NOD32 vs Dr. Web once and for all

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by n8chavez, Jan 14, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,304
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I have licences for both Dr Web and NOD32, as the title suggests. I know there have been previous threads about these two products in the past which seemes to "dance" around the reall issues. In my opinion Dr Web and NOD32 are the best AV's in the market today, excluding KAV because of the insane resource erquirements of 4.x. I have heard that Dr Web is better for trojans and that NOD32 is better for ITW virii. Is this still the case. Something that does concern me is Dr Web doesn't have as good a record in terms of VB 100 awards. Since this award seems to be the bible, something of which everyone looks at, it concerns me. NOD32's record is evident and unquestionable...Dr Web's is lacking but is that because of false positives or because it failed to recognize something?

    As far as resources are concerned both use very little resources. Having used both products I can say there is very little effect on sysyem resources at all. The only question then, for me, would be which product offers the best overall protection. Both products scan incoming email, include both on demand scanning and on access scanning. Dr Web's hueristics are very strong, which is good and alsso a bad thing in term's of FPs.
    One thing I do like about Dr Web is that it scans everything being transfered via the internet. At least I think this is the case. It uses it's dwhook.dll to scan compressed archieves being downloaded. This is something I'm not sure if NOD32 can do out of the box. Also, Dr Web has everything in seperate parts of the product (scheduler, email scans, etc), NOD has everything withing one icon on the taskbar...the control centre.

    Both products are very good. I have licences for both and I am looking for the one I should use. I understand that the best defense is a layered defense but I do not want to use a AT because of it's impact on system resources. I want help deciding which one to go with. Any help would be appreciated.
     
  2. swisscoms

    swisscoms Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    96
    Location:
    Sion, VS. Switzerland
    I have to say that the whole time I have been a member of Wilders Forum, no one has ever "danced" around any questions or answers. Quite the opposite, as the answers can be a little too blunt.
    I am going to let the cat out amongst the pigeons and say that I use MCAfee Enterprise v.7.0.1 with the new scanning engine released last week.

    http://www.nai.com/us/downloads/updates/engine.asp

    Fast and very accurate for my needs here. I find NOD32 and Dr.Web fine, but they lack the unpacking feautures I require INMHO. ;)
     
  3. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,304
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    Perhaps I should have used a different choice of words. What I meant was that a lot of people seem to have given their opions on these products. But not very many have pointed to test orr anything for that matter to back up what they are saying.
     
  4. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    I use mcafee also. I started useing the new engine as beta and even then it worked well. And as far as trojans go mcafee is about as good as there is.It always test's out as good as kav and kav is good at trojans.The test at rokop I saw puts kav and mcafee quite a bit ahead of the competition. ;) Here is a screen shot of the graph at rokop

    [move]Mcafee[/move]

    http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=632
     

    Attached Files:

  5. VikingStorm

    VikingStorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    387
    Woah, I didn't even know they updated the engine. :D (the weekly superdat is still supplied with the old one)
     
  6. bellgamin

    bellgamin Very Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2002
    Posts:
    5,648
    Location:
    Hawaii
    DrWeb is "as good" -- across a wider spectrum of malware than NOD, I think.

    As for DRW's strong heuristics -- the *Doc* is a Rottweiler. Okay, so he bites one of the neighbors every so often. Such is life. :cool:

    In a word: "I like DrWeb."

    {Ooops, that was 3 words. Sorry}
     
  7. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,304
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    I am currently using Dr Web...I just wondering if there was a reason I should switch to NOD. There are so things about NOD I like such as the detailed and easy to use logs.
     
  8. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,873
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    The new mcafee engine is 4320
     

    Attached Files:

  9. sir_carew

    sir_carew Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2003
    Posts:
    884
    Location:
    Santiago, Chile
    Hi,
    Yes both NOD and Dr.Web are good av products.
    I think that heuristic of NOD is better than dr.web, it detect more trojans and worms proactively, I probe this.
     
  10. Firefighter

    Firefighter Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2002
    Posts:
    1,670
    Location:
    Finland
    To everyone from Firefighter!

    DrWeb was tested by an independent av-tester against heuristics and it won that test with F-secure (thank's to Orion and F-Prot) where were plenty of av-programs within.

    http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/index.htm

    NOD has not been tested by any independent av-tester as I know against heuristics so it is only a guess that it is better than DrWeb in this case.

    "The truth is out there, but it hurts!"

    Best regards,
    Firefighter!
     
  11. sig

    sig Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    716
    Settle on the one you prefer using or feel most comfortable with. Safe computing practices on the user's part are the best "front end" for any AV. I don't care for AV's with a propensity toward false positives myself, but perhaps others don't mind figuring out when the AV is correct or incorrect in its results.

    In regards to AT's being heavy on resources, I can only say that BOClean is not and has been successfully used on old PC's running W98 where resources are a concern. (Used in conjunction with an AV of course.) Doesn't have a free trial but a 30 day money back guarantee with no questions asked and the guarantee is honored.
     
  12. Trevor Marsh

    Trevor Marsh Guest

    If you want solid AV & AT support, and your machine can take the "hit" go with NAV. Otherwise go with Dr Web. Despite it's recent incarnation NOD is not good at AT or unknown AV. Yes I am a NOD user on my primary machine but NOD's lack of download scanning within nested archives, same goes with nested archive e-mail attachments, makes it an experienced users AV rather than a "fire and forget" AV/AT solution.
     
  13. VikingStorm

    VikingStorm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2003
    Posts:
    387
    Not sure about NAV's AT as solid, might have been a fluke, but I've had to disinfect atleast 3 NAV protected systems from trojans.
     
  14. Trevor Marsh

    Trevor Marsh Guest

    Sorry folks, NAV in mt pevious post was a typo. It should read KAV.
     
  15. swisscoms

    swisscoms Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2002
    Posts:
    96
    Location:
    Sion, VS. Switzerland
    Many thanks for the excellent bar graphs from Roktop bigc73542! I find the new McAfee engine to raise the performance bar once more. ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.