Trying to Choose Between KAV6 and NOD32

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by J-Mac, Aug 26, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Brian, as usual you (on purpose i guess) read things that i never said or meant to say, please read it again 3 or 4 times, you may actually see that.
     
  2. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Okey dokey.

    FYI, you don't actually have to buy the suite, you can just buy the AV and if you by "tends to intrude more than I would like" mean the proactive defense then you should know that during the install you can select or deselect any module you do not like to use, this goes for both the AV and the whole suite.:)
     
  3. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,174
    Location:
    Denmark
    What? I'm just saying that the whole "Kaspersky detects all" thing is untrue.. Very untrue.
    I'm not sure how you can consider my response directly aimed at you.
    I'm just posting the facts, get over it and stop blaming me for my posts.
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2006
  4. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Since i was the only who even mentioned the detection and used the the frase "As for the usual "Nod is lighter" fanfare" and you just happened to use this frase to (with another meaning of course), it would seem very fair to assume you just couldn't resist, despite the fact nor i, nor anyone claimed it detects everything, what i did say was "You won't get better detection than Kaspersky anyway" which is true and that probably irked you as usual.
     
  5. Brian N

    Brian N Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Posts:
    2,174
    Location:
    Denmark
    Actually AVK beats Kaspersky when it comes to detection, but I guess you already knew that...

    But the "fanfare" thing, I actually just typed it.
    It wasn't aimed at your post at all, sorry if you think it was intended that way.
     
  6. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    No, i don't take it personal at all, it would take a lot more to rattle me, so don't worry about that.:)

    AVK doesn't have a better detection than Kaspersky, it has a better (slightly) on-demand scanner detection because of the twin engines and the BD heuristics, but not if we talk executing malware, you're forgetting the proactive defense with which i have already send several files to the lab to be included in the bases.

    Btw. AVK won't have the BD engine much longer, they are switching to Avast, but i guess you already knew that..... ;)
     
  7. ASpace

    ASpace Guest

    Thanks a lot . I am flattered :D :D :thumb:
     
  8. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    But AVK uses a two-engined approach, one of which is Kaspersky, but I don't think it's worth comparing to a single-engined AV. It's best to compare two single-engined AVs side by side. ;)
     
  9. gkweb

    gkweb Expert Firewall Tester

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

    I just want to add my opinion. Often I see people telling others that one particular AV is bad, because it missed a viruse/trojan/spyware etc...

    Lastly I ran accross an infected computer, I was able to detect and remove the malware manually, and to check it on virustotal. NONE of the AV was detecting it, not even NOD32 and KAV. That could be called a 0-day virus (I've sent the sample to all AV companies).
    So as far as detection rate goes, even 99.999% means you can be infected, keep this fact in mind, you are not invincible no matter your AV :)

    As for the performance issue, too many times I see comparisons between RAM and CPU, but an AV is more than that. An AV installs drivers, which intercept and read files accesses, and while an AV may be "light" in the task manager, it can still slowdown your system dramatically. The best in this case is to try it, RAM usage means really nothing about the AV performances.
    If you have ever compiled a program in C++, you would have noticed that a program optimized for "speed" uses often more RAM and is bigger.
    Personally I benchmark an AV performance impact by checking the boot time,
    the responsiveness of the system while browing files on the HDD or websites on the Internet, and the time apps need to load.

    About KAV and NOD32, I like them both very much. KAV6 is lighter than previous KAV versions, but my system is still a bit slower than with NOD32, with equal options. That makes sense since KAV handles more unpackers than NOD32. However, this performance impact is not that bad on my system which is powerfull enought (AMD 64 3800+ and 2GB of RAM), and I have no problems with that (just don't tell KAV is lighter than NOD...).
    KAV has a self-defense against termination, that NOD32 has not (you can kill it with the task manager). With NOD32 you need additional security softwares to protect it (e.g AppDefend), that is not the best option for "common clueless users" who are not geeks.
    KAV6's GUI is more user-friendly than NOD32 for sure, that is subjective thought. Finally, NOD32 has one of the best heuristic out there.

