I tried another AV Product and it found additional threats - WHY ?

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by mr greek, Dec 28, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. mr greek

    mr greek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Posts:
    28
    Hi All:

    I need assistance.

    BACKGROUND:
    Over the past 2 weeks I have decided to try out various AntiVirus & Anti Spyware products.
    The reason for this is that most reviews I read were not rating ZoneAlarm Security Suite particularly well for its AntiVirus & Anti Spyware capabilities.
    I was also receiving similar feedback from freinds using latest version of ZoneAlarm Security Suite.

    So I decided to try NOD32.
    I installed it, updated it, ran it at full strength, and it picked up threats that had been on my harddrive for many years, despite the fact that I was "cleaning" every week.
    I was impressed:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

    Over the past week I accidentally read another review, which highlighted how good BitDefender version 10 is.
    So I downloaded a demo version, and updated it, and ran it, and you guessed it, it found another (approximately) 20 threats on my harddrive, which NOD32 had missed.

    HELP:
    So what's the story??
    (1) Is the lesson here that I need to use at least two different products, or,
    (2) am I doing something wrong with NOD32
    (3) any comments would be appreciated

    Regards.
     
  2. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    In your attempt to compare finding results and in all fairness to any anti-malware program not just Nod....what was it that BitDefender actually found in regards to the "20 threats" ?

    Bubba
     
  3. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,376
    Yep, what did it actually find? Perhaps they were not cookies, these are detected by Evido. Maybe benign Mydoom.log data files? At any rate, no AV is 100% perfect, what one detects the other can miss and vice-versa, that's a matter of fact if one likes it or not. We are here not to glorify one AV and bash the others.
     
  4. mr greek

    mr greek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Posts:
    28

    Dear Bubba:

    Thanks for your feedback.

    I don't have all the screenshots since I deleted most of them.
    Here is one of the more recent screenshots which I have not yet deleted:
    gg.gif

    Any help would be appreciated.

    Regards,
    Mr Greek
     
  5. mr greek

    mr greek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Posts:
    28
    Hi Marcos:

    I agree with you totally.
    BTW - I am not glorifying one product over another.
    I just want to understand if I have "stuffed-up" in any way.

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Regards.
     
  6. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    Since those are Outlook PST files....I have taken the liberty to close this thread you recently started concerning "Outlook pst data files" and copied it's contents in the below quote so both identical issues can be handled\addressed together by Nod support or other knowldegeable users.

    Regards,
    Bubba
     
  7. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,376
    As you can see from its name, it's a crack for a particular program. Do you find it so bad if NOD32 doesn't pick up some cracks ? :D

    Frankly, benign cracks should be of no concern if they are not picked up:

    AntiVir 7.3.0.21 12.28.2006 no virus found
    Authentium 4.93.8 12.28.2006 no virus found
    Avast 4.7.892.0 12.21.2006 no virus found
    AVG 386 12.28.2006 no virus found
    BitDefender 7.2 12.28.2006 no virus found
    CAT-QuickHeal 8.00 12.28.2006 no virus found
    ClamAV devel-20060426 12.28.2006 no virus found
    DrWeb 4.33 12.28.2006 no virus found
    eSafe 7.0.14.0 12.26.2006 suspicious Trojan/Worm
    eTrust-InoculateIT 23.73.100 12.28.2006 no virus found
    eTrust-Vet 30.3.3285 12.28.2006 no virus found
    Ewido 4.0 12.27.2006 no virus found
    Fortinet 2.82.0.0 12.28.2006 Misc/TPatch
    F-Prot 3.16f 12.28.2006 no virus found
    F-Prot4 4.2.1.29 12.22.2006 no virus found
    Ikarus T3.1.0.27 12.28.2006 no virus found
    Kaspersky 4.0.2.24 12.28.2006 no virus found
    McAfee 4928 12.28.2006 potentially unwanted program Tool-TPatch
    Microsoft 1.1904 12.27.2006 no virus found
    NOD32v2 1942 12.28.2006 a variant of Win32/Tool.TPE.A
    Norman 5.80.02 12.28.2006 no virus found
    Panda 9.0.0.4 12.28.2006 no virus found
    Prevx1 V2 12.28.2006 no virus found
    Sophos 4.13.0 12.26.2006 no virus found
    Sunbelt 2.2.907.0 12.18.2006 no virus found
    TheHacker 6.0.3.138 12.28.2006 no virus found
    UNA 1.83 12.28.2006 no virus found
    VBA32 3.11.1 12.27.2006 no virus found
    VirusBuster 4.3.19:9 12.28.2006 no virus found
     
  8. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    one off topic post was removed and continued via PM.
     
  9. Londonbeat

    Londonbeat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2006
    Posts:
    350
    Is that virustotal for the file mr greek is referring to as I don't see Bitdefender detecting it? :doubt:
    p.s. don't think we're allowed to post virustotal reports

    Londonbeat
     
  10. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,376
    I just wanted to show that it's irrelevant whether one detects a crack and the others miss it.
     
  11. Lollan

    Lollan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Posts:
    288
    In general, crack viruses are not wide-spreading epidemics for the average consumer and are only spread through crack sites. With Eset's policy of adding virus signatures based on severity/public infection, it's easy to see why this is.

    Would you rather them focus on polymorphic email infections or crack site keyloggers? Not to mention, if you're visiting said cracksites you're probably not even paying for this awesome antivirus solution to begin withm so it all makes sense if you ask me.

    Obviously, if there was an outbreak of said crack viruses, it would be dealt with more seriously i'm sure, but that's rarely the case.
     
  12. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    :thumb: :thumb:
     
  13. Marcos

    Marcos Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    14,376
    I was not talking about keyloggers, they deserve a decent priority. I meant patches / cracks for removing time limitation or limitation of other features in trial versions.
     
  14. Escalader

    Escalader Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Posts:
    3,710
    Location:
    Land of the Mooses
    If you read some of the threads over the last year here you will find that
    you are doing NOTHING wrong.

    No single AV or ASW product free or paid EVER detects 100% or removes 100%.

    In my case I use BitDefender 9.0 standard paid version as my active AV. BUT from time to time I will run some others I have attached to other primary products I own. SS has a AV that I run monthly, ZA Pro has a ASW as you know that I run when it shows an update. I'm not here to advocate any of these, just demonstrating that you can and should run more than one from time to time.

    ZA is moving to Kav so that may cause me to switch to that for active AV.
     
  15. Lollan

    Lollan Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2006
    Posts:
    288
    Ah, well that's good to hear. Is the source of infection still used as a method to route priority for disinfection?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.