Ok, well a lot of smoke but not much light here. There can be legit issues and concerns about performance and effectiveness of an app and they can be discussed in an adult manner so that users and potential users can decide for themselves what's best for them and what they are more comfortable with. But that's not what much of this thread turned into. How significant a threat are Zoo viruses? I asked and Rod answered. Not a particularly significant threat. If something goes ITW to a noticeable degree then it goes into the Wild List and then the question is, how good is your AV in keeping up with and detecting stuff that's in the wild? Then people can choose for themselves, do they want an AV that can catch all sorts of zoo viruses but perhaps is not so great at catching actual ITW stuff? Or do they want an AV that has a good record of addressing the ITW threats as well as some of the zoo stuff? It's a matter of emphasis and one's preference. (By the way, NOD isn't the only AV that's garnered some VB ITW 100% awards, so claims of VB bias for NOD don't stand up on that point, IMO. Also, a look at the VB's advisory board would suggest no basis for any claims of bias toward NOD.) Again, as with all comp/internet security issues it's a matter of risk management. What are the chances of one's coming across a zoo virus in one's email in box compared to those viruses and worms that are actively circulating in the wild? One can test for certain zoo viruses and then say a product is inferior because it doesn't catch them. But what does the test mean in terms of actual danger to the average user? Not a lot, IMO. As for archived, compressed files and detection. That's a bit more complicated. I recall someone some time ago posing "tests" of AT products elsewhere and slamming one (TH as I recall) because it didn't detect some common stuff when zipped. As I recall the TH defenders pointed out that it did catch the trojans when uncompressed and that when zipped the tojans posed no threat. We've seen much the same arguments here in the past regarding NOD's abilities in regards to archived files. "Missing" some files when they're harmless yet catching them when they pose a real threat. Some people obviously prefer catching the stuff while in archived format and there are products that certainly do better at that if that's what one prefers, although some of those same products overall may not have a great record at catching ITW stuff even when uncompressed and executing. Does it mean that NOD is "inferior" at catching viruses and worms? Or that it just does the job differently, focusing on when the threat is immediate rather than dormant and harmless? So one needs to decide what one is most comfortable with in that regard. Also, the issue of packed files. That's interesting but a bit more complex for the average user to discern what the issue is and how much a real threat such stuff poses in the real world (which I think is what the average user is actually concerned about). As mentioned previously if one wants to take the time one can pack something to defeat just about any AV/AT out there. But again, the average user isn't concerned so much about hypothetical threats designed for purposes of a "test" but actual stuff that they might come across in their everyday experience. To the extent that there is stuff out there that poses a real threat, one would expect one's AV to address that. It appears that NOD version 2 will improve on detection of packed and perhaps archived files? (I haven't been following the beta that much.) And as for Trojan detection, while NOD may catch some that's not its emphasis, neither does it claim to be an all in one solution for both viruses and trojans. As with many other AV's one can choose a layered security and also run an Anti Trojan app as many do here. Or if one wants a product with a good record on viruses and trojans as an all in one solution one can look to KAV or those products with similar records in that regard. It depends on one's computer use and needs and what runs well on one's PC. Not all solutions are for everyone. I think posting time and effort is best served by those who have the expertise in assisting those people trying to figure out what to use on their PC's, and what the pluses and minuses of a product may be, by highlighting the issues and concerns and discussing them clearly, objectively and dispassionately.