Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Aeres och' Ddraig, Feb 5, 2004.
Just by curiousity, I wonder... how NOD32 stands against bitdefender?
It's so obvious and easy:
Eset's NOD32: http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?eset.xml
Softwin's Bitdefender http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?bitdefender.xml
That in itself doesn't shed much light at all. They both passed the June, 2003 test on WinXP. BitDefender has failed other tests, but... why? Because of one false positive? KAV failed June, 2003, but I don't think that means that KAV is less effective than NOD32.
Pausing to agree with Nameless.
It's my estimation that the VB100 is the most respected test around here, but I haven't seen any concrete explanation on how to compare the track records of two AV's in the way mrtwolman suggests. If Bitdefender passed the last three VB100 tests, and has been evolving (adding signatures & improving its engine, like many AV's), then how much do the older tests matter?
Just wondering. I use both, and (though I'm fairly new to Bitdefender) I'm a fan of both.
Anyway, I subscribe to the notion that "best" is subjective.
The solution for your request is very simple: just read back issues of Virus Bulletin on http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/
It is so easy
What? June 2003 had a WinXP Pro comparative review, August 2003 had a Netware 6.0 comparative review, November 2003 had a Win2003 Server comparative review, and February 2004 had a WinNT 4.0 comparative review. None of the months in between had a comparative review at all, and most of us probably only care about the first one, the June 2003 WinXP Pro comparative review involving BitDefender v7. (Or would you have us go several years into the past?)
To be more blunt: BitDefender has obtained the VB100 award for every single comparative test from June 2003 on. This means that BitDefender v7 has passed every test, and that all the failures before that were with a prior version of BitDefender.
So what was your point? I'm absolutely serious here, because going by just the VB100 award, BitDefender v7 is doing just fine--as well as NOD32 v2.0 in fact.
Let's do it the hard way
XP June 2003 Comparative
ItW Overall 100% is equal to 100%
ItW Overall on access 100% 100%
ItW File 100% 100%
Macro 100% but more than 99,59%
Standart 100% 97,93%
Poly 100% 95,11%
Novell 6.0 August Comparative
ItW Overall 100% no product submitted
ItW Overall on access 100%
ItW File 100%
Windows NT 4.0 Comparative February 2004
ItW Overall 100% is equal to 100%
ItW Overall on access 100% 100%
ItW File 100% 100%
Macro 100% but still more than 99,69%
Standart 100% 97,79%
Poly 100% 97,51%
Above clearly proves, that NOD detected some viruses Bitdefender did not. And more over, Bit Defender did not passed in all test because it was not submitted in at least one test in the respective period (but passed in tests to which was submitted).
This means in Virus Bulletin tests NOD performs generally better than Bitdefender. There are some viruses Bitdefented did not catch and NOD did.
I rest my case.
Fan of both....
I rest my case too
OK, but where is that information available on the virusbtn.com site? Don't you need a subscription to have that info? If so, why the sarcasm?
When I go to http://www.virusbtn.com/magazine/archives/200306/ , I get almost nothing but a tiny bit of static text representing the contents of that issue. Hard to read a back issue that way. If there is something "so easy" about it, I'm missing it.
This kind of discussion is somewhat pointless, particularly when some of who take part are blindly entrenched in one camp or the other.
Simply comparing statistics - even the VirusBulletin ones - about one or other month's results does not, IMO, deliver particularly relevant conclusions. ANY valid comparison must be according to defined evaluation criteria: if the evaluation criteria are not relevant to the decision to be made, or are of a lower priority than other criteria, then any comparisons made will be of little or no benefit.
Now, the original question which started this thread gave no criteria whatsoever, so a reasonable answer is quite impossible to give. Indeed, it serves only to encourage those who have a point to prove to throw up statistics in support of an undefined (and often biased) standpoint. Of course, statistics can be produced or interpreted in order to prove *any* point.
This is a NOD32 forum, so responders to the question will naturally lean to the defence of NOD32. Maybe the question will be better addressed in another forum (but even then, expect entrenched and biased opinions).
All that said, even the VirusBulletin statistics need to be qualified: they report detection rates of ITW viruses at the time the tests were performed. I guarantee that, if the tests were performed within hours following the outbreak of a new virus (such as the recent MyDoom/Novarg virus), most if not all of the A/Vs under test would fail (and the quality of their heuristics severely examined).
I for one am interested in the real-life protection A/Vs give. In this respect NOD32 scored well in my comparative reviews at the time of purchase, due to Eset's regularity of database updates, and the speed with which they respond with new signatures. I can't comment on BitDefender.
Other criteria may be of importance also, such as resource usage, performance impact, usability, time of detection (e.g., are zip files scanned?), appropriateness of response to detection, and indeed - coverage (e.g., general database coverage of ITW viruses, trojans and other malware). NOD32 fares well in some respects, but poorly in others.
So, again ... define clearly what your evaluation criteria are if you want a sensible and informed answer to a comparative question!
Well said Steve.
I use BitDefender and I use NOD. I used Bitdefender since it's AVP to AVX to Vexira (vexira is still around looks like an remaked bitdefender with crappier updates) to Bitdefender days.
Bitdefender has regular daily updates (sometimes twice or three times a day). It's a good AV at what it does. The version 7 really made a difference and now they are at v7.2. It is a bit of a bloat with the script wall, registry and firewall (not soo good as a wall but good for beginners). But if you shut all the extra plugins off and leave just the realtime scanner then it's quite lite on resources. It's detection rate so far is as good as Nod32 and sometimes better when it comes to trojans.
But overall none of them are the best. They are sufficient to keep you protected and relatively safe.
