nod32 only finds 82% virii in test

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by szerial, Oct 18, 2004.

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

    szerial Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2004
    Posts:
    2
  2. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    For starters, that is a old version of Nod32, the current engine is 2.12.3

    I would also suggest trialing Nod32, and see how you like it...

    Cheers :D
     
  3. Sweetie(*)(*)

    Sweetie(*)(*) Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Posts:
    419
    Location:
    Venus
    Hi, the main difference between Kaspersky and NOD32 is the speed at which they sacn, and also I believe Kaspersky has a bigger database of dangerous applications[spyware].

    As far as the Virus detections rates are concerned they are both about the same.

    Nod32 is alot faster and uses far less system resources, though both are industry leaders in AV software.

    There are many web tests, comparisons etc, done on AV scanners, believe what u will, Nod32 has recieved VB100% awards for a long time now, and Kaspersky is well regarded also.
     
  4. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    I tend to pop back and forth between KAV and NOD32. My older son uses NOD32 exclusively on his gaming machine for performance and due to a minor KAV incompatibility. The important observation though, neither AV has left anything around for the other to flag in my use and switchoffs between then. These are in instances where I am having both flag downloaded malware on a regular basis - generally trojan downloaders - so it's not for lack of opportunity. NOD32 is absolutely first rate.

    If it runs well on your friends PC, then no worries.

    Blue
     
  5. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    To keep it simply, those test are trash. They are performed by a "virus collector" and they are fatally flawed in design. From the virus.gr.site

    "The 76556 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV, Nod32, Dr.Web, Sweep, BitDefender, E-Trust and McAfee antivirus programs. Each virus sample was unique by virus name, meaning that AT LEAST 1 antivirus program detected it as a new virus."

    This means - no mention there was any attempt to check the replicability of the samples. Okie. But the method used can cause a mayhem - just imagine one particular antivirus program has a false positive (means it finds a virus on a file which is not infected). This causes, based on the above statement, inclusion of the file to the test set. Which causes the other programs will not identify the file (as it is clean) and the results are rubbish.

    Another point is the quality of the test set, e.g. Kaspersky is know for including to the databases whatever files which can occur in the test set, even harmles text files dropped by some malware. There is no big suprise they perform in such a tests well.

    Another point: there is zoo malware you have almost no chance to meet in real life and those ItW malware you can get. Try to guess which is more dangerous. And with NOD32 your chance to intercept new previously unknown email born malware is 80 % due to the advanced heuristic.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2004
  6. sard

    sard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Posts:
    175
    Location:
    UK
    Unless you use Kaspersky you're going to have an AV with a second rate detection rate. This particular test may well be flawed but numerous others show KAV to have the best detection rate and incredibly usually in the 99% region.

    I used NOD32 for a year but at one point my system became infected with trojans and no amount of Advanced heuristics could help. In the end a trial version of KAV was needed to clean them out. Whatever system KAV labs use to identify malware I wish other vendors would follow suite.

    Despite this I don’t use KAV because it just slows my system down too much. I guess it depends how critical security is to you. If I was running a business I’d probably use KAV but I just play games and browse the internet so am currently using Dr.Web (which uses less resources and has even less impact on my system than NOD32 did) It will probably let me down at some point though so I’ll just switch to another product, plenty to choose from after all :D

    One thing I loved about NOD32 was the beautifully laid out GUI and the way you could tweak the settings to perfection. I guess it just depends what you're looking for in a product.
     
  7. Sweetie(*)(*)

    Sweetie(*)(*) Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2004
    Posts:
    419
    Location:
    Venus
    That’s A pretty one eyed view you have there, and one that’s not shared by people who know an awful lot more about these things than you!
     
  8. sard

    sard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Posts:
    175
    Location:
    UK
    I'm sure of the many many people who know more about these things than me the majority would agree though.
     
  9. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Now that's a pretty wild statement, based on what facts?

    Cheers :D
     
  10. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    sard,

    I basically agree with the statement, but not the characterization that the detection is second rate. KAV has the highest detections of AV's that I've seen or known. Rebranded AV's that use the KAV engine also generally occupy this same level of detection. Detection from NOD32 is lower, but I'd still term it first rate. Pure liguistic niceties? Maybe.

    However, as a pragmatic matter, I point to the statement I made earlier above - Under actual use conditions, and conditions where detections of active malware is occurring, both KAV and NOD32 flag every live bit of malware encountered, leaving none for the other.

    As you note later in your message, you've decided to trade overwhelming detection capability for resource footprint. In prinicple, you've opened the door a bit, but in my practical experience the likelihood of anything coming through that door is virtually nil.

    Finally, look to the most recent retrospective test at av-comparatives.org. This is a test of ability to handle day zero infections. NOD32 tied with McAfee for first place. I tend to focus on this test since it provides an actual world challange of an AV's heuristic engine using samples that have, in fact, appeared in the wild using "outdated" definitions. Your AV of choice, Dr Web, also performed extremely well in this test, appearing just below NOD32/McAfee. Personally, I don't think you're likely to be switching for some time - Dr Web has an excellent track record.

