Discussion in 'other anti-trojan software' started by painos, Sep 14, 2005.
Which one has better realtime protection against trojans? KAV PRO 5 or A-Squared Personal?
A-Squared is one of the higly recommended anti-trojan... but if I were you I would rather choose Ewido plus or better still TrojanHunter w its TrojanGuard enabled it's one of the best for stand alone Trojan monitor. The new release of Filseclab firewall also has a Trojan prevention rules... adds to that use Windows Worm Doors Cleaner (WWDC) from firewallleaktester.com and Harden-IT to make a more secure surfing.
Asta la vista...
I would choose KAV.
KAV Pro 5.
A2 just a few days ago totally failed to id a KNOWN trojan that I had deliberately allowed to install.........an thats a matter of fact. Its not a bashing of A2 .... just pure facts.
The question relates to realtime protection. I.e. is the sig & heuristic detection of KAV better than the IDS technology of the A2 Guard. Tests don't usually cover realtime protection so it is rather hard to say what the outlook might be with an entirely new piece of malware. I would think that A2 might indeed be better than KAV in that very specific situation (ie heuristics v IDS). But with 'known' trojans I would trust KAV more.
Clearly, having both on would be the better bet since then you are covering more possibilites and A2 is designed to complement your AV, not replace it.
I assume that Beef's experiences relate to a situation when he was using A2 free to scan for a trojan after it got in, rather than the Guard letting it in. As the developer of A2 himself has said, the main emphasis of A2 is prevention rather than using scanning to clean up the mess afterwards.
I must say that I was not impressed with A-squared either, although I tried only the free 'scan' version (without the realtime). I tested it with quite a bit of malware files and it missed a lot of them.
Yeah, I know the main focus is realtime protection, but then again, the scanning engine should have been strong enough. A-squared's scanning is vastly surpassed by Ewido's, let alone by KAV's. I definitely would not be that surprised to know that Ewido is better in realtime protection as well.
As the developer of A2 himself has said, the main emphasis of A2 is prevention rather than using scanning to clean up the mess afterwards.
Now thats a very interesting comment. An if correct than what use is A2 freeware since it does not contain a real time Guard? In short, if the statement is correct than installing A2 freeware is just a waste of harddrive space.
Imo, a trojan scanner is or is not a trojan scanner. There are no such thing in a real time real world envirorment as a partial scanner. This would apply to Ewido....Nod...McAfee....Norton...Trojan Hunter and any other scanner. Excuses just don't cut it!
So as there is no mis-understanding......anyone who likes A2 should use it as they so enjoy......that would apply to any software. What ever makes a person happy is their choice.
He said it here:-
You can read the whole thread and make up your own mind:-
Nope. having read the entire Thread no where did it mention one word about Real Time Guard..........Andreas simply compared scanners... Ewido to A2..............an did so very honestly......like comparing apples to beets.....they are not the same programs.
For Andreas to state that A2 does not clean up "the mess" after infection would be the same as saying A2 is worthless an can NOT clean up the mess an I just can't see Andreas making such a statement..........A2 does work...it may be limited in the sight of some people..but A2 does clean up the mess.............from personal experience A2 is lacking in what I expect from a trojan scanner.....then again I tend to be demanding in how I expect software to perform.......for people with older systems A2 is better than no scanner at all..........an definitely A2 can not be compared to Kav......first off Kav is an anti virus scanner that can also detect trojans.....thats great...but its still an anti virus program...........Kav is on my OS...but I wont be upset if it fails to detect a trojan....
Andreas himself compared A2 to Ewido......thats was fair.....but if someone is going to compare an anti trojan program to an anti virus program than compare the anti trojan program to all the anti virus programs out there.....not just to Kav......then see what the results are.
Maybe its time for people to get back in focus on what a trojan scanner is and what an anti virus program is.....there is no grey area.......McAfee anti virus also detects trojans but its sure enough still an anti virus program.........SpywareBlaster blocks the install of certain Dialers does that make it an anti trojan program and do people begin comparing it to A2 or Nod or Kav.............
Its been enjoyable but time for me to move on down the line.....wish everyone well
IMHO, one isolated example of a missed trojan doesn't form a meaningful basis for concluding much of anything concerning the effectiveness of an AT or AV.
AFAIK, there are presently no substantive/objective test reports on AT's. The absence of such tests evidently opens the door for some folks to bless or condemn ATs based on the teeniest of samples & (perhaps) an even lesser amount of expertise.
A-squared's signature base is large, & growing. That fact is gratifying. Even so, I feel much more secure having paid for the Guard's powerful heuristics. Concerning which --- I wonder whether we aren't getting very near to the time when security programs will be considered inadequate if they rely totally or primarily on signatures?
The heuristics Andreas refers to here are to be found in the IDS feature of the A2 realtime Guard, not the demand scanner!
Andreas is stating that the main emphasis of A2 is prevention through the Guard, and the demand scanner is not intended to compensate by cleaning everything out after infection. That is not to say it does not give a worthwhile scan, merely that the main importance of A2 lies in realtime protection.
Separate names with a comma.