complete list of supported archives

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by Tekl, Jan 13, 2004.

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

    Tekl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Posts:
    16
    Hello,

    does anybody know which archives and runtime-compressors are supported by NOD32. Is it really only ZIP, RAR, ARJ, LZH and LHA?

    Tekl
     
  2. Tekl

    Tekl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Posts:
    16
    Hi!

    Does nobody has infos?

    Tekl
     
  3. jan

    jan Former Eset Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2002
    Posts:
    804
    Hi Tekl,

    have you seen the Product section on the http://www.nod32.com ?

    You can go to e.g. NOD32 for Microsoft Windows NT / 2000 / 2003 / XP and NOD32 Scanning Engine Key Features section.

    Cheers, :)

    jan
     
  4. Tekl

    Tekl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Posts:
    16
    Hi,

    yes I did.

    > Virus detection in compressed or protected executable files, such as Pklite, Lzexe, Diet, Exepack, CPAV, UPX, AsPack, FSG, Petite, Neolite.
    > Support of many archive formats, e.g. ZIP, RAR, ARJ, LZH, LHA, including self-extracting files.

    it seems to be only an overview ("such as", "e.g.")

    Tekl
     
  5. Tekl

    Tekl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Posts:
    16
    Hallo,

    yesterday I read a test in a german computer-magazine (c't) and they confirmed, that NOD32 only supports ZIP, RAR, LHA/LZA and ARJ. This are the major archive-types, but I'm missing some Unix-Types (gzip, bzip ...) and of course ACE. The article shows, that NOD32 doesn't support self-extracting archives, and I also can confirm it with Version 1.606. So why does the english product description claim, that NOD32 supports that?

    All in all the test gives NOD32 a bad rating and now I'm a bit scared, if my system will be really safe, when NOD32 is one of the poor av-scanners. The author of the article told me, that ESET confirmed the test-results.

    :-/

    Tekl
     
  6. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    No offense, but that's a very poor test - better don't believe any magazine tests as a general rule. No need to worry - NOD32 does the job as for ITW viruses just fine ;)

    regards.

    paul
     
  7. ib

    ib Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2003
    Posts:
    6
    The ct´is not just another magazin. They do very fair and reasonable tests and they are the only magazin that i know, that never nominate a test-winner or smthg, they just tell about the good and bad things of a product and let the user decide. It´s high above the average Ziff-Davis "sponsored by Symantec" test. The last test i remember, they said that NOD32 is able to recognize all ITW viruses. However, there are a few things that could be better (like always).

    For example: Who decides if a virus is ITW? (Yes, i know). If i recieve a file through mail/dcc/p2p and it´s infected - it´s ITW _for me_. And there are some, that NOD simply can´t detect. The AH is nice and the most powerful heuristic i´ve ever seen . Why can i only use it for my E-mails by default? Why do i have to install an semi-official extra to make use of it for my filesystem - or more or less "hidden" switches ?
    Or if i send a request to the support - why can´t they confirm, that it arrived, why is it unanswered for about one or two months now?

    The thing is: If you want to test a AV programm you can just compare the detection rate, the ITW/Lab/false positive rate. The one that recognize the most, you can call the winner.
    But you can also take a closer look and start to compare many other things, that are important to a user, like:

    - Customer-Support
    - Usability
    - Archive-Support
    - Speed
    - Stability
    - Cleaning
    - +105 more :)

    I use NOD32 on this machine and i´m very happy with it. But if i have a machine that is known to be infected, or if i have to work with a lot of files from unknown sources - there are much better choices.

    Please don´t judge like this about av-tests in magazines, even if 90 % of them are sponsored crap - i´m sure you would love and enjoy the ct´if you were able to understand german (are you?).

    best regards,

    Christoph
     
  8. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    No offense - but IMO ct' tests have been - and still are rubbish. As ever, I'm completely in the dark what has been tested and how. The results(?) published are at the least very questionable.