Anyone who just blindly defends one product over another needs to reconsider since well you are not at their payroll (unless you are) and being objective is just a nice benefit of being human. But I guess all the blind defense comes from our nature (sport fans, political followers, Religious followers etc). (Have you read the book on statistics, I think it's title was 300% of nothing).
Best case scenario is test both of them out, both of them offer a free trial and see which one is better for you. Check their resource impact and an ease of use. Then if you do decided you can always purchase Nod32 and use it as a realtime scanner while you can download the Bitdefender FREE and use it as a On-Demand scanner and schedule a weekly scan of your system. That way whatever Nod doesn't catch Bit will etc.
I've never tried any version but BD 7.2 and I was pretty impressed with it. I'm not a professional tester so I can't say that it's better or worse than NOD32 but I'd say I like it enough to include it in my top four personal favorites (NOD32, Symantec Corp 8.1, Kaspersky, BD7.2). The difference between the Pro version and the standard version is the inclusion of a firewall. In my opinion the firewall functionality is garbage. Probably good for someone who only wants to answer yes or no but I like a little more control than that. The standard version worked good for me paired with Outpost Pro.
I have no agenda and no bias. I took the original post as an inquiry into the current major version level of each AV utility, in terms of how well they do against the current most-prevalent malware. I offered no response on my own, because I don't know of any truly helpful and truly current tests to refer to.
What we got, as far as I can easily tell, is the repeated posting of links that showed nothing but the fact that both products passed the VB100 test quite a few months ago, and the incorrect implication that we could dig up all the wonderful and relevant details ourselves. Who cares?
The only thing that the June, 2003 comparative shows is how each product did in June, 2003. It is no longer June, 2003, so is there a further point to be made where that's concerned? No.
I rest my case.
Hi nameless: my post was certainly not aimed at you: your view on the statistics quoted is very realistic, I believe, and I have not assumed in any way that you have an agenda.
There are others my post was addressing in general, but not one person in particular. This "NOD32 has a better VirusBulletin track record than any other A/V" response which is thrown at anyone who asks (and plenty who don't) has become tiresome, and in most cases exposes a misunderstanding (or at least a dangerously blinkered view) on behalf of the writer about the real value, if any, of the tests. There are many factors in choosing an A/V product - well, any product of course - and these have to be established by the purchaser him/herself.
And do you have such detailed virus bulletin testing for Kapersky anti virus as well?
Aeres och' Ddraig,
Here is the overview of Kaspersky's performance on VB100 tests:
One needs a subscription to Virus Bulletin to read the details of their testing, and of the eight people who took the time to offer comments on your original question, it appears that only mrtwolman has such access and can provide details, if he's inclined to do so.
However, with all due respect, I'd like to suggest two things if I may:
(1) Please at least acknowledge that you read the thoughful and thought provoking replies to your original question. There was a lot of constructive debate, and even some discussion of the flaws of your original question. Your follow-up question does not suggest that you took the time to consider the comments that others took their time to provide.
(2) Please consider asking questions about Kaspersky in the "other anti-virus software" forum. I would guess the Moderators will split off this thread if the subject changes to the pros and cons of Kaspersky.
With all due respect to Aeres och' Ddraig, the Mods, & other members,
Sure I read all the post and I found them very constructive. I'm a NOD32 subscriber, I have paid for the version I have, and even if I was interested by bitdefender, what I read tends to prove NOD32 is even better.
I really thank all the fellow which answer my original question.
Accord to kapersky AV, it is in this post in NOD32 forum for the same reason I talked about bitdefender... I would like to compare both. Not for virusbulletin awards, I know both are good AV, but for the percent of success in each category, like mrtwolman gave us.
Oh I wonder, as we need a subscription to read this, is it really allowed to post them on another forum?
Thanks for all...
I've tried Bitdefender before for quite a long spell on one of my laptops.
In my mind its actually a pretty good product, some fine features and the whole program flows freely without much performance impact.
Thumbs up from me.
And Aeres och' Ddraig it seems we have a mutual interest in Bittorrent
Why do you talk about bittorrent?
Do none of you ever get the feeling that certain products are engineered to perform well(100%) in the VB tests,or am I being cynical,depending how much the vendor uses the results in their advertising!!
If the VB100 test truly uses ITW samples, as they say, then all AV products should be engineered to perform well in that test! Then the question becomes: How much further do you go? Should you create a CPU-killing "kitchen sink" AV utility, or a CPU-liberating "prevalent threat" AV utility?
I see their advertising works!!!
I don't think you're being cynical.
IMO, all AV's should be able to ID the ITW threats for one reason: They are the threats that 99% of the computer-using populace are likely to see in day-to-day surfing/computer use.
The fact that VB concentrates their awards based on ITW testing is incidental. In addition, what you almost never hear in the strident "arguments" against VB's tests is the fact that VB also tests against non-ITW malware. Not ALL malware--8 Tunes and other "nasties" might not be in there to be sure--but a pretty good chunk of stuff.
I agree with nameless--all AV's should be engineered to cope with ITW stuff, because it's by far the most immediate threat to Joe User's PC. Arguments are welcome, but that's fact.
Also, look up other AV's that use the VB100% in their ads. Trend Micro, Alwil, AVG, Kaspersky...I can go on. Virus Bulletin awards are coveted by virtually every AV developer--for one reason: Because it's a mark that means their product is doing what it was designed to do.
Yeah, I'm a gullible idiot, that's it. What are you questioning--the validity of the ITW list, or whether the VB100 tests adhere to the ITW list at all? You have to be questioning one or the other, or both.
Separate names with a comma.