Farewell NOD . . .

Re: Response to many posts

You are about to start a flame war with that statement, there are many factors involved in finding a virus scanner that suites your requirements, 100% Award at Virus Bulletin is a start, however there are a lot of AV companies passing of late, and passing consistently, and yes Nod32 has an unequalled detection pass rate…

I have a file currently in an email that is NOT detected by Nod32 with a right click scan using “My Profile”, and that profile is fully tweaked with everything possible ticked for scanning.

I have discussed the issue of Nod32 not at its full strength by default many many times, the basics of it being; Nod32 should arrive out of the box at full maximum strength settings, if you choose to lower those setting then you are doing so at your own risk. This currently is NOT the situation. This point has been argued by the Australian Distributor as well as many Resellers. I am yet to see ANYONE come up with a logical reason why Nod32 is not set to maximum by default. Defence at arms length is far better than up close and personal.

Agreed, I leave it on while playing games, no interference whatsoever…

Like I said, I prefer defence at arms length rather than up close and personal.

Cheers

 

Re: Response to many posts

Sorry there's more to getting a pass in the vb100 tests than virus detection:-false +'s are also taken into account an av that fails might actually detect more than one that passes,but has failed due to false +'s I also feel these are the most easily manipulated tests:-the AV vedors know the date of the tests and know what their products will be tested against,so it should be easy to make sure that all the test viruses are in the definition data base by the forwarned date(but then again,if the AV vendors feel this test is important,they should all pass!)

 

Re: Response to many posts

And yet not all of them do

 

Re: Response to many posts

What feel its important or pass?

 

All of the AV vendors shown on VirusBulletin chose/submitted their AVs to be tested by VirusBulletin. So I assume most (if not all) of them see this as a valid test that they would like to pass. If not im sure they can ask to be dropped if they desire. RAV and Panda are no longer tested by VB.

Don't get me wrong there are also some things I do not like about VB and their test methodology. But then again, I do not think there is an AV test out there that hasnt been scrutinized. Overall, I still think it is worthwhile to consider VB's recent history of a product when one considers an AV. Whether one is greatly effected or only marginally effected by the results in VB is an individuals choice. And of course there are many other things to consider when choosing an AV, as well as other AV tests.

VB is not known for its testing of trojan/backdoors, other forms of modified malware, and of zoo virii (though i believe they do have some in their test set), and they never claim they do. If one is looking for results from such a test set there is an abundance of other tests to consider. AV-comparatives, tests conducted by ntl, etc. It appears to me VB tests the accuracy of detecting ITW virii. Every AV should be able to detect these VB ITW samples with a certain degree of accuracy, and this is just what VB tests. These samples are after all live virii that can do damage to ones computer (though i believe I heard of one instance where Avast! failed because it did not detect a harmless file). Every test methodology and test sample is different (which is what makes it so great), just because VB does not test for trojans/backdoors or heavily modified malware, does not necessarily make it easy.

VB's advisory board also contains some well-known names in the AV industry. Including reps from Alwil, KAV, Computer Associates etc, all of which have had their AV fail at a certain time. No rep from NOD32, which has the best record in VB.
http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/overview/advisory/