Why dont they

I dont know if this is true or not, but are there any antivirus companies out there that use NOD32's engine. I mean we all know that NOD is an excellent AV and virtually second to none but really why dont other vendors or 3rd party software use their engine.

I've heard of companies using Bitdefender, Kaspersky and probably even Avast but not NOD32.

Any reason ?

 

Probably Eset won't license their engine & or defs.

 

Wow they must be very particular about their product, again I wonder if they are afraid about people trying to steal or copy it.

Suppose their product is classed as itself.

 

Let me first say that NOD32 is a great AV with huge upside and there is no disputing its heuristics.But right now, everything is leaning heavily on definitions and frequent updates which though NOD is getting better at, still needs to improve to be on par with say Kaspersky.But i feel Heristics is the direction AV'S need to go.Relying on a signature database as the top line of defense always leaves a window of infection and some AV'S window of infection is much longer than others.I think NOD is on the right path though but definitions and detection through them is still what seems to count which may explain why so many use the Kaspersky engine.Just my thoughts on a possible explaination.

 

I don't know about the OEM industries, but from my experience, because of detection technology *is not everything* when determine the right antivirus solutions for each particular environment. We'd recently evaluated several antivirus software (e.g. NOD32, Kaspersky, BitDefender, McAfee, Panda, Symantec, CA eTrust, AVG, etc.) for our large-complex corporate network and AVG, NOD32, CA eTrust are the finalists but we ended up with CA eTrust, we chose CA eTrust as it is the best solution for us over other verders because of so many reasons (e.g. ease of deployment/management in complex network, price, support, etc.).

We know that CA eTrust has pretty poor overall detection rates (freebies such as AVG Free, AntiVir, avast! home are better than eTrust) but we rely on several layered defences such as Fortinet Antivirus firewall at network perimeter, compay policies, etc. so as eTrust has the pretty poor overall detection rates are not the big problem for us.

 

TAP what a great explanation.

 

Tap;

Yeah eTrust must suck - hard. You wouldn't believe how much traffic I get from core servers within AOL. Sending notes off to abuse has been a huge waste of time so I simply blocked whole ranges of AOL from comming in to the network in general.

AOL;

Keep running those commercials about protecting your clients, will ya'? It gives me a good chuckle whenever I see them.

- beads