thank you for the input . Have a nice day

 

Actually my apology and clarification to you is in order here - you weren't taking us off in a non-NOD32 direction, and my post does imply that. This was a general comment to all posters in the thread, not you.

It did look like a NOD32 vs XXX direction was gaining momentum. There's always a balance involved here. Because of the need to occassionally provide context for our opinions, sometimes the discussion necessarily takes a turn in that direction. My advice to everyone posting in this thread (myself included) was to not let that excursion take over the direction of the thread.

I concur - we can agree to disagree on the other points and I don't disagree with you underlying premise, that an appropriately selected dedicated AT will provide more extensive coverage. After all, this is precisely the configuration I choose to employ. A somewhat more technical discussion of instances in which some broad coverage applications have vulnerabilities and how one dedicated AT does resolve this is contained in this thread and links shown therein.

Blue

 

Thanks Blue .

Not that it matters but , you are ok with me .