nod32 VS kaspersky

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by the confused, Jul 23, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. the confused

    the confused Guest

    i realy would like to know which of them is the best AV
    ignoring GUI and comfortable of menu and using of resources and to focus on performance and efficient

    so who is better ?
     
  2. beetlejuice69

    beetlejuice69 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    780
    Depends on who answers. A KAV user will say KAV and a NOD user will say NOD. I`ll say NOD. :)
     
  3. Capp

    Capp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,125
    Location:
    United States
    This will be the beginning of a long debate.

    I've noticed that anytime a thread starts with "Which is the best", it usually causes arguments. :)


    Here we go....I'm a NOD user so I say NOD32 :p
     
  4. i am looking for a professional explanation and not one like this
    plz some one can give me a pro answer ?
     
  5. Capp

    Capp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,125
    Location:
    United States
    Sorry, I didn't answer your question.

    The answer to your question is going to be your personal preference. Both Kav and NOD are very good at what they do. They both detect more malware than others.

    NOD uses less resources and scans faster.
    KAV uses more resources and detects more through its definitions.

    The only way you are going to have a real answer is to try it and see what works best for you.
     
  6. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    I'll just quote myself :D
    And yet another:
     
  7. it's me

    it's me Guest


    i really interested about this sentence :"KAV uses more resources and detects more through its definitions"

    u mean that kav's detection is better then nod?
     
  8. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
    With signatures yes but it will also add more false/positives.
    When it come to heuristics, NOD is still king in that area :)
     
  9. I AM

    I AM Guest

    so we're talking about signatures vs heuristics ?

    if yes so who takes in that case ?
     
  10. Capp

    Capp Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Posts:
    2,125
    Location:
    United States
    When dealing with Heuristics, NOD32 wins hands-down. I personally think being able to detect malware with heuristics is far more important than just relying on definition files.

    Which is why it is my #1 choice and the reason I am a reseller.
     
  11. beetlejuice69

    beetlejuice69 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2005
    Posts:
    780
    Yup, that`s what sold me on NOD too.
     
  12. ME again

    ME again Guest

    can u base your things with solid proof ?
     
  13. fosius

    fosius Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2004
    Posts:
    479
    Location:
    Partizanske, Slovakia
    In my opinion, nowadays is more important to have a good heuristic engine because malware is spreading very quickly. I prefer very good zero-hour detection.. that's why I am using NOD32.
     
  14. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,148
    Location:
    Denmark
  15. TopperID

    TopperID Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2004
    Posts:
    1,527
    Location:
    London
    Yes but what 'others'.

    Independent tests repeatedly show that KAV has better overall detection rates than ALL others.

    While NOD32 is often only better than SOME others!
     
  16. Bubba

    Bubba Updates Team

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2002
    Posts:
    11,271
    Please understand the dynamics of Wilders. We Welcome any and all questions such as yours....some of the answers you will except....some you might not for what ever reason.

    In the end....Please do not insult our Members or other Guest posters with such comments :ninja:
     
  17. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    No, he can't. Not that Heuristics aren't important though. :)
     
  18. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    A good suggestion, and please read what is explicitly said at the bottom.

    Also have a look at the on-demand test, which will give you a better understanding of the overall detection. :)
     
  19. sinbad370

    sinbad370 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2005
    Posts:
    68
    Location:
    Georgia
    I agree with the above statement: although I hear that KAV has made progress on its resource usage.
     
  20. Oleg

    Oleg Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2005
    Posts:
    404
    Location:
    USA
    Kaspersky for me for it's databse and great protection and Kaspersky Is light on your system If you have powerhouse CPU (1G or more) and more than 256mb of RAM :)
     
  21. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Kaspersky certainly did use to have higher resource use (Kav 4.0/4.5), but in it's present version, it's actually to be considered light. Memorywise it starts of using a lot of memory (25mb or thereabout) & then settles using as low as 7-15mb.

    This is of course dependant the hard/software combination, different systems, different numbers whatever the AV brand. :)
     
  22. mvdu

    mvdu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2003
    Posts:
    1,151
    Location:
    PA
    Heuristics are nice to have, but they aren't perfected enough for me to choose NOD over KAV.. I personally, though, use NOD for backup to my KAV.
     
  23. octogen

    octogen Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2002
    Posts:
    212
    Both are fantastic in their own rights. Yes, Kaspersky generally does better in more independant tests as far detection is concerend but NOD's heuristics are hard to beat. For one, it comes down to personal philosophy. I've heard very good arguments supporting the prime importance of heuristics and very good arguments for signatures. You'll have to decide based on reading arguments made by knowledgeable people such as those who post here, and at Broadband Reports, etc. It also depends on which runs better on your system. That is why the reputable ones offer a trial version or some sort of money back guarantee. Having said that, whenever you try an AV make sure that it uninstalls well (doesn't leave hard to remove remnants). Both NOD and KAV uninstall well based on my experience, but I always use a registry cleaner (the last free jv16 in my case) after each uninstall.
     
  24. gkweb

    gkweb Expert Firewall Tester

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2003
    Posts:
    1,932
    Location:
    FRANCE, Rouen (76)
    Hello,

    this debate interests me also a lot, this is exactly that I am wondering actually : what does is more important, a good heuristic, or a good signature based detection rate ?

    About the heuristic, no doubt that it is the ideal for "0 day viruses", the ones that just come up from the "evil labs" and are just unleashed on the Internet, the ones that are in no AV database of any AV. You have no other way to detect them than to use heuristic.

    On the other side, a strong signature based detection, is the ideal to cover any existing and known (or less known) viruses, and to cover you to nearly whatever you do or go, whichever targets you (viruses, trojans, spywares, etc...). With a strong signature database, you are safe from nearly all known threats (in addition, unknown threats are known more and more quickly by AV experts).

    So in one side, with a good heuristic, you can catch unknown viruses but be infected with known ones... and in the other side, with strong signature database, you can be "nearly" immune to everything known, but be easily infected by a new "fresh" unknown virus/worm.

    At this point, both detection methods are as important as the other, it all depends on your needs and habbits, and it's clear that an AV being a king in both area would be the best AV ever...

    I have always been on the "it's better to have a good heuristic" side, but this debate makes we wonder if it's always true. Take one unknown _packed_ virus, I mean a virus encrypted by a custom packer, or by a powerfull one such as Armadillo, what can do an heuristic detection against this ? Nothing.
    If the AV cannot read the code in "plain text", it cannot detect anything.
    At this point, there is no more advantages to have a good heuristic, since both signature and heuristic cannot detect a new threat, and so, mainly signatures would matter...

    I say "would" because this is not so simple, in the reality not all virus writters are packing their malware with custom packers, so heuristic detection is still very effective and important, but I just wanted to share my opinion about this subject, and to see the opinion from other people :)

    Note that I am not an AV expert, so my arguments wasn't may be truly right.

    Regards,
    gkweb.
     
  25. me again

    me again Guest

    what do u have to say about that the creator of KAV admitted that his AV is just second place before nod32 ?
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.