NOD 32 - The Worst Anti-Virus for other AV vendors

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by worldcitizen, May 15, 2006.

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

    andyrock Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2006
    Posts:
    22

    AV-Comparatives, AFAIK let antivirus companies examine those missed samples to check if they are working samples or not.
     
  2. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    I geuss what I'm really thinking is that the undetected files may well be complete and functional but perhaps not needed to be detected so long as the virus component is detected. For example a .DLL file is very useful when accompanied by the executable files that call it, but on it's own with nothing to drive it, is just an entirely benign file sitting on a disk somewhere. Zero threat so long as the associated executables are detected.
    Anyhow, av-comparatives suggests to put more weight on the advanced+ rating than on the actual percentage detected.
    Good work NOD32 and ESET :)
     
  3. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    I would say never

    Kaspersky is a good cleaner but not good AV product as a whole.The most arguing is the so SLOW engine . Sorry , the clients of mine who had Kaspersky before NOD32 now say: "What a speed and performance" . Kaspersky is too slow.
    [MOVE] :D NOD32 :D [/MOVE]
     
  4. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,174
    Location:
    Denmark
    It crippled my computer when I trialed it, so I have to agree. It's too slow and cpu hungry.
     
  5. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,306
    NOD is a superb AV. It ran well on my machines during my trial. I would be happy with it.
    However, the new KAV6, which I am using on my desktop, uses less resources than NOD did, and scans much faster. Kaspersky has really done a good job on it.

    While AV Comparative tests show that NOD is superior in hueristics, there is no argument that otherwise KAV is superior.

    Both are great AVs, and the choice is a personal one. FWIW I use Avast free and Ewido Plus on my laptop, and do not worry about security.

    Jerry
     
  6. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,986
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I guess I might as well chime in with my $.02. I have used nod for a very long time, and I have used KAV6. I recently chose KAV over nod because of two reasons:

    1. I recently had an infection that neither nod or kav could detect, or any other av for that matter. In that case you could have flawless hueristics but if it wouldn't matter. I went with the company with the fastest response time; KAV. They add sigs faster. BTW both now catch that trojan.

    2. I hate the way NOD is acting with v3. Not even a feature set or gui info...shameless. We are the reason why they exist, or have they gone to the comporate hand to feed them and forgotten about the user?

    KAV has proactive defense. I like their registry protection, which NOD does not offer.
     
  7. Graystoke

    Graystoke Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2003
    Posts:
    1,506
    Location:
    The San Joaquin Valley, California
    I guess I will chime in also. I just started using NOD32 about a month ago now, for reasons I will not go into at this time. I also have tried running KAV 6 several times, including the new official release that just came out. Between the two, it does seem like KAV 6 slows things down some. I have tried it with the HTTP scanner disabled, and it speeds things up, but I would rather have that enabled. Athough I think NOD is a very good AV, in the back of my mind I feel like I might be better protected with KAV. Maybe I'm wrong. For now it's NOD, but I might give KAV another try. o_O :)
     
  8. CJsDad

    CJsDad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2006
    Posts:
    618
    I have a license for both NOD32 and KAV, each being used on seperate computers.
    This is my 2nd year using NOD32 and my 1st using KAV.
    When its time to renew my license for each AV program I know without a doubt that I will renew NOD32 but as for KAV I'm not sure.
    KAV has issues with computers slowing down when using this AV and the responses seen on the Kaspersky forum are to disable certain features.
    To me thats a minus, if you have to start disabling features in order for it to work a certain way then something is wrong.
    The second thing occured about a week ago.
    KAV had a problem with its update feature, no one could get an update on its signatures but this wasn't for like a few minutes, this went on for hours, no updates at all, matter of fact when that happend my last update was showing as being from the previous day :eek:
    Now people might read this and think I dont like KAV, I do, and I hope some of those problems are resolved for the future seeing how KAV 6 has just been released they still may have things to work on or work around.
    As for NOD32, this AV runs on my main computer :D
     
    Last edited: May 18, 2006
  9. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    :)
    Even if your were K or S I still don't think that would be a very inteligent move - much better to be glad they have excellent competition in NOD32. If they are really concerned with eliminating threats then having such an excellent example should spur them on, as good or bad as they may be - not bog them down or make them feel like wasting thier time :)
    Just MHO
    Cheers :)
     
  10. Adramalech

    Adramalech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    79
    Strange...o_O :ouch: o_O

    I can only see KAV beating NOD on on-demand scan, but on pro-active/resident scan NOD is way better then KAV. And what do you think what protection is more important. I think it's the pro-active.....