    I put NOD32 and KAV6 at the same position, both first. They have different strong points, but nearly the same effectivness at the end. I cannot really tell which one I prefer, I have a licence for both.

    Regards,
    gkweb.
     
  10. blazr63

    blazr63 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Posts:
    58
    Location:
    Danvers, MA
    I just switched from NOD32 to KAV6, after a year of using it. Over the weekend I noticed some odd behavior where IE was saving all visited pages automatically as favorites. Also my browser security settings were tampered with so I figured I had a virus. A full "in depth" scan with NOD32 showed no infections. The Ewido online scan only showed some cookies.

    Then I tried the Kaspersky online scan which found a trojan in my System Volume Information folder. Although it couldn't clean it, I was able to manually delete the offending file. That's all I needed. NOD32 lost credibility with me. It may be light on system resources but that's apparently the trade off. I'm now running KAV6 and feeling a lot safer, despite a slight performance hit.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Above was my post from 2 days ago. I've since switched back to NOD32. Kaspersky slowed down my older laptop probably worse than any virus could. It also took 5 hours to scan my drive and actually made me reboot sometimes after updating defs. I was willing to live with this but the program is also buggy.

    After rebuilding my system from scratch (True Image screwed me freezing my system everytime on restore) I plugged my MP3 player into a USB port. Since this was now a new device, XP asigned a drive letter and required a reboot. After restarting, KAV took a very long time to load and none of it's services were active. Another reboot yielded the same result. After uninstalling and reinstalling it then loaded fine on startup, however, it would popup an alert that a full system scan was never performed. After another 5 hour scan I had it auto shutdown windows. The next morning when I turned on my laptop, it again prompted me that that a full system scan was never performed. NOD32 never gave me any of these problems! I configured KAV to not load at startup and then installed NOD32. I might still use KAV as a manual scanner if I'm really in trouble sometime, but that's all.
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2006
  11. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    dont get me wrong but av's cant detect 100percent of viruses or malware its simply impossible unless say like four antivirus company came together which wouldnt happern.

    lodore
     
  12. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Great balanced post, Guillaume.:thumb:
     
  13. Eldar

    Eldar Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Posts:
    2,126
    Location:
    Vilvoorde (Belgium)
    I couldn't agree more. :D
     
  14. J-Mac

    J-Mac Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Posts:
    99
    OK, OK - I said I was gone, but I stopped back (though I stopped getting email notification of posts?).

    Don, I just have KAV6 - no suite. And yes, you can choose not to install the Proactive Defense" at the initial installation. Of course, you won't know that you don't like it until after you install it! :eek: IMO, if they sell a product touted as a stand-alone AV, they should not include a firewall-like application within it, though they do not call Proactive Defense a firewall. However I can't think of any other way to describe it.

    I have to keep it turned off manually, though occasionally a sizable update turned it back on for some reason.
     
  15. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    The PDM is not a firewall, it's a behavior blocker, much like heuristics in fact designed to detect malware not in the bases, i must admit i don't understand why an extra option that you can deselect during install and turn off after if you do not like it, should be a step in the wrong direction, you have the option to use or not use, seem s to me to be better than no choice at all.:)
     
  16. J-Mac

    J-Mac Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2006
    Posts:
    99
    Maybe not a firewall by definition, but it acts in the same manner as a firewall. Eg- If an installed program tries to access the Internet, my firewall blocks it and asks me to allow or deny the contact. Then KAV's PDM does the same. Or if I install a new program, or an update to an installed program, and it tries to insert an entry in the startup configuration, my firewall asks me to allow or deny it. Then PDM does the same.

    I say it looks, smells, feels, amd tastes like a duck, so... You know the rest.

    Very true. However when I first encountered the PDM I didn't know what it was right away. But as soon as I disabled it KAV made sure to throw up flags and tell me at every opportunity that I was not protected - with several exclamation points. So until I knew that I was absolutely not also disabling another more important feature of the AV, I naturally left it on.

