Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by the confused, Jul 23, 2005.
I would say, show me where Eugene said that, and some hard evidence would be nice.
Where and when did he do that? Is there an article? A link?
This is how I parse out the issue:
1) KAV's signature database is probably the gold standard for all types of malware. So if I want to hunt for "known" problems, KAV is the one product I would go to first. NOD32's is also quite good, but not as good. But ..
2) It's defenses against "unknown" malware (zero hour) are not very good, based upon the AV-Comparatives - ranging from 78% against backdoors to only about 5% against trojans. So to fill in this hole, I use an online AT (Ewido and/or BOClean), ProcessGuard and RegDefend. (A-squared would be another alternative). In this category NOD32 is much better. However, even in the AV retrospective, it had some serious shortcomings. It heuristics detection, while the "best" among those tested, was still far short of "comfortable" (at least for me). So, even with very good heuristics (not excellent by my standards - excellent would have to be in the 90% range), I would still need to run minimally another AT in real-time as support for NOD32, and probably I would also run ProcessGuard and RegDefend.
3) So basically, my configuration would be about the same whichever product I chose. So the question is, whether NOD32, given my basic configuration, would provide me incrementally more security against zero hour attacks with my configuration (ie. WormGuard, ProcessGuard, RegDefend, Ewido). Given a) the chance of me being attacked by a zero hour is very, very low to begin. b) the rapidity that KAV responds to new types of malware, c) that I have ProcessGuard, WormGuard, and RegDefend running, whatever incremental zero hour security that NOD32 is providing is probably neglible.
4) So, for my configuration, NOD32 probably only would provide a neglible increment in zero hour, and somewhat less in my overall defenses. In all probability everything washes out, but I feel there is slight edge to KAV for its incredible signature database.
BTW, I am fascinated with the new zero-hour capabilities of Online Armour, and I am looking for more information regarding ZoneAlarms new zero hour (behaviorly) capabilities. The behavioral approach, at the end may be a better solution than heuristics.
Hope this helps explain my rationale.
i am israeli guy and i heard that from israeli source and i am not sure if its available in english but i am sure he said that
when he visited in israel
Sure, i believe you........................not.
So it qualifies as heresay and as such should be taken with a grain of salt. By the way I use NOD. But can't believe Kaspersky's developers would say that.
I believe the quote was (I read it in People's Magazine):
KAV can beat the &%$# out of second place NOD32.
Maybe Eugene and Marcos should take it outside. Thems fighin words.
I'd like too see some facts that NOD32 is even second its not.
KAV has plenty of facts that its #1.
why u think that nod even not at 2nd place ?
so who does ?
What proof do you have that NOD32 is "not even second" if not First?
If your PC works fine with Kaspersky, without major problems ever, KAV is absolutely superior against any other av you can met, even McAfee VSE 8.0i, which has the second best overall detecting rate, but there is only that big IF. Also the heuristics with KAV is still very close to NOD, I just can't remember any other than Bitdefender that has the same level as KAV.
In my mind the best VERY light av is DrWeb, at least the same unpacking skills than NOD but lighter against system resources. The heuristics is also very close to KAV and BDF. DrWeb has also the second largest update interval per year just after KAV.
let's ignore for a second from all and focus on the best defense of the AV so who u think is better ?
Kaspersky has the best protection you can get. There is still MANY other things that we have to count in this comparison. How easy is the upgrare procedure, is it automatic? How you can scedule the update process? Can your AV detect adware/spyware nasties? Has your AV the best possible memory scanning capability? Is your AV a light one? etc.
First at all: There is no "best Antivirus" and there will never be "this best Antivirus".
Just imagine the following scenario: You have "the number one" installed and a virus slipped into your system.
In this case EVERY OTHER AV program - even if it's the worst one - would win this game. In this case the worst
AV would have rescued your butt. Makes this the program better than yours? Probably not.
It might miss a lot of other actual threats.
No Antivirus detects 100%. It's all a matter of region, time difference and sample submission system.
Meaning local "outbreaks" are usually faster detected via traps from companies in the closer area.
Example: Network spreading worms which scan "provider range" IP's and replicating via security holes.
Speaking about Heuristics vs. Signatures...
Both is important. However, with Heuristics you can prevent a lot of infections before a virus researcher even
has a sample to create a signature.
Facts: (read this careful, especially the dates/times)
Back in the 90's the famous Form Virus took longer than 3 years to become wide spreaded.
95 the Concept virus took 3 months to be listed in the wild
Around 98 the famous Melissa Virus took 3 days to become wide spreaded.
