if you have no answer...

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by gue_st, Jan 17, 2006.

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

    gue_st Guest

    closing threads is the solution?
    I am not respoonsible for somebody posting the bashing content, you coud remove that, but instead you are closing the thread you do not like.

    Now, please answer three questions, if I may ask.

    1. If I have some code that cannot appear anywhere else than on my computer, why would it be useful to submit it to Eset. To entertain you?

    2. If I am writing some code and right after compiling it is detected as virus, why would it be useful to submit it to Eset?

    3. If I see it fit, I should have the rights not to submit anything, but still be able to work with that file, is that correct? Or, again you see bashing NOD somewhere?
     
  2. Pain of Salvation

    Pain of Salvation Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Posts:
    398
    Wich antivirus will provide you a immediate solution for a false positive?
     
  3. Joliet Jake

    Joliet Jake Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Posts:
    911
    Location:
    Scotland
    If you don't want to submit something for verification why bother coming on here to complain about it?
     
  4. Happy Bytes

    Happy Bytes Guest

    > closing threads is the solution?

    If it becomes personal, yes.

    > 1. If I have some code that cannot appear anywhere else than on my computer, why would it be useful to submit it to Eset. To entertain you?

    certainly. :D

    > 2. If I am writing some code and right after compiling it is detected as virus, why would it be useful to submit it to Eset?

    depends on what you're trying to code of course ;)

    > 3. If I see it fit, I should have the rights not to submit anything, but still be able to work with that file, is that correct? Or, again you see bashing NOD somewhere?

    Where's bashing? o_O
    I didn't see anything.
     
  5. Owner

    Owner Guest

    we do not complain, but we just say why Marcos must bash all other AV's like, f-secure, kaspersky, dr.web, bitdefender, e-trust, avast, and all other AV's everytime someone ask question's about false positive...?
    He told me dont bashing nod32, i am not doing that, i was telling the truth and he was bashing all other AV's...

    from Marcos: This smells like a trolling so stop bashing NOD32 without a proof. I'm woroking with samples on a daily basis and see dozens of false positives from other AVs. If you have come across a false positive, just submit it to samples[at]eset.com and it will be fixed.

    The thread is closed now
     
  6. gue_st

    gue_st Guest

    whenever there is some inconvenient question or discussion, somebody immediately comes up with bashing posts, that thread can be closed.

    strange...
     
  7. Pain of Salvation

    Pain of Salvation Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Posts:
    398
    Marcos has not bashed others AVs. I think he tried to say that every AV has false positives, not only nod.
     
  8. Ricko

    Ricko Guest

    well i think that what Owner also try to s
    Why everytime someone speak about nod32- false positive, he always speak about other AntiViruses warns for more false positive then nod32...
    thats my opinion, thats what i see in this topic...
     
  9. gue_st

    gue_st Guest

    we are here not really talking here about false positives.
    If code exhibits some virus-like activity, it obviously should be heuristically detected, and it is. But there also is no way knowing if it is really a virus or not. THAT IS WHY there is that PROBABLY word! If it is some common program that is detected by mistake, it should of course be analyzed and appropriate action taken. But if not, what everybody does, is just switching off NOD32. And it is STUPID, if developers refuse to see that, even when they are told.
     
  10. Pain of Salvation

    Pain of Salvation Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2005
    Posts:
    398
    Maybe because others Avs really have more false positives than nod32
     
  11. Duria

    Duria Guest

    Oh my God. we were speaking about nod32 false positivte and not other AV's and now you: Pain of Salvation and Marcos bashing all other AntiViruses that they have more false positive then nod32....
    tss its a shame, nod32-lovers bashing all other AV's.... and we all know its not true,
     
  12. zashita

    zashita Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Posts:
    309
    As explained in another thread where you post, you can EXCLUDE some folders / files in AMON, and you will be able to work with your files without a warning from NOD32. What is the problem then ?? You already have all needed I think ... or maybe I missed something
     
  13. gue_st

    gue_st Guest

    SO what?

    Even the best detection will be quite useless, if there is no possibility to take appropriate action.
    Is it serious to asssume that I will have to wait 2 days until the file is analyzed, even if I already know the answer? And if I just want to copy the CD!
     
