Kaspersky or Nod

I have tried both, well KIS and NOD32 and have come back to NOD. I just wish NOD had the KIS firewall. I also like the way KIS handles email notifications with their preview window.

It's really amazing how poorly NOD32 is marketed. There could not be a less appealing name or uglier GUI. Maybe they could employ some marketing specialists someday? It is a shame that such a tremendous AV has people turning away from the get-go because of the name/GUI. It's kinda the Smucker's Jelly of the AV world- with a name like NOD32, you better be good. And I certainly believe it is...even more than good, the best.

Now it's off to try to find a decent firewall as I have grown tired of Comodo. Maybe it's back to ZA 4.5 or Jetico?

 

nod32 , required on access antspyware or another security software ?

 

I wouldnt use realtime AS with NOD32, but u could try a HIPS like SSM, Prevx1 etc.

 

Why do you think this?

 

Nod32 has far better heuristics ? Why do you think so ?

 

i will go for kav....nod is also very good,but i find my liking tilting towards kav

 

This is widely acknowledged. There was an article somewhere around here where Kaspersky himself discusses his unfavorable perspective towards heuristics. You can also reference AV-Comparatives proactive tests to compare how each AV fared in this area. I think KAV relies more on its PDM for protection from new threats. Although I've heard KAV is supposed to be developing new heuristics that it will be implementing sometime in the near future.

 

Kaspersky PDM was tested by av-comparatives :

"Kaspersky Anti-Virus 6.0 provides exceptionally effective proactive protection – having detected 99% of the AV-Comparatives collection."

The conclusion was :

“The sixth version of Kaspersky Anti-Virus did its best in its separate proactive defense module test, detecting most of the malware we executed, showing the excellent developers’ work and high quality of the product.”

 

I'd like to make a comment here. Kaspersky slows everything down on my main laptop. Nod just functions so much more smoothly.

The only thing I don't like about Nod is if you need to turn it off at all it doesn't react well and there is a danger that files may become corrupted. It's happened to me.

This is a big drawback in my opinion. Does anyone know if there is a safe way of turning Nod off?

 

Thanks for the info

 

Kaspersky did a fine job protecting my PC; no argument there.
But so does NOD32.
However, I use my desktop rig for gaming, so I went with NOD32 and haven't looked back
Kaspersky slowed down my laptop as well, so I went with NOD32 on that, too.
While Kaspersky is on top with the definition updates, it's still a defensive game, always trying to play catch-up with the malware writers.
Screw the "best protection" if the machine takes a performance hit.

Protection isn't the only issue at hand here - if a user has to play the waiting game and and life in front of the computer screen ends up being based on paranoia and fear, then it's not a fun experience. The way I see it, if information's really that sensitive, either encrypt it or burn it to DVD or both.

A NAT router, firewall, NOD32 and Firefox with NoScript keeps me smiling and doesn't slow me down.

 

Firefox with no scripts, Cyberhawk, Snoopfree, Sandboxie (unfortunately, PowerShadow doesn't work well for me), Nod 32 and I'm looking for an user-friendly firewall. Thinking of outpost free (The pro version is a bit of a resource-hog).

Best of all is Nod 32!

 

Hi,

I have tried both KIS and NOD32 + LnS

but I am happy with NOD32+LnS setup.

First I tried KIS6 than NIS 2007 than my system was corrupted than I installed NOD32 + LnS + OA and now I have

 

Kaspersky without a doubt, great detection rates ALWAYS, low on resources, great support forum, great suite (KIS), and good control over your PC with PDM.

 

Nod, of course! Why? Because I'm using it...

Well seriously I wouldn't rely on either of them on their own, there's always a chance(very remote though) of running into a new virus. Therefore sandboxing or virtualization with either of these programs will make your system almost impenetrable.

 

I think of heuristics as something that uses common dsense, and does not automatically warn you about all sorts of things, inde[endently of their context. Even an experienced user would not be able to discern which warnings mattered. The KAV PDM will drive most people nuts, or they will merely disable the critter.

