Nod32 should update more quickly

I am a new user of Nod32.  So I don't know how often Nod updates its virus base or / and its engine.


Today I update it.  Then I test it with trojan package downloaded from astalavista.
http://www.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.com
BTW: My opinion is  top AV such as Nod should be  top AT.

These trojan file are : osirisv2.zip,PESTv1.zip,
Mantice_Client-Server.rar,IntruzzoEng.zip,D4v3'5.ZIP

Nod only detects Mantice
Kaspersky and Drweb detect all
f-prot(for dos): none.

 

NOD32 has an ardent group of followers that tend to be purists, in that they believe an AV should catch Viruses, not trojans.
Of course, there are those that feel differently.
It's a choice thing - as long as you know what you're paying your money for, it's a matter of choosing between the different programs. It does take a little investigation up front.
I payed for it, but I have since gone back to Kaspersky. I also use TDS.

 

Hi,
NOD32 is a real good AV(but only an AV prog)if you want to catch trojans
use TDS or Trojan Hunter
regards

 

I am in total agreement with you, claire.  I would also add BOClean to your list.

 

If you are looking for excellent standalone ITW (in the wild) virus scanner then go with NOD32.

If you are concerned about Zoo Viruses/Trojans/Backdoor then look somewhere else or get yourself Trojan/Backdoor scanner plus good zoo-virus scanner.


Technodrome

 

Although many AV's include some Trojans in their sig defs and KAV has a good rep in regards to Trojans, still many people do not think it best practice to rely solely on AV's for Trojan detection and elimination.  Trojans are sneaky and wily critters and some of think that it's best to augment our AV's with AT's that are dedicated soley to Trojans.    

I use NOD 32 but do not expect it to be a Trojan scanner anymore than any other AV app.  

 

ditto sig and claire.

Surely most people should know that virri, trojans and worms are separate kettles of fish. I mean AV progs may catch some of the worms, and trojans, but their primary function is to catch viruses. Same as AT for trojans, etc.
NOD32 is an EXCELLENT program just for that purpose. virus catching. I also use TDS and Wormguard, to complete the arsenal for defence.

 

Nod32 detects some subseven variants

Had a pleasant surprise a couple of days ago - downloaded a couple of subseven vairants just tosee what happens when TDS-3's exec protect kicks in.

Tried to scan the archive containing subseven bonus trojan with TDS-3, and Amon kicked in - locked the file, having identified "SubSeven.213.Bonus trojan."

It didn't identify what TDS called RAT Subseven2.2b - but that is what I bought TDS for.......

Haven't tested them against TTT yet - but I guess that's for another forum

 

As an avid NAV user, I would like to see NAV improve its detection rate of trojans. NAV came in last place in PC Flank's study: http://www.pcflank.com/art17d.htm. But I think NAV is better than its last-place finish indicates, although NAV didn't do too well in Eric Howes' informal trojan tests either:

Informal Trojan Test #1,
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/trojans/tr-tests.htm
Informal Trojan Test #2,
http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/trojans/tr-tests-2.htm

NAV has a very large virus definitions database, currently detecting 61314 viruses (see attachment).

[year-old attachment deleted by admin]

 

Hi Randy
Glad to see you here

I think you should be highly commended by Symantec-----as an avid NAV supporter and a qualified NAV publicity agent

 

You can not compare these numbers. Every vendor counts the number of malware his software detects differently. Just take as an example:

Kaspersky Anti Virus unpacks around 120 runtime packers. So if you take 120 equal backdoor trojans and 120 runtime packers you get 120 variants of the trojan. KAV just needs one string to detect them. I do not know how many rumtime packers NAV supports but the number should be much less than 120. So let us assume that NAV unpacks 10 runtime packers. To detect all 120 trojans NAV needs additional 110 signatures.

You see now why the total number of detected malware is completly useless to judge of an av software?

wizard

 

Wizard is right! Here is something else to bear in your mind!
If you compare Norton AV with DrWeb32 you might be fooled by virus count. According to their reports, Norton AV knows far more viruses than DrWeb32 (61.314 vs. 30.000 approximately). Why? This is due to how viruses are counted.

Norton AV counts every virus modification, but DrWeb32 counts every virus type.
Code Red or klez is counted at least 5 times in Norton and only once in DrWeb32 bases.


Technodrome