  14. gue_st

    gue_st Guest

    If you are for example copying a CD, it is not so clear what to exclude. In some cases, temporary folder is every time named differently. Not serious to exclude all temp folder, that is where viruses are expected.
     
  15. Troja

    Troja Guest

    woow i never seen so much people hate all other antivirus :p
    users of nod32 is bashing avast, antivir, f-secure, dr.web, vba32, panda, bitdefender, kaspersky, and all others antiviruses that they have much more false positive then NOD32, well my personally opinion on this is not true.
    Marcos and Pain of Salvation does they work for nod, because they bashing all other Anti-Viruses?
    ~snip....removed totally uncalled for remark....Bubba~
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 17, 2006
  16. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    You can just copy the file(s) to one folder and then create a new data CD instead of doing a CD-to-CD copy as a workaround...It may take 2-3 more minutes but thats not much is it? And in a few days Eset will remove the flase positive if there is any. So I dont really see a problem here.

    One more thing, Marcos was not bashing all other AVs, he was just saying that other AVs have some false positives too. He said this:

    He might probably have meant to say dozens of samples from other AVs collectively. (ie. one FP for this AV, one FP for that AV etc.)

    He did not deny that NOD32 does not have false positives.

    All AVs sometimes have false positives, some may have less and some may have more. NOD32 also sometimes has FPs, and so do others - there is no effective measure of how many FPs an AV creates - Maybe any given AV will not give any FPs for one guy, yet the other may have hundreds of FPs.

    So basically, I might just say that all AVs (including NOD32) are alike in the regard that they may sometimes have FPs.

    I myself use McAfee alongside NOD32, so I'm not a "basher", and never will be. :)
     
  17. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    Take a look at the title in your other thread, and you'll spot the bash quite easily.
    And now I'm off to bed, this bores me :isay:
     
  18. flyrfan111

    flyrfan111 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,224
    Not to continue the flaming but I have to agree with Brian, The only bashing I see started witht he original poster. It seems to me that Marcos did not bash any other AV nor did state that NOD doesn't have any FPs, he did not in any fashion state that one AV had any more or less FPs than any other. You also acuse Eset of having "Headstrong support personnel" because they want all of the FPs submitted, and yet you complain there is no way to stop them. Could I suggest one way to fix them would be to submit them, then Eset can figure out what exactly is being picked up and why, they can then fix the detection or perhaps give it a name and add a definition if that should be the case. That to me seems to be the best solution. Why are you so against submitting your heuristic detections? Not to start another flaming war, but are you writing malware and trying to figure out to get it by NOD's heuristics? That is the only reasonable justification that I can think to justify your position on this.
     
  19. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Gentlemen I see no redeeming value in this thread but I will leave it open if the personal assualts and accusations and product bashing stops now. If not I will have no recourse but to close it

    bigc
     
  20. SSK

    SSK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    976
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Good writeup, flyerfan. I was starting to think this way as well :)
     
  21. gue_st

    gue_st Guest

    If there is something illogical in the program, it can be corrected but nobody cares (some, because they do not get the point, some, because they like the program too much, some, because they hate it), then really, it doesn't make much difference if thread is opened or not.

    Have seen this already - with "off" switch - this program is simply not opened for discussion.
     
  22. alglove

    alglove Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Posts:
    904
    Location:
    Houston, Texas, USA
    Well, if your code is top secret, restricted by some confidentiality agreement, etc., then certainly you cannot be expected to send it.
    So that Eset can figure out why it is being detected as a false positive, and prevent this from happening again.
    I agree. That is why AMON and IMON have the "exclusions" feature. Unfortuntately, there is no way to do this for the on-demand scanner with the current software, though. Maybe in version 3.0?

    Is this the point, or am I missing it? o_O
     
  23. SSK

    SSK Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2004
    Posts:
    976
    Location:
    Amsterdam
    Yes it's open for discussion, but here's the problem: you allready made up your mind and push to one thing: that what YOU want to be changed. That rules out any and all discussion. So don't be surprised when people go against your opinions :)
     
  24. gue_st

    gue_st Guest

    You people are funny.
    Why should I submit something, what is mine?
    Maybe Eset would better submit some of their source code to me that I can analyze it?
    No?
    So why should I?
     
  25. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    This poster is only seeking an argument and not a resolution. Further replys are a waste of time as the only purpose is to goad.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.