Norman vs. EZ trust vs. Fprot

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Simon Phoenix, Jun 10, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Simon Phoenix

    Simon Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Posts:
    152
    Which one would you go with? I currently use Norman and it's okay, haven't caught anything yet but I don't know if it's something I can trust. I run a relatively slow pc so I only have a AV running, no AT running beside it and I'm not to worried about trojans.

    How would you rate Norman in terms of quality? It's fairly light but when it updates I gotta restart the PC and I don't like how you configure it since it's doesn't show files scanned in real time.
     
  2. kjempen

    kjempen Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2004
    Posts:
    379
    Norman has an ok heuristics engine from what I've seen, but their signatures/definitions are a bit lacking. It would protect you from viruses in the wild, as it has a good history of Virus Bulletin awards. But I don't think I would trust it too much when it comes to "exotic" worms or that it will protect much from trojans (or spyware/adware).

    I also notice that it very rarely catches anything at jotti's online scanners.

    My personal opinion, I think F-Prot would be a much better choice.
     
  3. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Definately F-Prot seea review at PC Flank. But you should be worried about trojans no matter what you run.
     
  4. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    EZ Trust - Bad heuristics, good detection of Trojans/Spyware
    Norman - Excellent heuristics, bad signature detection
    F-Prot - "OK" heuristics, good detection of Trojans/Spyware
    Command AV - Better heuristics than F-Prot; same engine as F-Prot (hence same detection as F-Prot).
     
  5. Simon Phoenix

    Simon Phoenix Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2005
    Posts:
    152
    How important are heuristics?
     
  6. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    7,927
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Only heuristics can save you when an outbreak of a new malware occurs - After all, it does take AV developers some time to release an update to detect and remove the malware.

    Also, heuristics have found variants of existing malware in many cases, which signatures couldnt detect (unless they released an update after the heuristic detection).
     
  7. The Hammer

    The Hammer Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2005
    Posts:
    5,619
    Location:
    Toronto Canada
    Are you sure they use same engine? I have seen it written elsewhere that Command gets virus definitions only, from F-Prot and Command's resource usage is higher as Command has it's own engine. i'm not arguing as I do not use either one. Just repeating what Ive seen elsewhere.
     
  8. RejZoR

    RejZoR Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    CAV is using F-Prot engine, but it's modified. Also they use their own signatures.
    As far as i can tell CAV has a bit better detection.
     
  9. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,442
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    Yes, Command AV uses it's own engine and FProt too. It has a very simple GUI nothing fancy. Some may not like it for that reason, but imho it is the best AV around for the money. Was a little hard to set up. I do my updates manually after being notified automaticlly. Other then this for me it is set up and forget (if you like that). It has never failed to operate properly. ;)
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.