nod32 v3.x& up vs nod32 v2.7

Discussion in 'ESET NOD32 Antivirus' started by ultragunnerdcl, Nov 16, 2007.

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

    ultragunnerdcl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Posts:
    103
    Location:
    Philippines
    Is nod32 v3..x &up is really superior to nod32 v2.7. What are the major improvements aside from cosmetic changes.??
     
  2. poutine

    poutine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    371
    Location:
    England or Quebec
    No it isnt and none.
     
  3. enduser999

    enduser999 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Posts:
    418
    Location:
    The Peg
    Well I tried v3 and it stayed on my computer for a couple of hours. The product would no allow the laptop to bootup without locking up the computer tight. Thankly someone in the forum gave me the steps to disable V3 via safe mode and regain control of my laptop. Have reverted back to 2.7.
     
  4. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Have you contacted ESET about your problem , enduser999 ?

    Log files from LookInMyPC and Autoruns might help them find and fix the problem . It sounds like incompatibility issue
     
  5. The_Duality

    The_Duality Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Posts:
    276
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    The new GUI is all very nice, but I have reverted to 2.7 as well, until some of the bugs are sorted out.
     
  6. pcguy

    pcguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2004
    Posts:
    3
    Isn't LookInMyPC in version 3 only? If so and I have to reinstall version 3 then it will be hit and miss if the laptop reboots properly after v3 install.
     
  7. Klaus_1250

    Klaus_1250 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Posts:
    45
    I quickly tried 3.x, but I was wholly disappointed...

    1) I couldn't find a single feature that justifies the bump from 2.7 to 3.0
    2) UI looks "nice" at first. Until I got to the advanced configuration. The options are cluttered, have names are too long, some options exists in places they can't (boot sector scanning in the web access moduleo_O), is not consistent (Antivirus, Anti-Stealth, but antispyware and why is it even called "Antivirus and anitispyware", Antivirus says it all), has scrollbars, requires more clicks/mouse traveling than 2.x and generally seems unfinished.
    3) Still doesn't properly scan mail protcols. It only talks about POP3 and port 110, but what about SMTP (25 and 587) or IMAP (143) and what STARTTLS or SSL secured connections (465, 993, 995)?
    4) No plug-ins for Thunderbird/Opera/etc. This 2007 and almost 2008. Not everyone uses Outlook/Outlook Express or Windows Mail.
    5) Breaks adblocking/traffic shaping/firewalls. All http/mail connections are routed through ekrn.exe, so you can no longer use an applications name to setup rules and access policies.
    6) Hogs cpu-power. Starting a download though Firefox causes a spike in cpu-usuage (40-60%) and delays the download. WinSCP and explorer completely stall for several seconds when scrolling down a directory.
    7) Bugs from 2.7 are not fixed. Scanning the computer with no cards in the memory reader still causes:
    Code:
    MBR sector of the 2. physical disk - error opening [4]
    
    Registry hives still cause
    Code:
    C:\WINDOWS\system32\config\software - error opening [4]
    
    (which is rather akward, doesn't NOD32 scan the registryo_O)

    All in all, I'm utterly disappointed in 3.x. They only thing I can imagine is that the vast bulk of development time went to better detection methods and that everything else was rushed to finish in time.
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2007
  8. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    No . LookInMyPC is 3rd party non-ESET application . Works on any computer (setup)
     
  9. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Hi !

    Just a few comments :thumb:

    It isn't necessary to scan outgoing email because nothing malicious can be sent if the real time file system protection (eAMON) is enabled .

    Why will the connection be encrypted , hidden if any software can see the data . Aren't humans using encryption to save/hide the actual traffic ?


    Opera is protected because it uses HTTP traffic . Moreover it can be marked as web browser.


    Sometimes happens on my computer , too but doesn't happen on many others . Never mind , this will be improved
     
  10. Klaus_1250

    Klaus_1250 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2006
    Posts:
    45
    Thanx for the quick rely!

    In most circumstances, yes. But a well hidden rootkit/malware application could, as well as malware which runs entirely from memory and doesn't touch the file-system.

    I use encryption on all my email-connections. Part of my connection goes over WiFi (WPA2, but you never know) and I generally don't like the idea that my mail travels unencrypted over the net (and almost nobody I know uses GnuPG/PGP/etc). NOD32 won't be able to scan incoming mail because of this, as it is lacking an plugin for Thunderbird.

    Opera isn't just a webbrowser. It also has an email-client built in, as well as FTP, IRC and BitTorrent.

    I hope, but I'm still rather surprised to see this behavior. And for me it isn't just FF, also WinSCP and Explorer.exe (and I haven't tested every application I use). IMHO, it would mean NOD32 wasn't properly beta-tested.
     
  11. poutine

    poutine Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    371
    Location:
    England or Quebec
    I dont think they bothered testing it at all, they missed bugs so big and obvious if it wasnt so serious it'd be ****** hilarious. ;)
     
  12. ultragunnerdcl

    ultragunnerdcl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2007
    Posts:
    103
    Location:
    Philippines
    Actually I just upgraded to version 3.0.566.0 & I am very pleased with it. It killed an adware when I did a full scan at max settings something 2.7 never or rarely dies. It even scans faster than 2.7 Pls let us stop bashing Eset latest version 3 & appreciate it, I think they are trying their best to improve it.:cool:. Upgrades are much faster, even works well with online armor & utorrent & a-squared anti mallware!, no conflicts, All you have to is add these products to its exclusion list. I am quite happy with it & would never go back to 2.7 ever again.
     
    Last edited: Nov 19, 2007
  13. BerserkerPup

    BerserkerPup Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2003
    Posts:
    61
    Location:
    New Jersey USA
    Well, what you may view as bashing are valid complaints to those who are having problems with the new version. If those of us who have had problems with 3.0 keep quiet about them, how will they ever get fixed? We don't want to see a fine product lose its functionality just for the sake of cosmetic changes. By reading about the experiences of others with 3.0 I've found the explanation for certain odd things that happened with my computer when I was running it - additional effects that I didn't realize would be connected to my AV program.

    By saying we're going back to 2.7 isn't bashing NOD32, because obviously we are satisfied with the operation of that version and are still keeping the software on our computers. I for one don't want to give up on NOD32, so I'm prepared to wait until the problems people are having are heard and corrected before I try the new version again. ;)
     
  14. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    I know but all these are covered by the real time file system protection . The purpose of any web-protection is to prevent the execusion of drive by threat (e.g. vulnerability,exploit) and not to scan anything before it gets to the hard drive , there is really no sense in this.
     
  15. qwer1304

    qwer1304 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2005
    Posts:
    16
    Same thing here - ekrn.exe suddenly consumes 100% of CPU.

    Configuration: Win32 XP Pro w/ latest patches.
    NOD32 BE v3.0.566.0 latest virus DB

    Restarting or killing the process helps for a while.

    ZA firewall or no firewall at all have no effect.

    Disabling NOD32 doesn't lower the CPU.

    Examining the handles with PE doesn't reveal anything special.

    Bummer :( :thumbd:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.