Dr. Web & NOD32

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by WilliamP, May 23, 2004.

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

    WilliamP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Posts:
    2,201
    Location:
    Fayetteville, Ga
    Can these be on the same computer. With one to be used only as back up. I tried NOD and KAV Lite and everything slowed to a crawl.
     
  2. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    one funny thing i noticed about DrWeb is that if the Spider guard is not active in memory it fails to scan from the file context menu. well actually it can but you have to click one extra button. means Mr. Igor doesn't want people to use his AV as only on-demand scanner. so you have to use NOD32 as the backup. yes i know it sounds crazy as NOD32 is the best on-access scanner but if you want to use it with DrWeb then you have a to compromise a little. on Windows 9x platform Spider guard is a very very good on-access scanner.
     
  3. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,374
    When using more antivirus programs simultaneously please bear in mind that only one resident protection should be running at a time.
     
  4. Kobra

    Kobra Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Posts:
    129
    I disagree with the statement that NOD32 has the best on-access scanner. My tests show otherwise - and yes, i'm a registered NOD32 owner.

    Several AV products out there scan in realtime as you navigate your hard drive, to me, this is ideal - basically just going into a directory, some products scan - and even scan packed/rebased threats - and its so fast, you don't even notice it. (nod32 doesn't do that, and I feel its a weakness). Second, Advanced Heuristics aren't present in NOD32's on-access scanner, so it misses some things.

    For on-access scanning, I found BitDefender, KAV, F-Secure to be the best, with Dr.Web not far behind because of its great heuristics.

    If I had any MAJOR complaint about NOD32, it would be the lack of quality of the on-access scanner. :(
     
  5. WilliamP

    WilliamP Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2003
    Posts:
    2,201
    Location:
    Fayetteville, Ga
    Kobra, are you making reference to Amon when you say on-access scanner?
     
  6. Kobra

    Kobra Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Posts:
    129
    Yes. AMON=Resident Scanner or On-Access scanner.
     
  7. hayc59

    hayc59 Guest

  8. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    so Kobra what are those better on-access scanners? and please give details about your tests. and also give the test machine specs.
     
  9. Kobra

    Kobra Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Posts:
    129
    Well my testings are far from truely scientific, and mostly just done out of an obsession. :D Anyway, they are posted on another forum with 200k members, and I don't like linking other forums here out of respect.

    But anyway, a recent packed and rebased threat I experianced that most AV/AT's missed really woke me up to the deficiencies of many realtime monitors in these products. In testing though, I noticed some products, like F-Secure, KAV4.5, and BitDefender actually check every file as you navigate your HD in realtime - with no noticable performance hit on my boxes (3.4ghz), including with heuristics which NOD32 lacks with its Amon sadly. While some other products, actually require you to OPEN the file, or at least shell extension right click.

    Needless to say, realtime monitors are definately not created Equal!
     
  10. Sandish

    Sandish Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Posts:
    51
    If you enter a directory with the explorer and it contains a virus/worm/trojan NOD will give you an alert - at least here it did. Please keep in mind that NOD is made for the average user. If you want a scanning-monster that detects all and everything, you should use KAV or McAfee. There are some weak spots in NOD, but the AMON part seems to work pretty good ;)

    Both scanner seem to work together - as long as you use only one as on-access scanner. I didn´t notice any difference - no matter which one was used as on-access scanner. However - i think it´s better to have just one scanner installed and use one of the various web-scanner as a backup - to check the system every now and then.
     
  11. Kobra

    Kobra Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Posts:
    129
    I'm finding this to be true, NOD32 just isn't for me. Its missed so many threats it drives my head to spin, and i've never gotten replies on anything lately in emails.. The last 3 threats i've had, NOD32 missed, and I had to install other products to find them, finally I had to also purchase BOClean to shore up my AT. But thinking back, theres plenty of top-notch AV's out there that also kick butt at trojans. Those would have been better choices for me in my fairly high threat environment.

    I put very very little stock in Virus Bulletin myself, ITW has never been a problem for me, but malware/trojans and trojan downloaders have - at least for me, and NOD32 has totally missed the boat here, giving me a absolute false sense of security.

    Now I hope I can talk them into a refund!
     
  12. Sandish

    Sandish Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2004
    Posts:
    51
    We are pretty off-topic here - but did you ever wonder why they offer a free trial? ;)
     
  13. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

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

    That's good to know ;)

    We don't have any problems with linking to other forums - provided it doesn't violate our TOS. So be our guest.

    If that's the case, I'm pretty sure you'll have no problem in finding a more reliable Antivirus.

    I for one would like to see the goodies been delivered - if only to check out your statement. As for emails: feel free to forward those to me.

    This no doubt can be the case as for trojans/backdoors. Eset is improving very fast in detection/dealing with these kind of nasties - but isn't focussed in a way a dedicated antitrojan like for example BOClean or TDS is. Purchasing an adittional layer of defense for trojans/backdoors seems a good choice overall IMHO- regardless what Antivirus is in use.

    Sure: put all eggs in just one basket....All of them can be fooled, leaving you wit no AV and AT protection at all ;)

    Sorry to hear so. All AV vendors do...

    Commented on that one ;)

    regards.

    paul
     
  14. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    Kobra you are running a 3.4GHz monster. no wonder you are not noticing any performance difference. well i have one 500MHz P3 and a 850MHz Celeron so PC performance is important to me. programs like F-Secure, BitDefender and KAV 4.5 are not nimble-footed. thats why in my opinion NOD32 AMON is the best. but i do respect your opinion also. wish i had that 3.4GHz....

    i don't think scanning the whole directory is of much importance in real-time. if you scan your computer regularly and if the on-access scanner is working properly the security level remains all the same. in fact on slower computers scanning the whole directory will degrade performance.

    Sandish try one thing, install DrWeb without the Spider Guard and scan a file from the FILE context menu. now tell me what do you see.
     
  15. Kobra

    Kobra Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Posts:
    129
    Yes, performance is definately an issue for some (such as yourself). I've never found anything to create a performance issue worry on my box.

    Anyway.. That AVTest program really opened my eyes a bit, the program seems highly reliable, i've fired off a copy to 2 AV' houses and it checks out. NOD32 doesn't even notice ANY of the tests it offers, neither does KAV from what i'm reading, suggesting something is lacking in both of their monitors.

    BitDefender, McAfee, F-Secure, and Norman eat it right up.

    I love BitDefender, too bad they lack any reasonable packer support, otherwise it would be nearly perfect for my requirements. Norman for scanning doesn't even require packer support, since everything is executed in its sandbox during scanning for heuristic diagnosis. That to me, seems like the way to do business!
     
  16. Arin

    Arin Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    997
    Location:
    India
    this is true for any code analyzer e.g. DrWeb.
     
  17. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

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

    This is the NOD32 support forum - please discuss specfics etc. from other AVs on the Other Antiviruses Forum.

    regards.

    paul
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.