    My two cents.;)
     
  11. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    Adramalech, see the distinction they get. They both received Advanced+ in on-demand test. Percentage it's not so concludent
     
  12. Adramalech

    Adramalech Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    79
    @pykko

    Yes, I saw it. Still, I preferre having better detection rates on pro-active then on on-demand ... rather avoiding a possible infection then cleaning it.:)
     
  13. Ailric

    Ailric Guest

    The proactive results are ALMOST worthless.

    "The used programs/updates are 3 month old due the design of the retrospective test."

    KAV depends on it's frequent updates. NOD32 has superior heuristics. Test them all with updated virus defs, then we would know which has superior pro-active protection.

    NOD32 is a fine AV, one of the best I have ever used. But I got tired of sending them trojans that they missed even though "lowly" AV's like AVG detected them.
     
  14. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    So on a day zero outbreak you would place your trust in a signature that simply does NOT exist, rather than a heuristic engine that has a 70 to 90% chance of detecting it without a signature...

    Now that makes sense :blink: :blink: :blink:
     
  15. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    The point of these tests is to discover the potential zero hour protection each AV provides. I can't presently think of a better way to measur it than that - can you?
    Last I checked the differences between NOD32 and KAV fully updated was negligable, but then there are those that like to split hairs over such a thing :)
    Really the main point is as Pykko mentioned a few posts back, they both recieved Advanced+ rating.
    Cheers :)
     
  16. MikeNash

    MikeNash Security Expert

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2005
    Posts:
    1,656
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    Given the chance, I'd sure like to try :)
     
  17. Ailric

    Ailric Guest

    Since Kaspersky has one of the largest (if not THE largest) virus database and extremely frequent updates, I would (and have) put my trust in KAV. It also has Proactive Defense which appears to work very well.

    As a former NOD32 subscriber, I can tell you from experience that the heuristic was NOT 70-90% effective - at least not for me. And I used Blackspear's ruleset...
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2006
  18. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    You are completely missing the point, a large database has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, I would rather have a clean, lean and mean database with the best heuristics in the world any day of the week than detect rubbish.


    Well independent tests, and real world detection by heuristics proves otherwise.

    Blackspear.
     
  19. Ailric

    Ailric Guest

    Kaspersky detects rubbish?:eek: :blink:

    Then with 90%+ detection plus 70-90% heuristics, it would seem unlikely that I would find more than half a dozen trojans in the past year. But I indeed have and sent them to Eset after confirming that they were infected.
    Kaspersky identified them all immediately.
     
  20. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    I can tell from your response that you didn't seem to understand the point Blackspear was making, but that's OK.

    Cheers :)
     
  21. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

  22. Ailric

    Ailric Guest

    "As a former NOD32 subscriber"

    Notice the word former?

    "Really new : http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showp...5&postcount=35"

    We can play duelling Jotti's all day. : )



    NOD32 is great, but not better in the real world than KAV. ; )
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: May 30, 2006
  23. pykko

    pykko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Posts:
    2,236
    Location:
    Romania...and walking to heaven
    Airlic, it has been stated for many times...Jotti's statistics can't be taken as a comparatives tests. Read this thread carrefully. ;) https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=132815

    To make things short... Jotti's uses a Linux based scanner and NOD hasn't all the options the Windows version has. Additionally, there are some runtime packers not supported by NOD32 but after extracting the files NOD catches the malware. Finally, there could be also FPs from other AVs. Not all files flagged by some AVs is a malware. There are corrupted files or incomplete virus bodies detected by some AVs like real viruses. ;)
     
  24. Ailric

    Ailric Guest

  25. NOD32 user

    NOD32 user Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2005
    Posts:
    1,766
    Location:
    Australia
    A zlob is a lot different to a not-a-virus that probably doesn't need detecting anyhow... :)
    And that is one of the main differences here - Some vendors want to have a 'biggest database' race while others just want their clients to be protected...
    As for me, I really don't care how many benign or damaged files are left on my system. So long as I'm protected from the threats it may be likely for me to be exposed to, that's all that counts and I realise nobody can sprout 100% detection, so :)

    Cheers :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.