Bye bye NOD32...

But eScan is KAV based... is it as heavy? What of its other*editions*? Anyone seen it reviewed anywhere (properly)?

 

you mean, is escan a resource hog? no, its light for me, even when im scanning for viruses it produces no lag, its lighter then nod32 :O (i still love nod32)

 

It seems that KAV engine should be pretty good if eScan and F-Secure is using it....

 

It's the best available (if you have an encyclopaedic database like KAV/eScan)

 

Remember that KAV engine is used in several anti-virus programs: AVK, F-Secure, eScan... which means that the engine should be pretty good.

The only amazing thing it is for instance why F-Secure (KAV, Orion, F-Prot engines) or AVK (KAV, Bit Defender engines) are not on the top...?

 

Those who enjoy comparative test results may care to visit this thread:-

http://www.spywareinfoforum.com/index.php?showtopic=6165&st=0

Where the results given include the following:-

Kaspersky Anti-Virus 98.94%
McAfee, Virus data file v4382 98.28%
Symantec's Norton Antivirus 92.48%
AntiVir Personal Edition (AVPE) 85.36%
nod32, (20040730) NT 82.19%
Avast! 4, VPS file version 80.08%

The test may have been far from ideal, but it's enough to make Nod lovers cry in their beer!!

 

@TopperID The link is broken. Try again, please. I would love to see the test data.

As for crying in one's beer -- tears are salty. A dash of salt goes well with beer at times.

aloha...... bellgamin

 

I have NOD on one machine, a KAV AV on two machines and one of the free AVs on a fourth machine.

All of these AVs are good at detecting current infections. However, I
prefer NOD over some of the other AVs because it stands a better chance of detecting 'zero-day' infections. Even if definitions are updated every hour that may be an hour too late. In fact this has happened to me several times.

Example:
https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=42010

Also Retrospective/ProActive Test:
http://www.av-comparatives.org

 

Looks like I've upset both the beer lovers and the Nod lovers with this one. I think I'll reserve my sympathies for the former though!!!

 

Actually a KAV user because that is what I am running on two of my machines.

 

You need to be a member of spywareinfo to view the link.... i think.

Anywho here is a little more info from that thread..

 

Sub Quote

Although even I have used before the term "Zoo" sample, I still want to ask if there actually exists at all these kind of samples?

Why? In the real Zoo, the wild animals are behind the bars, in their own cages, so that you just can't touch them and get hurt.

In the real Web world, when I collected my a bit over 3.5k sample collection of all kind of nasties, my only "key" to the "cage of nasties" in the "Web Zoo" was the Google. No registration to any virii collector sites, just using Google and you can get even so high amount of nasties that really are capable to infect my unprotected WinXP Home system. So are they then Zoo samples or what?

The only difference comparing my samples to the official ItW samples is that my samples do not mainly spread via emails, but you can get them from anywhere else in the web. In my mind the Zoo term is only a marketing term.

Secondly about the above Spywareinfo 8-2004 test results against 754 samples. The results doesn't differ so much from my av-test 10-2004 against 2829 "Common PC Protection samples".

Spywareinfo = without parenthesis xy.zz %

My test = parenthesis (xy.z %) = FF av-test against 2829 samples, but AVG had 1906 samples and eTrust 2823.

Kaspersky Anti-Virus
Approximately 98.94% -- (97.0 %) detection.

McAfee
Approximately 98.28% -- (94.6 %) detection.

Panda Titanium 2004
Approximately 90.77% -- (89.4 %) detection.

F-PROT ANTIVIRUS
Approximately 88.00% -- (87.3 %) detection.

NOD32
Approximately 82.19% -- (83.9 %) detection.

Avast! 4
Approximately 80.08% -- (83.1 %) detection.

AntiVir PE (AVPE)
Approximately 85.36% -- (78.4 %) detection.

AVG 7.0 Pro
Approximately 69.00% -- (65.6 %) detection.

eTrust Anti-Virus
Approximately 75.99% -- (57.4 %) detection.

I'll bet that this eTrust tested in Spywareinfo hasn't the VET engine but the IRIS one. Anything more to say? The real web world seems to be very much like that if you want collect some nasties!

To clarify these nasties better, I prefer to call them more likely "randomly met samples" than Zoo samples and that's why my eScan scored "only" 97 % and not very close to 99 %.

PS. I used eScan, Command AV and Panda Platinum instead of the products mentioned above but they have about the same scanning engines except my eTrust EZ, that has the VET engine.

Best regards
Firefighter!

 

82% virus detection rate is bad, heh, that is when you can do better, but i will say this, i love OD32 because of its realtime scanner and its heuristic detections the rest i leave up to eScan and i havent found a virus in over 3 weeks...

 

So what? That's a list of "Programs that may require you to open ports manually" for the WinXP SP-2 firewall. (You actually use that firewall anyway?)

 

Because I don't understand a heck of Firewalls, I use Sygate 5.6 Free to fill up that gap.

Btw, just runned sp2 in my WinXP Home system about a week again and let's hope not big problems occur again. A bit of slowdowns met when I had Avast 4.5 Home as one of my backups, but after uninstalling Avast, they were gone.

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

I am very impressed how McAfee is doing well in many test reports. They seem to improve their engine each year.

Maybe that's is why my companie chose it...