One year later, in 99, the Loveletter Virus took slightly more then 3 Hours to become wide spreaded.
...right now we're living in 2005 - we're counting already in minits.
With a good working heuristic you can maybe stop the disaster before it happens.
Long before other companies releasing a update - i don't want to paint the devil on the wall, but in
case of a outbreak every second counts!
Heuristic is of course not perfect, but it is more and more a important part of every modern antivirus
solution. Numerous of Mytob worms, spammed trojan downloaders, Spyware and the like proving this.
Nod32 wins here clear the race regarding heuristic detections.
Kaspersky's strength is the update speed - basicly they are VERY OFTEN the first vendor who releases a
signatur update for new malware.
So who wins now the race? Nobody. Maybe the user who picks the program which he likes most.
kaspersky has almost 132,000 viruses in their database....but EWIDO has just over 172,000 threats in their database...and they havent been around for anywhere nearly as long as KAV!
NOD32 have in the last few months been releasing big updates, and their trojan detection has improved ALOT. There are stereotypes like KAV is huge on resources and NOD32 doesnt do well with trojan detection....KAV is now better with resources and NOD32 is now good at trojan detection.
McAfee is rarely mentioned when considering the best AV, and they constantly score high in tests/reviews, but because of their BIG COMPANY name they arent well favoured around here (except by you bigc, and a few others!). But Wilders it like an elite club, and it's 'cool' to favour the unknowns. Walk in to any big company or even any home in england (my home) and ask them about KAV or NOD32 and they wouldnt have a clue what you were talking about. It's either NAV or McAfee, cos that's what's on the shelves at PC World or what's bundled 'free' with their pc (that they bought from PC World).
i hate these AV vs AV threads, but they do appear frequently. they always end up with 2 sides throwing stones at each other, and no conclusions are really reached, its just whoever gets bored the quickest or when a mod steps in and closes it...until the next one...tomorrow.
i drive a ford, my neighbour drives a vw - we could stand outside arguing over the pros and cons all day sunday, but it gets nowhere and we are both happy in out cars, his breaks down, mine breaks down, you accept that, but we both get to wherever we want to go. and we get there safely, if we drive safely.
KAV and NOD32 - both good solutions, both have their pros and cons, both will do the job of protecting your PC, they approach it from different angles and they score differently in the various tests that are doing the rounds (AV comparaties: proactive - nod32 wins, on demand - kav wins), both will affect pc/laptop systems differently, and their GUIs will be liked by different people for different reasons, price will come into the equation, as will customer support, word of mouth, forums, horoscopes, etc.
that'll do for now.
I will agree fully with you happy. I have said it all along there is no best antivirus. They have different strong points. If Kav and nod could be combined you would probably almost have the perfect av. But seeing as how that is not possible you are left with the decision as to which av you want to trust your computer to, and there are several very good choices, So good luck on your choice and surf safe.
I expect that
I'm having the same trouble finding the best antivirus. A lot of web sites are just trying to sell a software program and these programs are too expensive to buy something that does not work well. I am using Zone Alarms antivirus at the moment and people say it's not very good.
One thing to consider is that a case can be made that a comprehensive database that is being updated very quickly offers more protection than a heuristic engine which is not detecting 30% of new, "unknown" malware. Alot depends upon how quickly the signature database, of the heuristics-driven AV, is being updated (KAV, I know, updates several times a day). Slow database updates can make even the best heuristics-driven AV a poor choice. I have no idea what the track record of AVs such as NOD32 and BitDefender in this regard.
As for McAfee, I have seen mixed information regarding how often they update the McAfee home edition. When I was looking at it, it was once a week. I recently read someone complaining it was still once a week, but I also heard that it is more often now. Anyway, that was the primary reason I rejected McAfee, and being on KAV now, there is really no reason to relook my decision.
Sometimes we say that some AV is the best, but I think that the major user will say that with the conscience that didn't exists a perfect AV that protect us against all the threats...
We can say that some AV is better than other, comparing how they works on our systems...
Some works better, are more stable, give us a good configuration for our needs, have a good support, but all also have their own weakness...
On my experience I can say that:
pros - light on resources, excellent configuration, the best on proactive protection because of its heuristics.
cons - the support should be improved.
pros - the best detection rate based on its signature and hourly updates, excellent support.
cons - some instability.
There is no way Eugene Kaspersky ever said that. come on now get real.
it's a useless discussion and the programs cannot be compared.
This thread is....