Diference about jotti´s NOD32 and real nod32?

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Yhe, Oct 26, 2005.

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

    Yhe Guest

    Is there any diference about jotti´s nod32 detection and a real installed nod32 AV detection? I´m asking this because in jotti´s virusscan, Nod32 does not have a good detection rate... every time I look at jotti´s virusscan, NOD32 misses the malware, but arcavir, KAv and others catch...
  2. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    May 31, 2004
    Thats because Jotti uses Linux scanners. avast! detection on Jotti is also very poor because Linux version can't handle as many packers and archives as Windows version can. NOD32 has similar limitations under Linux...
  3. Yhe

    Yhe Guest

    Ufa... thanks...
  4. why and yes

    why and yes Guest

    KAV is too much better than nod32 in detection rate
    the result is true
  5. Krond

    Krond Registered Member

    Aug 28, 2005
    really false answer, see www.av-comparatives.org
  6. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Oct 28, 2002
    I agree. In jotti's the detection rate was about this according to IBK in post 39. in here,


    The usual results of Jotti's scanner:

    ~83% -- Kaspersky
    ~65% -- VBA32
    ~63% -- BitDefender
    ~63% -- Dr.Web
    ~56% -- NOD32
    ~54% -- AntiVir
    ~52% -- ArcaVir
    ~48% -- Fortinet
    ~40% -- ClamAV

    where NOD32 missed about 2.6 times from that what Kaspersky did.

    But in the last Av-Comparatives.org test, 08-2005, we can see that NOD32 missed about 22.4 times from that what Kaspersky did in Total without DOS & Other OS. So it's up to you, how do you want to read these stats. :D

    Best regards,
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2005
  7. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Jun 1, 2004
    I am not sure you can make that conclusion, firstly as Andreas said you really can't compare results from the two different tests, secondly NOD's license expired, for several weeks as I understand it, on Jotti's scanner which therefore doesn't give an accurate indication of what NOD would have detected of those it missed had it had current defs and components that were updated during that timeframe.
  8. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Nov 22, 2002
    From my personal experience after analysing thousands of files from online scanners I can conclude that KAV and some other AVs flag even setup packages as infected, however, after they've been unpacked the files are in most cases picked up by NOD32 (e.g. the case of Ardamax keylogger when the sfx rar with changed rar signature extracts harmless xored binaries). Another thing is that almost every other file received from the scanners is not functional neither on WinNT nor Win9x systems. NOD32's detection is almost perfect as it only very rarely triggers false alarms on corrupted files, flagging them as infected. Just for the sake of interest - I have almost filled up my secondary 60 GB HDD with unique samples from online scanners detected heuristically by NOD32 :)
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.