    Indeed - a rethorical question ;)

    ..it depends on the file, doesn't it?

    Although you don't mention names so that's hard to verify - don't hesitate to submit them to Eset.

    No argument here ;)

    A matter of deliberate Eset choices.

    Actually, the user will do nicely without the addon from Paolo Monti. Anyone is free to use it at will.

    In case you are a registered user: feel free to forward your emails to Eset to me - my addy is in my profile. No way I can comment on your statement before checking things out.

    ...it's exactly the (unknown) way of testing that makes ct' test at the least very questionable...

    Well, I for one would like to have full insight as for: what has been tested and how, test bed used, and the standard set for all other criteria mentioned. For the record: this goes for all Antivuses tested, not merely NOD32.

    No offense intended - but I do consider this ct' test plain bad - and therefore doing the public a bad service.

    And yes: I do understand the German language and do speak it fluently.

    regards.

    paul
     
  9. Ali Mente

    Ali Mente Guest

    Hi,

    could you please so kind and provide us a few arguments *why* the test is bad? Because Eset Nod32 performed poorly, you tell everyone that the testers are incompetent and the test itself is rubbish. That can't be your truth.

    Ali
     
  10. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I've mentioned important arguments above. As a consequence, some very questionable test results - and they are not focussed on NOD32 especially. For example: heuristics.

    • Sophos has no heuristics. The score should be zero on all fronts - but isn't (?)
    • NAV has a 100% score - which can easily be proven wrong
    • Kaspersky has a aprox. 47% score (??)
    • F-Secure has a aprox. 60% score
    • NOD32 is stated to have bad heuristics - while being the only one detecting the Baggle worm based on heuristics eg without a database update(??)

    I'll leave it up to everyone to draw conclusions here - not merely in regard to NOD32 in specific. As for me: no comment needed. Just an example in regard to this test...

    Wrong conclusion: see the heuristics test results above. They affect far more Antiviruses. I'm pretty sure for example Kaspersky (KAV) and KAV users have a strong opinion about this test as well...

    It isn't, as you might have noticed ;)

    regards.

    paul
     
  11. sir_carew

    sir_carew Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Posts:
    884
    Location:
    Santiago, Chile
    Hello,
    I'm 100 % agree with Paul.
    NOD have the BEST heuristic in the market today. I think that if a some people think that nod's heuristic is bad, it's very wrong. I think that the people who write this ??"test"?? is ignorant, is imposible that NAV can have a better heuristic than NOD, it's simply impossible, impossible and impossible. LOL.
     
  12. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    sir_carew,

    Although I do agree in regard to your comment on NOD32, I' like to stress this test and results are not primarily focussed on NOD32. As stated before, many more Antiviruses "suffer"one way or another from the test results.

    No offense intended ;)

    regards.

    paul
     
  13. Tekl

    Tekl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Posts:
    16
    Hello,

    I thought the c't is (the only) reliable german magazine and in most cases it's true. The AV-test was made in cooperation with www.av-test.de, so it seems that this is the point.

    > Sophos has no heuristics. The score should be zero on all fronts - but isn't

    I haven't seen Sophos, look at this FAQ:
    http://www.acu.edu/technology/team55/sophosfaqs.html

    > NAV has a 100% score - which can easily be proven wrong

    well, not completely true. Only for selfmade viruses Norton detects all. 3 months old (real) viruses are detected only by 54,7 %.

    > Kaspersky has a aprox. 47% score (??)

    or 68,3 % at 3 months old viruses.

    > F-Secure has a aprox. 60% score

    or 74,3 % at 3 months old viruses.

    > NOD32 is stated to have bad heuristics

    93,3 % at selfmade and 43,3 % at 3 months old viruses.

    > while being the only one detecting the Baggle worm based on heuristics eg without a database update(??)

    Yes, I can confirm that.

    By the way, there are also many german c't-readers wondering about the test-results.

