Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Rammstein, Nov 11, 2005.
Both are light. Both has http scan... wich one is better?
I'd say NOD32...
Why, eScan is actually very close to Kaspersky? If you say that because of the proactive defence, how often you have met things like that?
More than completely new detections i prefer variant detections. And they apear to be more common than first ones.
Is this the same as with an excellent unpacking engine you can actually detect many of those nasties which are packed differently when many other av:s have to rename those nasties again?
eScan is based on an older KAV engine (4.5). It has nice updates, but every time a new program version is released, you can't automatically update, and you wont recieve an email about it either - you must go to their website and check, and if there is a new version, you must go to their FTP and download the 20MB+ file. Quite tedious for some guys.
It uses the extended bases of KAV, and does do a good job in detection, but, by default, some file types are excluded from scanning in order to speed the scan up.
Also, I've seen entries in the log file which say that certain files are suspicious, but the actual program never reported these
I also saw that the program (eScan) has quite a few small, niggling bugs like the one above.
And if it means anything to you - I switched from eScan to NOD32, and I feel that IMON is more effective and less of a resource hog than eScan's HTTP scanner.
I will however say that KAV is very much better than eScan IMO.
Separate names with a comma.