Faster scanning?

I have bought NOD32 and are happy with it, and will be more happier when eset mend the slow shutdown problem and faster programstarts with AMON enabled.

But I have a question:
NOD32 does faster full-scan on the drives, that is a fact. But is it faster because it doesn´t scan for all viruses? That NOD32 doesn´t use signatures for old viruses not likely to be around anymore? Or depending on what viruses floats around depending on location of the user?
This I read in the help files of Kapersky where they explained why their scan takes more time to complete than "other antivirus software claiming to be faster"
Or is it just something Kapersky tells to excuse their slow performance

I´m asking because I did try Kapersky and it found an old trojan in a old zipped file I had laying around on one of my harddrives which NOD didn´t find. (Sorry I can´t remember the name of it anymore.)

 

No. NOD32 is faster because it is better coded and optimised for speed... It does not use hammer where lancet is needed and more effective.

I would like to know where exactly this is stated in Kasprsky's doc.
My opinion on Kaspersky's reasoning is the same as your, with exception of the question mark...

Scanning in zipped files by default is one thingy making program a bit slower. If it is zipped, it is no real danger until restored from archive. In that moment it should be intercepted by resident compoment of the antivirus system.
best regard,

 

Thanks for your informative reply.

I dont have Kapersky installed anymore, so I can´t say exactly where it said so, but I was looking trough the helpfile when I was trying to understand how to exclude programs to be scanned in realtime. Kapersky was very slow on opening programs which hasn´t been used for a while, it could take 10 seconds, and the excluding did no good anyway.

 

Kaspersky takes more time to complete because the scan is far, far more thorough and in depth than is NOD32's. KAV takes twice as long as does NOD32 on my box and this is when I am using the computer during the scan (would take less time if I wasn't on the computer). NOD32 scans 98,000 files whereas KAV scans 199,000. (This was with email scanning turned off for both KAV and NOD32 and scanning set to scan all files) . It's scanning engine is unsurpassed. Extremely impressive. Plus, all this stuff about KAV slowing down ones computer and NOD32 doesn't....nah...I see absolutely no slow down with KAV set to Maximum power for both resident and on demand scanning but I sure would on my older computer. KAV does not use a hammer where a lancet is more effective! KAV is KING when it comes to the depth and breadth of scanning ...no way around that fact. However, I can't compare heuristics where I'm sure NOD32 would win because KAV doesn't let you see its innards and makes no mention of its heuristics and you can't directly choose the level or depth of heuristics used in its scanners.

There are all sorts of problems with KAV 5.0 that would make one really hesitate if contemplating buying it. I thought NOD32 had a lot of problems until I decided I was so curious about KAV that I had to try it. KAV 5.0 is terrible because it doesn't give the user any control to speak of. Plus, ironically, I have been very critical of NOD32's handling of quarantine and rightly so I believe. Still, KAV has no quarantine in 5.0! (Although the help files indicate it does). KAV gives you almost no choices in configuration which amazes me and which I detest. KAV Personal Pro 5.0 might be more to my taste whenever it comes out but KAV 5.0 personal is for beginners only.

KAV did, like Sukarof says, find several viruses in obscure places where they weren't harming my computer, but I do wish NOD32 would find those. KAV doesn't produce the false positives I've been seeing with the NOD32 beta either.

So the moral of the story here is that the grass is not necessarily greener on the other side of the fence. Both AVs are great and it comes down, IMO, to what you want in an AV and what you want may not be what the next guy wants and yet both of you are right in your choices. You choose the one that is the closest to what you want as none will fill the bill perfectly unless you are very undemanding.

 

NOD32, IIRC, is not as good at unpacking certain things (.EXEs?) as Kaspersky, which is why the scan takes only a few minutes.

Btw, I have never had a problem with slow application start when using NOD32.

 

Steve, one thing to point out, NOD doesn't support much in the way of unpacking. Perhaps the reason why it might count a compressed archive as 1 file could be due to the fact that it didn't unpack it. NOD generally catches any nasties on extraction.

Never had a FP with KAV, even with extended DB.

Which approach is better is based on user preference.

 

I don't know about Kaspersky but Eset has not yet corrected the false positive that I submitted on May 31. The "virus" is found in the exe of a popular program and Eset confirmed it is a false positive so why is it taking so long to correct this? It was found with AH and I think that with more AH added in the beta that we will see more false positives which is acceptable if they are corrected promptly but promptness has been absent in this instance.

steve, I figured that the main reason for the large difference in number of files scanned by the NOD32 vs KAV was due to KAV counting each individual file as it unpacks. That is obvious when you check the logs as it is scanning.

I am not a high risk user. I was very curious about KAV as I had not tried it since 2000. Perhaps I am not seeing a slow down because KAV 5 is much faster than KAV4.5. My computer boots in exactly the same time as before (4 seconds to the ugly Dell screen and 6 more to the desktop). My problem with KAV is that its idea of quarantine is even worse than NOD32's! Ironic, huh?

 

Doesn't NOD32 have AH only for email scanning? Or are you talking about the beta version?

 

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=9776

 

I waas referring to the on demand scan using command line switches.

Steve

 

I agree. Kaspersky usually corrects these within 24 hours after submission. Eset needs to improve their response time.

Also Kav has also always been much slower than Nod32 in scans.

It will boot in the same time, but you cant use any menus or other items for 3 to 4 minites AFTER the desktop is drawn in Kav 5 as it scans all startup files. There ahve been many compliants about this. There is also a perceptible delay in launching programs. Slowness that one does not expect on a very good AV which Kav is.

Steve

 

I take that back. I did a registerhack (which name I don´t remember now, something about waittime to kill process or something and put it to 1000 instead of 20000) and that did do the trick It now shuts down in 15 seconds. Before it took atleast 45-50 seconds, don´t remember the exact time but it took much longer
I have also done a reinstall of windows and now my programs start much faster with AMON enabled...strange

I have also installed Servicepack 2 RC2 but that didn´t recognise Nod32 - windows tells me that I dont have any antivirusprogram installed.. But it probably will be working when SP2 is done.

 

ZA Pro's AV detection doesn't notice NOD32 - maybe this is for the same reason? I don't really know...

 

With all due respect, I do not intend to appear sarcastic, but the title of this thread is "Faster Scanning", this implies that NOD must be compared to something in order to have "faster scanning" doesn't it? The only logical thing to compare it to would be another anti-virus program, right? I believe the original post was even comparing NOD to KAV.

 

No offence intended flyrfan111, but in some of your posts you do tend to come on a little aggressive/strong, and this can lead to people biting back... I realise some topics insight passion, but we all benefit if the passion can be reigned in a little and discussion remains calm and to the point.

Just an observation

Cheers

 

I am sorry if I came off aggressive or strong, but I just don't see how you could have a thread about NOD's "Faster Scanning" if other antiviruses can't be mentioned. The title implies, at least to my understanding, that it must be compared to something. I made no attmept at inciting anything, just trying to understand how the thread could continue "without" mentioning other antiviruses. I am truly sorry if offended anyone, or if I appeared aggressive to anyone, in this thread or with any other of my posts. That is certainly not my intention.

 

Though it's in Hungarian, I assume you will understand the graphs:
http://www.nod32.hu and click Touaab to the right of the NOD32 box.

 

No can do Marcos. The site does not render properly on Firefox 0.9. There is text on top of text next to the NOD32 box so I can't see where to click.

 

Works for me too.

 

On IE is whole text clickable... And same trouble in Opera (only little arrow works)...

so, link is: http://www.nod32.hu/prod.php