    I still don't know for sure that disabling PDM does not in any way weaken the AV itself. Kaspersky will not speak on the matter.
     
  17. BlueZannetti

    BlueZannetti Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Posts:
    6,590
    But you do realize that you can customize the modules installed at any time, yes? You are not bound by choices at the initial install.

    Simply start the uninstall process (either from the All Programs offering under KAV or via Add/Remove Programs) and select Modify when the choices (Remove, Repair, Modify) are offered. It is very straightforward and quite flexible. Actually, with PDM, I feel this is really the preferred way to go if you wish to disable it.

    Blue
     
  18. dah145

    dah145 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2006
    Posts:
    262
    Location:
    n/a
    I know that the PDM of KAV is not for beginners, anyway you can just not install it, but if you accomplish to understand the module you would obtain a very good layer of protection on your PC. ;)
     
  19. Don Pelotas

    Don Pelotas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2004
    Posts:
    2,257
    Yes, i know the rest, but in this case it is definitely not so, your FW has some behavior dection capabilities (some), but you're still comparing two very different things, your FW could not detect a large number of trojans not in the signature bases for example, comparing two different programs just because they both throw popups for you to make a decision about is not "I say it looks, smells, feels, amd tastes like a duck, so...!, sorry it just ain't.
    You're not weakening the AV at all, but you won't have the extra proactive detection capabilities, but in your case i can certainly see that is not appreciated, so just do what Blue suggested:
    Then you won't be bothered by popups aboiut whats going on in your system anymore.:)
     
  20. rdsu

    rdsu Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2003
    Posts:
    4,537
    KAV have the best current detection rate with signature, but NOD32 now also have an excellent one, so I prefer NOD32 because it runs more fast light on every area than KAV, and have less incompatibilities...
     
  21. merkavam4

    merkavam4 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Posts:
    22
    NOD32 has incompatibilities, at least from my experience- it slows down your browsing through folders in your PC, through browsing through pictures, and even when you copy/paste from the web to your PC. it even makes a lag when you right-click with the mouse- it just check EVERY little thing your PC does- really unbearable!!!
     
  22. JerryM

    JerryM Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2003
    Posts:
    4,306
    It is enjoyable to investigate, get opinions, and review all reports available. BUT when it gets down to where the "rubber meets the road," the only way to determine which suits you best is to trial them on your machine with your own way of operating.

    I trialed both KAV6 and NOD32 (I know I have said that before) and would be happy with either. However, I slightly preferred KAV6 so that is what I have, plus F-Secure on the other machine. I have not regretted my decision.

    Some things bother a person, and if something about an AV does that, then ditch it and find one that suits better.

    If I were choosing one now, I would wait until the first of September and examine AV Comparatives. Some might have made significant improvements that would change one's mind. I doubt that the top ones will change. I have never seen a reason to accept lower detection rates when the better ones run well on my system. All do not agree with my reasoning.

    I used one of the generally accepted 3 best AVs for well over a year and then ran into compatibility problems, and removed it. So there is no way to tell except to use it awhile.

    Best,
    Jerry
     
  23. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    atm i have crossed kasperksy 6.0 off my list because of the bugs but i know bitdefender is having its fair share of bugs right now so meh.

    all the av's in my sig i would use. kaspersky is mostly good thou
     
  24. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    My issue is, and I have bought both is my locked files should be scanned, period. I dont care who does it but it isnt a full system scan if the majority of my files are skipped. I feel also Looknstop is remakrable alot like Nod at setting up. Is this going to be their future firewall, which isnt bad. But I wont to know facts, not salesmanship on any product for review. The new Bit stinks, I own it to, FPs are abundant, Kis 6 is ridiculous at wading through the setup. Nod has the advantage at creating a suite, but locked files will not cut it.
     
  25. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    if the files are locked how are they ment to scan them lol
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.