In particular Office Guard, tho well intentioned is, well ... read fer yourself.
See http://www.standards.com/Index.html?OfficeStuffExamples.

Note I wrote the above based on build 303. KAV seems to have removed the API restriction in 6.0.2.614, but the restriction is still lised in the Office Guard settings. See http://forum.kaspersky.com/index.php?showtopic=32797.

 

I do not know how NOD32 and KAV compare in terms of performancem but I can state the following:

1. I removed NAV 2006, and GHost 10 and Live Update on 19 Feb 2007. Installed KAV. Amazing improvement in system response and reduced resource use.

2. If KAV is set to "Concede" to other processes, I see little impact.
I still have not figured out the best settings (for me).

3. However, on my, and others, systems, KAV takes an extremely long time to do a full system scan. If you visit the Kaspersky forum, you will see my postings on this, and others have also experienced the problem.

Of course, it is NOT fair to compare scan times of different products, as each scans differently and counts scanned items differently. Kaspersky claims to scan about 3.2 million items, NAV about 1.7 million. I expect that much of the differences lie in scanning within archives, and I believe that KAV is more thorough here. For example, KAV takes a bit over 7 mintues to scan the single VB 6 SP 6 update file (about 63 million bytes, comprising 5000+ objects). KAV spends a lot of time on archive files.

 

howard:

1. kav does not scan more files, but just counts its files differently, usually higher than any other product ive tried, i dont think detections between the 2 are 'too' different, both are great av engines.

2. testing kav against norton 2006 is obvious you will notice a great increase in your system performance, especially with ghost installed too, the 2006 version was the worst norton had made and the most drag on a system ive seen (please see their new re-writtin 2007 versions for massive improvements), as for ghost, although it works and does its job, its really heavy on the system and every version seems to be so, id recommend you look for another image-backup-type software, i.e. acronis.

 

KIS6 wins me over hands down. Works in unison with the likes of System Safety Monitor, Snoopfree, Spyware Terminator, Kerio 2.15, Launch Monitor, etc.

Compatibility plus effectiveness without issue is what you want.

 

For sure but it is able to do it almost always but NOD32 is not capable to scan this as an ".exe" file.

bcarchive.exe > NOD32v2 2106 03.10.2007 archive damaged

Best regards,
Firefighter!

 

It's not that simple.

a. Norton counts more ojects than KAV for certain file types. For example. If I recall the numbers correctly, for a single word template, KAV counted 12 objects (and this was explainabe by the number of components within the template's project). However, NAV 2006 counted over 200 objects, heck, even if it were only over 100 objects, not sure what they are counting.

b. KAV goes into more archives than NAV 2006, at least that's what Kaspersky says.

c. Both products may indeed scan the same number of files, but the items are counted quite differently, and, more importantly, KAV goes deeper into the archives, mail, and who knows what else.

I found NAV 2006 to be a marked improvement over NAV 2005.

I agree that GHost is a resource hog and is intrusive, but when I first started using image backup a bit over a year ago, I did not want to trust a single program, not to mention that Ghost was considerably faster than TI.

I do have NIS 2007 and have heard good things, but I use Windows 2000, so I cannot use NIS 2007.

NIS 2007 still has the intrusive, and unnecessary, Norton Protection Center.

 

If NOD32 cannot scan such archives, then that's a show stopper, and I would not use NOD 32.

 

I didn't realize you had a NOD licence Firefighter. But as far as I know Imon scans inside archives and Amon does upon extraction.

 

It seems strange to me that people experience slow downs using KAV. The latest build (.614), with everything enabled does not slow me down a bit. I trialed NOD back when I was running the version of KAV prior to 614 (of course, I uninstalled KAV first). I didn't see any difference in the performance of my PC. I also failed to understand the latest rave about NOD. I uninstalled it and went back to KAV and never looked back. I somehow feel better protected with KAV. Oh well, I guess it comes down to personal choice.