    Regards,

    Tekl
     
  14. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    It loooks like www.av-test.de are constantly very happy to bash NOD. But maybe it is only main biased opinion
     
  15. Ali Mente

    Ali Mente Guest

    Hi,

    I can't agree with you here: The editors only recommended three tools: AVK 2004 by G Data, F-Secure and Nod32 by Eset. Read again: They recommend Nod32!!!

    However, the itw virus detection test is interesting: AVG, Bitdefender, Command, Norman, Panda and Sophos were not able to detect all itw viruses. The editors tells in the review that all companies have comfirmed itw virus detection problems and these products were fixed one day later.

    Nod32 was one of only a few tools which was able to detect all itw viruses perfectly well! That's the reason why it got so many VB100% awards in past.

    Ali
     
  16. Tekl

    Tekl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Posts:
    16
    Hi Ali,

    do you talk about the article? They recommend NOD32 only for people with slow computers or if performance is an issue (Bad virus dectection is better than no detection). On www.av-test.de I can't find such a statement about NOD32.

    Well, every Scanner should detect all ITW viruses, but if it detects all ITW viruses it does not say that other viruses are also detected. That's why I thought the article was reliable, because they tested more than only those ITW viruses.

    Tekl
     
  17. sir_carew

    sir_carew Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Posts:
    884
    Location:
    Santiago, Chile
    If the heuristic of NOD isn't able to detect many old viruses, this isn't important , those are OLD viruses.
     
  18. Tekl

    Tekl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2004
    Posts:
    16
    Hallo,

    well, it's no problem when the heuristic doesn't find old viruses, but only if the old virus-signatures are still in the database.

    Tekl
     
  19. ib

    ib Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2003
    Posts:
    6
     
  20. sir_carew

    sir_carew Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Posts:
    884
    Location:
    Santiago, Chile
    NOD's heuristic is better with AH or without AH in comparison by NAV. NAV heuristic sucks, NOD is able to detect heuristically worms like Magistr.a,b without AH and KAV/NAV not.
     
  21. Eliot

    Eliot Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2003
    Posts:
    854
    Location:
    Arkansas, USA

    Karma cookie for your truth. I love the way you feel about NOD32. Takes one to know one they say :D
     
  22. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    ib,

    I'm fully aware of that possibility - but that's rather beside the point. In order to serve the test readers so they can make a a well-informed verdict, this info should be included in the published test info.

    Not good enough ;)

    As stated before: users are very well protected without the AH addon from Paolo Monti. Your comment on NOD32 being made for the VB test instead of the user and your presumption in regard to the VB 100% record are subsequently a) wrong b) a very wild guess indeed.

    ...and that ct' test has been proven plain wrong in the meanwhile. AH is of no importance here.

    You've stated this already above. No need to answer this twice ;)

    I'll contact Eset on this - no offense intended ;)

    I disagree. Without pointing a "winner" and without publishing the needed tests info (see my first comment in this reply), it's fairly easy to point users to any direction the publisher wants to. It's a commonly used publishers trick as you are well aware of ;)

    ...guess it's your turn to inquire at Sophos this time ;)

    Now, you've got me confused - "not something spectacular like in NOD" vs "However, as you can read in the ct´test the heuristic was judged to be bad "??

    regards.

    paul
     
  23. Ali Mente

    Ali Mente Guest

    Hi,

    four pages of the whole c't review describes the full test methodology. The review is only nine pages long, so what else do you want to read?

    They clearly and shortly describe everything what was tested, e.g. the WildList used, the detection problems, that they've contacted the developers and so on and so on...

    You can find everything there and almost 50% of the whole text is description. I think, this is already too much. The main av review is much, much smaller.

    I'm sure you only do not like to see the (partly good, partly poor) results, and therefore you try to make the review worse.

    Ali
     
  24. ib

    ib Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2003
    Posts:
    6
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.