    Blue
     
  11. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Good post Blue, well said :D

    Cheers :D
     
  12. sard

    sard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2004
    Posts:
    175
    Location:
    UK
    OK :) fair enough I don't have facts, but from people I've spoken to in real life and from forums I've read that's the impression I get. Not very scientific I admit.

    Second rate was a bit harsh, I'll try and be less emotive with my language in future :D
     
  13. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    That's ok Sard, I just prefer facts in such circumstances... ;)

    About 90% of those walking into my shops with a virus have Norton on their system, the next in line after this would be AVG...

    Cheers :D
     
  14. Sisko

    Sisko Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2003
    Posts:
    42
    I am a reader of these forum for more than 1 year and what i see more and more here are personal attacks.
    I am becoming sic of these. Educate others please do not bash them !

    And now some facts :
    Is on demand scan scanning inside self extracting archive like one created with winzip or winrar ? Answer : NOD32=NO, KAV=YES
    Witch is best against trojan : KAV is better that NOD32

    Regarding the speed, It depend what you scan. KAV is slower also because it scan more file than NOD32. Saying that NOD32 is faster without providing a test procedure is just personal impressions and not fact.

    I am not saying that NOD32 is a bad AV. But it has still room for improvement like KAV does.

    Sisko.
     
  15. I feel safe

    I feel safe Guest

    I've been using Nod32 and BOClean for over 2 years,never had a virus or Trojan,for that matter,never had spyware..Both Nod32 and Kav are great protection..But in a AV ,I want it to stop and catch a virus,""Is on demand scan scanning inside self extracting archive like one created with winzip or winrar ? Answer : NOD32=NO, KAV=YES"" This may be correct but when you open the file it is detected right away..I tried Kav,I don't have an hour to have Kav scan my machine,I have NOD32 set up to scan all my files in 12 min..I don't care about test results,they always are different..I also want an AV that doesn't waste it's time on spyware and Trojans,I have protection for that..Kav did slow my machine down,not that it was a big deal,but I could tell by the feel..It doesn't matter what AV you use,as long as your happy with it..I would never use anything but NOD32,it works for me..
     
  16. Randy_Bell

    Randy_Bell Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Posts:
    3,004
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    I think that most infections are due to clueless users and not necessarily the fault of the AV they use. Also, not keeping their AVs updated, some folks get a preinstalled NAV or McAfee and never update it! {Apparently not knowing they need to} .. Just my 2 cents ..
     
  17. nod32_9

    nod32_9 Guest

    Human factor is a big variable. If the free AV works for me and does not slow down my PC, then I see no reason to pay $ for a more "highly rated" product.
     
  18. dvk01

    dvk01 Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Posts:
    3,131
    Location:
    Loughton, Essex. UK
    Please all remember this is the NOD SUPPORT forum not general antivirus

    so if your comments are NOT about NOD please don't make them in this forum and please try to keep this thread on topic and not wander off into what is the best antivirus etc. We have enough of those threads in the other antivirus forum and you are most welcome to discuss the merits & faults of any antivirus there

    The idea of thie forum is for NOD users to get help & support for their product or to ask questions about it

    IT is NOT intended as a general forum to bash any antivirus that can be done in the other forum mentioned if you so wish
     
  19. Randy_Bell

    Randy_Bell Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 24, 2002
    Posts:
    3,004
    Location:
    Santa Clara, CA
    Excuse me, I don't understand this comment? By these standards, this whole thread is off-topic because it began as a comparative discussion of other AVs including NOD32. You should have moved the topic out of this location to begin with, if you don't want any discussion that touches on other AVs.
     
  20. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    Agreed, this thread should have been moved to "Other Anti-viruses", it is not a help or support issue relating to Nod32, it is a general discussion of Nod32 versus Kav.

    Cheers :D
     
  21. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    To me it's a 6 to 1, half dozen the other. The thread starter asked a question.... "Is there any reason to favour nod32 (over kapersky) based on that test ?"

    The discussion of Nod32 vs KAV came from someone other than the thread starter.

    I'm easy....how about Ten forward ?

    :)
     
  22. LowWaterMark

    LowWaterMark Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Posts:
    17,877
    Location:
    New England
    Right, and the subject the starter gave was "nod32 only finds 82% virii in test", which sounds like a support like question to me. Since the thread starter has not been back yet, the conversation has moved in different directions.

    It could stay here or go to "other anti-virus software". Like Bubba, I feel this one is right on the line based upon the thread starters original questions.
     
  23. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    ROFLMAO :D
     
  24. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Let me step up with a mea culpa on this!

    This thread was walking the line, but I did have that Johnny Cash song of a similar name rolling through my head, one thing lead to another, and well, thread and I walked the line together for a while....

    I guess this is one of those grey areas. Grey is a marvelous color you know. All sorts of shades... anyway, excuse me while I spend some time digging my hole deeper, if I go deep enough my escape will be complete.

    Blue
     
  25. Blackspear

    Blackspear Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Posts:
    15,115
    Location:
    Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia
    ROFLMAO, enough plonk for you, or you may want a little more to help with that digging... ;) :D

    :D :cool: :D :cool: :D
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.