NOD32 has become heavier

I could not tell you, but maybe Marcos knows something about the new KAV that some others do not yet know...

 

Well, I know for sure that Kaspersky has all the viri info included that they had a few years ago too, plus all the new ones. So no deleting of signatures

 

deleting the signatures was clearly a joke..I don't imagine ESET doing that.

 

Signatures are often dropped for performance reasons, when there is an efficient generic or heuristic detection which covers the threats in question.

So yes, it is entirely possible to drop some signatures.

 

yeah...but the detection remains the same.

 

Just to make it clear - we do not drop out any signatures, even those for old DOS viruses.

 

Even when there is an efficient generic/heuristic detection that covers all/most variants of a particular family of malware?

 

Is it just me or does it seem like it would be more efficient on both ends if the signature writers cooperated with the OS writers to effectively patch the operating system instead of continually loading fixes? I realize this happens to some extent already, but not enough imo.

 

Security companies can not rely on the fact that fixes for the OS will be released immediately. Many corporate companies *need* very fast protection from such threats. Patches can not be released immediately.

Therefore, signature detection is still important to detect a threat while a fix is being developed. Besides, no security company can rely on the fact that everyone has patched their OS to the max.

 

Personally, I would think there is room for some sort of opt-out functionality for certain virii. An example is if you don't use MS Office and you want to forgo on using office macro signatures. That should save up some memory and spare some cpu-cycles. Same goes for DOS/*nix/Mac signatures.

Now that MS has his own line of paid security products/services and patches are only delivered once a month, that is not going to happen. Only on occasion when a threat posses significant danger. I would consider it a bad business call, since you put yourself in a position where you need to invest resources without income and you effectively destroy the whole personal computing security market.

 

They,Microsoft,could even leave a security "flaw" in the OS that only their security products can rectify. With them knowing the codes involved in the OS's thats being protected like no other security vendor, if they really wanted they could make all other products 2nd rate in comparison

 

Yeah, but this won't happen due to the existence of bigger companies like Symantec and McAfee, and this is why NOD32 will survive and thrive for years into the future