nod32 vs. kaspersky

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by googer, Jun 12, 2006.

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

    googer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    Unnecessary controversy. The argument as to which is "superior" is really moot. They, along with BitDefender, are the best AV out there. Instead of beating yourself up trying to decide which to use, do like I do, buy NOD32 and use free KAV online ActiveX scanner as needed to make absolutely certain your pcs are malware free. Admittedly, KAV has THE best detection rate of any AV, bar none, as it has the biggest database of virus "signatures" of any of the AV vendors and updates every hour on the hour. You can't do it the other way around as NOD32 offers no such free scanner. BitDefender also offers a free ActiveX scanner and has removal capability as well, so if NOD32 did miss a "nastie", you could remove it w/ BitDefender scanner.
     
  2. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    AVK actually beat KAV in the last on-demand comparative test.
    Just thought you'd know ;) So calling it THE best is hardly true.
     
  3. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    That's because AVK is using the engines of both BitDefender AND Kaspersky :rolleyes: :D
     
  4. googer

    googer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    My apologies, Brian N.; I'm behind the times, did not know that any AV scanner beat KAV! However, when your detection rate is 99+%, a fraction of a percent hardly makes a difference IMHO! And if as Raven states, AVK (which I haven't heard of until now), combines BD and KAV engines, then it would surely have THE best detection rate.
     
  5. googer

    googer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    I use ZA Pro fw. It works seamlessly w/ NOD32. For AS, I go w/ Windows Defender, SpyBot, Ad-Aware SE, and Spyware Doctor.
     
  6. aigle

    aigle Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Posts:
    11,047
    Location:
    Saudi Arabia/ Pakistan
    Infact I jsut recently heard of AVk and was surprised to see its detection and I wonder why prople dom,t use it.
    Anybosy using it, how good is AVK in resources, and system slow down? Does it cover spyware/ adaware etc. also?
     
  7. Blackcat

    Blackcat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2002
    Posts:
    4,010
    Location:
    Christchurch, UK
    The old eXtendia AVK Pro (BD + KAV) had appalling support and apparently some users have reported that GDATA's support for non-German users is as bad.

    Further, this AV can be heavy on some machines, particularly the 2006 version where the culprit seems to be the new OutBreakShield.

    So these factors together with a fairly expensive price have put users off this AV.
     
  8. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,634
    Location:
    UK
    AVK uses the Kaspersky engine in addition to BitDefender, and the difference is neglible.

    In the last on-demand test at av-comparatives, BitDefender scored 95.65%, Kaspersky 99.77% and AVK 99.89%. Interestingly, F-Secure scored the same as Kaspersky, and that is also a multi-engined AV.
     
  9. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I have no quarrel with those who recommend using NOD and use the on-line scanners, Kaspersky and Bit Defender.
    However, I have never found the on-line scanners to find anything. I used Bit Defender for over a year, and now KAV 6. I have decided it is a waste of time to run scans with another AV.

    So unless one is realy "hung-up" on using both get the one that runs well on your machine and that you have confidence in. I trialed both NOD 32 and KAV 6. NOD is a superb AV, but in the end I preferred KAV. Others reach a different conclusion.

    The KAV 6 PDM showed great detection rates on AV Comparatives. I prefer to keep malware off my machine than try to find it later. In addition while NOD heuristics were the best on that AVC test, I do not find 58% especially comforting.

    Have a good day. Whichever AV one decides upon will give great protection.

    Jerry
     
  10. Albinoni

    Albinoni Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Posts:
    709
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    To question your post here:

    1. A Q of KAV versus NOD32 detection one is a hard one to answer so really
    how can we say that KAV's detection rate is better than NODs. KAV has
    probably also detected more false positives than NOD32 and finally why is
    it that NOD32 has won more awards in the VB than KAV. Again if KAV has
    the biggest rate of virus signatures, than why did NOD score better in VB.

    2. In terms of updating I've found that BD updates a hell of alot and also
    every hr and this also applies with NOD as well, also updating every hr
    does not necesarrily make it better, as sometimes an update can or could
    cause that signature to end up providing a false positive, unless a new sig.
    is released within the following hr to fix it.

    3. To me all NOD32, KAV and BD are top excellent scanners and again they
    all have their plusses and minuses (goods and bads). I've never used KAV
    so really cant comment, but I do use both NOD and BD Pro 9 and out of
    the two let me say that BD has the far better GUI, in which we all hope
    that this would be improved in NOD32 Ver 3.0. Also I've heard that KAV is
    quite a resource hog, how bad against Norton I dont know.

    4. Personally if I were to use an On Demand it would be Bitdefender Free.

    Just my own thoughts.
     
  11. Albinoni

    Albinoni Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Posts:
    709
    Location:
    Perth, Western Australia
    Also which AV software provides the best Trojan detection, I'm sure this Q has been asked before without a doubt.

    For Trojan detection I use Ewido because personally I reckon it provides better trojan detection than over any AV software and that's what its main purpose is.
     
  12. SDS909

    SDS909 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Posts:
    333
    Given the choice between the two, I would choose Nod32 because it is much lighter and faster. Or at least it was the last time I used it. :p Lite and small is of primary concern to me because my machines are usually used for gaming, and I am absolutely ANAL about anything dragging down my boxes.
     
  13. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    The eXtendia AVK Pro had RAV+KAV, and RAV engine has recieved no updates since a long time. The eXtendia support was shocking to say the least.

    GDATA AVK, on the other hand, is expensive, has no free upgrades, uses BitDefender and Kaspersky engines and does not have very good support for non-German users.

