NOD32 Detection Rates (av-comparatives)

Is NOD32 going to upgrade its databases so it can get better detection rates, or has this already been done with Version 2.5?

http://www.av-comparatives.org

 

seamaiden,

That's a process which is played out on a daily basis by all the top tier AV's, NOD32 included. There have been some nice additions in the 2.5 version, for example in the coverage of gray-area applications (i.e. riskware) - the changelog is here.

I'd say detection rates are very solid now, but it is a quickly evolving target so the vendors do have to constantly work to stay on top of it.

Blue

 

Hi seamaiden:

In the past 17 days 2 improvements have been made to NOD32.

1. The AH module has been improved for better detection (06/16/2005).
2. The Archive module has been improved to provide NSIS (Nullsoft Installation System SFX -a very well known malware format) and BZip2 support (06/23/1005).

I am sure Eset will always be making improvements to satisfy the need for protection.

 

I wouldn't be too concerned about these tests on av-comparatives.org
They can't even make a single basic html page that looks ok in Firefox,
so how on earth would they have the skills to test anything?

 

Actually their tests are very professional and highly regarded.

Cheers

Blackspear.

 

I wouldn't be too concerned about these tests on av-comparatives.org
They can't even make a single basic html page that looks ok in Firefox,
so how on earth would they have the skills to test anything?


... Yeah i trust them the most of all AV tests,
But many of the malwares tested are rare ones that no one have got infected with

NOD32 is improving, and i don't think NOD32 should lay down power on Riskwares and Spywares. Make the best Anti-Virus i say

 

It's just a page encoding that is messed up. It's not really a huge problem,but an Excel issue. IBK exports tables in Excel sheet which doesn't play too well with browsers other than IE.
Just change the encoding to ISO-8859-1 when viewing that table and you'll get the "image" you want.

 

See attachment....

 

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/fire.gif
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/settings.JPG

... and read the FAQ...

I will continue to use Excel for making this tables (its faster and easier); bother Mozilla to fix the "bug"; otherwise get the PDF which also has the table. Do not pretend that I spend hours of work for providing you another table, remember that the service provided is free for the visitors (and only some of the Firefox users get the tables wrongly sometimes; it does not happen to all Firefox users always).

 

sure - but does anyone know exactly how they have their NOD32 setup?

 

the words "best possible settings" appear quite often on the website and the FAQ...

 

a very subjective statement if I ever saw one... and the fact that the front page of the site still mentioned 2.1.3, despite the availability of 2.5.16 on May 12th, leads someone to think that perhaps the very best version of NOD32 wasn't the one being tested. I hope that is just an oversight on the website, rather than an indication that 2.1.3 was actually used in the June 1st tests...

 

All samples,programs and updates are gathered before real test is performed. Thats why some programs are older than they were available few days before the test date.

avast! 4.6 was already available at that point,but as you can see,there is only version 4.5.xxx in test.

 

The programs were last updated the 6th february. The february test started the 6th february. the retrospective test is a retrospective test, which means that even if it was performed starting the 6th may, programs of the 6th february were used. Nothing is wrong. Just read everything and you will better understand.
BTW, if you look e.g. to the overview of added samples (which is always included in the report of february and august) you see the monthly progression made by using the new versions/updates...
Next overview will be in the test report of august, which will be released the 1st september.

 

I understand how the tests are carried out - fine I am not an AV testing expert - I might not think the methods are the best, but like I said, I'm no expert, just a seasoned IT professional, but definitely NOT an av test expert...

On av-comparitves.org - might I suggest making it a little easier for visitors to find the testing methodologies PDF document, I've rarely found sites that make important information such as this so hard to find. Perhaps an FAQ link on the main navigation to the forums FAQ section...

 

I think I will put it again to the attention of the visitors at the end of the year.

At the moment the visitors who read carefully the site are recompensed with the methodology document.

I have to update that document anyway in about 8 weeks.

I do not like that visitors jump directly to the results page without taking some seconds to read the other things on the website first.

 

and those that don't dig and dig and dig end up thinking that the results are bogus, or simply don't understand them - to whose benefit would this be? Yours I think!

I never said results - methodology - make it easier to much easier to route from the front page of the site, to the methodology, to the current result... seems logical to me - but what do I know about web site design ...

 

Under the results table you can read:
"If you have questions about the tests and/or the results, please ask us directly in our forum (www.av-comparatives.org/forum).
Before asking, please read carefully also the test reports and all the other documents on our website."

 

I know what the web site says - my point being that the documents you refer to are incredibly difficult to find - ask a number of people to find them - see how many clicks it takes. Making those things EASIER to find will only benefit your site users, and in turn, benefit you...

hey, I don't care - it's your site - if you don't want to make it easier to use, that's your perogative. Like it really matters to me if visitors find what they need, or just leave after struggling to find anything remotely helpful... take my CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, or don't - it's really no skin of my nose... honestly, we have clients who even hire us and tell us how their sites need to work, down to the very last click. These folks almost always have ZERO web design, UI, ergonomics, systems analysis and web design backgrounds, perhaps they're excellent at their field, but who knows - but they NEARLY ALWAYS know what's best for their websites...

These are invariably the sites that close within 2-3 years, having become a money pit with little or no return on investment .... not that I would put you/your site in that category, but listening with an open mind to ALL sides of a discussion is generally going to garner the best results BEFORE you make up your decision - and I think that goes for just about everything in life, not just web design!

If you even appear to have a closed mind on something like a minor web site enhancement, I see no reason to accept that the tests are carried out with a fair and even hand... think about how it looks to the casual observer... my initial take on the website is that everything about the site screams "my way or the highway" - but that's MY observation. It happens to be an opinion based on 20 years systems analysis and 8 years commercial web development.... like I said - what do I know... ask people about the site usability - NOTHING is perfect, some things are designed difficult to find for a reason - I accept that.. but making the testing methodology that hard to find on a site that's supposed to presenting a fair and balanced opinion just seems a little "odd"... oh well...

 

I accept your comments, but atm I really do not see it to be a big problem that should be fixed today. According to the site stats quite many found the document, and I really do not think that it is that much hard to find - we here think that the site is quite easy to navigate, keep short and user friendly (user friendly if users take their chance to be informed - there is also an own forum there; I do not know other testing sites that are so open to the public and provide that much information and details).
Anyway thanks for the comments.

 

did i miss something? where did you find this out?

 

NOD32 Control Center - Information tab - you'll see the module dates, as to what was updated, that's from inside Eset I'm guessing - I don't think it's from published information - although if it is, a link to where it's available would be great!

 

For those that dont know, The Nullsoft Scriptable Install System is written as NSIS by many AVs.

Question for Rumpstah/Marcos: Does NOD32 also support the new 2.x version of NSIS?

 

AFAIK it is already included or will be included in one of next updates.