    As for the comparison you are making, NOD32/Kaspersky/BitDefender are all good AVs, use whichever one you like best.

    As far as detection rates go, NOD32 and KAV are almost pretty much on par (OK I'll say KAV is a bit better), but then NOD32 has much better heuristics than KAV at the moment.

    You can't go wrong with KAV, NOD32 or BitDefender. Get any one. ;)
     
  14. googer

    googer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    In reply to Jerry M., the online scanners have not found anything probably because you're happily malware-free! Kaspersky, at least going by what they claim, uses the same scanning engine/virus signature database as the paid version, so I assume it's just as efficacious at detecting malware as the commercial product.
     
  15. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I believe you are correct. My AV has done its job.

    Jerry
     
  16. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    If you have an up-to-date AV scanner, then the chance of online scanners picking up malware on your system is very low. Sure, the online scanners have more up to date databases, but that doesn't really help except in case of an outbreak - but even then updates for the desktop products are released pretty quick. :)
     
  17. googer

    googer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    AMEN SDS909. I chose NOD32 over KAV because on balance, it seemed better: I was willing to sacrifice detection ability for smaller footprint, faster scan, and better heuristics (37 consecutive VB 100% awards bears this out as even one false positive results in a failing grade). This begs the question as albinoni posed that why has KAV not won nearly that many VB awards if it's "better" than NOD32?!? You could say I'm Monkishly OCD about pc security as malware is anathema to me! I have no loyalty to any brand/product and no tolerance for malware penetration. If any "nastie" bypasses the realtime protection of NOD32, I'll ditch it in a heartbeat for KAV, then BitDefender, and finally this new AVK as I have in the past going through NAV, McAfee, and Trend when they let me down (not to mention they're CPU-devouring beasts!). Thus far NOD32 and ZA Pro haven't let me down!
     
  18. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Just set KAV 2006 to update every five minutes. No way the online scanner could be more up to date. :)
     
  19. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    Simple, a minor number of false positives and a couple of other issues. If you go to the VB archive, KAV has 33 100% ratings and 13 failures, with the last fail occurring in the June 2003 test (false positive). The last failure is 3 years old now and I wouldn't focus obsessively on those older test outcomes. Anyone can dig through the summary test results and note that even for "failed" test results, KAV's detection statistics are impeccable.

    Blue
     
  20. HandsOff

    HandsOff Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2003
    Posts:
    1,946
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    I really don't know about these tests, just a few thoughts:


    - If false positives are not subtracted from the percent found, then obviously an A/V with a lot of false positives is actually at an advantage.

    - I've read how some tests are performed and I guess to establish a baseline they actually install Windows fresh, and update it to fully patched, and pretty much that is how the machine being tested is configured. Now, NOD32 uses very little resources, this is a fact. While on a powerful computer running nothing but windows, the only difference may be that NOD32 takes about half of the time to perform scans.

    Take a computer loaded with programs like mine, that at times have nearly all my resources (when I look I see 950 out of 1000 mb of page file is in use at times) then compare. What do you think is going to happen to relative scan times as the usage goes up? Will one work and the other shut down? We'll probably never know, because it's Easy to test the first way, and Hard to test the other way.

    I used to think AV's were better than they are. the 99+ % is pure fantasy. In these tests they do everything but put a flashing attachment to a virus that says "I'M A VIRUS" The real world just doesn't do that. It's a hard world, and I would hedge my bets by using other types of protection, because they are selling 99%, but I'm not buying it. I've seen far too many infected machines. I've also seen many instances where an online scan does detect something...several things...And if you see a third A/V pick something up (as I'm sure some of you have) what kind of odds are we looking at in order for these detection claims to be true? I think the real world detection rate is more than low enough to justify back up scanning once in a while with a different A/V. None are as good as they would have you believe.


    -HandsOff
     
  21. googer

    googer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    That's why I say Handsoff that you can have it all: buy NOD32 and take advantage of KAV and BitDefender's free scanners. I too am cynical and don't trust one AV to catch it all.
     
  22. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,221
    I am a fan of both NOD and KAV. I do find that NOD no longer has the smaller footprint, if mem usage is the criterion, or a faster scan. KAV 6 scans my system in less that 10 minutes, and sometimes less than 6. That of course is scanning without scanning files that are not new or changed.

    Memory usage of KAV 6 is about half of NOD. The last time I checked KAV usage was 11,757k and NOD 22,216k both with one browser open. I am not sure if that is of any significance.

    Not trying to convince anyone, but just want to report on what I find on my own system. KAV has made some tremendous strides in version 6. I also realize some will not have the same experience, so I can just report mine.

    Jerry
     
  23. tobacco

    tobacco Frequent Poster

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Posts:
    1,497
    Location:
    British Columbia
    JerryM

    Completely agree with you.Even the web scanning slowness which was a major complaint, has been fixed.It's a great product.And choosing NOD32 over the others because Eset doesn't offer online scanning, should not be a deciding factor.Which ever one you like, use it.Period!.
     
  24. googer

    googer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    Jerry M., sounds like KAV 6 has made great strides! If it now has a smaller footprint and faster scan than NOD32 (I do like the fact it skips files that haven't changed so successive scans are faster), I think I'll switch to KAV when my NOD32 license runs out and just use BitDefender scanner as backup.
     
  25. googer

    googer Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Posts:
    11
    It occurs to me that the "free" scanners of Kaspersky and BitDefender are slickly disguised marketing tools: it would pay for them to flag things as it would compel user to buy them to remove the malware. I would rather have them not flag anything than flag a bunch of false positives unscrupulously to get you to buy their product. That's why I think the free scanners are legit. and just as effective as the commercial versions.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.