WOW have you guys read the PCMAG review of nod32?

Discussion in 'NOD32 version 2 Forum' started by tempnexus, May 13, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,475
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    This isn't a matter of defending - as stated before, personally I applaud every test, as long as it's plain and clear for all to see the conditions, test bed, etc. This is not the case here - on the contrary.

    No offense intended - but that's not the issue here. Issue is this particular test.

    A Magazine is just that: A Magazine - no more, no less. It's common knowledge commercial issues do count in order to survive. The crux here is: who did they hire to perform the test, did they even bother to check results, why is there not test bed/conditions/OS etc. published? IMHO, it's up to the Magazine as well as the payed tester to reveal those essential info. It's plain for all to see this isn't the case at all.

    regards.

    paul
     
  2. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    131,214
    Location:
    Texas
    It is amazing the power of the media in any circumstance.
    Tests mean nothing in the real world and that goes for VB.
    I feel just fine with Nod on my system. It is, as are all software programs, a work in progress.
    Has everyone that uses Nod suddenly become infected? I doubt it.
    Check some of the other forums for other AV programs and see the problems they are having.
    Thanks Eset and Paul Wilders for making this forum available for us to discuss problems.
     
  3. dom424

    dom424 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2002
    Posts:
    41
    Location:
    Enid, OK.
    _________________

    I second that.
     
  4. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    Where are the others? Where's the review for KAV? Or F-Secure? or EZArmour? etc.? Why are any of you paying any attention to this when KAV was left out? KAV is generally considered one of the top, if not the number one AV, so to leave it out is ludicrous. I only found one page for the chart...was there a second one with more AVs tested?

    As for Andreas? I thought he was working for Eset? He left? I guess I missed that...:D

    As for PC-Cillin being the best...ha! I had PC-Cillin 2003. Yes, PC-Cillin has a great GUI..considerably better than NOD's IMO (it is very similar to NAV's and NAV'S is the best I have ever seen) and they have free phone support which is great (PC World couldn't even get that straight in their article though) but their email support is horrible. Main problem with PC-Cillin is there is a major bug in TMPROXY.exe in both version 2003 and 2004. I was one of the first to report the bug to their engineers and I spent several hours discussing the bug with one senior engineer and was shocked to later learn that they did not correct it in 2004 version as they promised they would. This bug crippled my ability to use the internet. Anyhow, I sure wouldn't rate them number one but would have to put them near the bottom of the list because of that bug.

    As Paul says you have to take most of these tests with a large grain of salt. Is this another Cnet/ZDnet thing? :(
     
  5. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    The test was performed by AV.test org :) Maybe this answers your question :cool:
     
  6. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    I am pretty sure ESET will comment this test and take some position....
     
  7. Igi Caliente

    Igi Caliente Guest

    This anwers all questions in a nut-shell. If any test is made by Andreas Marx, it is guaranteed to be very poorly made. He is infamously reputed for poor testing, across the world.

    I have not seen his new test, but I am already knowing it is poor quality, without reading it, because never in all his life he has made a good quality test. You can not find one test, anywhere, from Andreas Marx, without some flaws. Such a test does not exist, except in his own mind, and the minds of those people he fools with smoke and mirrors.

    Archives show, for more than one year, Andreas Marx has made sure of NOD32 to fail every of his tests, in some respect. It is revenge, to be expected from such a small person, because NOD32 experts exposed his poor testing publicly. I await for them to expose him again, because I am sure his new test will be no better quality than his previous ones.

    Ignacio Caliente, B.Sc.,
    Computer Security Consultant,
    Managua, Nicaragua.
     
  8. Igi Caliente

    Igi Caliente Guest

    I must add, I am not in any way related with NOD32. It is one of several of my anti-virus programs in use. My comment is not so much to support NOD32, but to shine the light on the poor quality of the tests of Andreas Marx.

    IC
     
  9. spm

    spm Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2002
    Posts:
    437
    Location:
    U.K.
    It really is very sad to see the vultures circling again. Why is it so unpalatable to some of the people here that NOD32 is criticised? Objectivity is a mark of intelligence, but this quality (objectivity) is sadly lacking in some people here, it appears.

    When you guys sling mud at people or the specific tests they conduct, without providing any substance whatsoever (which is what has been done by some already in this thread), it is seen by most people for what it is: simply a transparent and crude attempt to discredit, because you don't like what is being said.

    NOD32 is a good A/V, but it has faults, some of which are serious. It's advanced heuristics are also not the cure-all some people purport them to be. In real-life situations, they perform much less well than some would care to admit in controlled lab conditions.

    There is a real world out there - try living in it.

    PS: I doubt very much Eset will get involved here - to get embroiled in a mud-slinging match with the press will result solely in damage to their own business.
     
  10. Dazed_and_Confused

    Dazed_and_Confused Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Posts:
    1,831
    Location:
    USA
    Wow. I know there were a lot of Eset supporters on this forum, but this is rediculous. I don't know the man (Andreas Marx), but I really fail to see the evidence here that this test is flawed.

    As I posted above, the differences between PC-Cillin and NOD32 were not that great. My real-life experience has been that NOD32 was near the top, if not the best. And as a matter of fact, if you look just at the numbers, I would have thought that NOD32 would have got the "nod". Yes, maybe they didn't give all the fine print regarding how the tests were conducted. Maybe it's a issue of page space. As Paul likes to point out, magazine space is money (more on this later). This fact, in addition to the time involved, is also probably the reason for limiting the scope of the test.

    But they did say why the others did not get top billing. And the reason NOD32 was not selected was the CTX virus. I've not heard anyone denying this fact. Does NOD32 detect/clean this or not?? OK, maybe other virii would have disabled PC-Cillin, but you can't select every virus-in-the-wild for a test. In this case, maybe it was just NOD32's bad luck this that CTX was on the list.

    Now back to the money issue, I really hate to attack a persons integrity and question his motivation without having hard facts. My experience has been that PC World is a fine magazine. I give them the benefit of the doubt that they selected one who would be impartial. Again, if they wanted to give deference to the big spenders, wouldn't they given high praise to McAffee and Norton? As for Mr. Marx, maybe Paul has private evidence to the contrary, but I have no reason not to trust him here. Especially considering the fact that he is placing his reputation on the line. And folks, again look at the data. There isn't much spread between the top contenders. In the couple of months I've been around here, Mr. Wilders has earned my respect as well, and I believe that he says what he really believes. However, at the risk of wearing out my welcome, let's remember that web sites also need money to survive, and this forum is a host for Eset product support. One who doesn't know Paul like me who is looking in from the outside could make the same claim of Paul's true motivations that he made of PC World's.

    Again, I do believe NOD32 is a very good AV. But in this case, can't we just say they lost a fair race to PC-Cillin by the skin of their teeth? Just more reason for a fine company like Eset to continue to strive for improvement.
     
  11. mrtwolman

    mrtwolman Eset Staff Account

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Posts:
    613
    As you told the problem is all about losing fair race. Based on the past epxeriences with the way AV-test.org deals with NOD32, I have serious doubt over the race being fair. Maybe I am wrong with my initial assumption but nevertheless I would like to hear the Eset's voice here...
    Time to release (or summono_O?) the Rodzilla.... :D
     
  12. Mele20

    Mele20 Former Poster

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2002
    Posts:
    2,495
    Location:
    Hilo, Hawaii
    DaZed and Confused,

    You need to grow up a bit as you are revealing considerable naivete. Do some research. This sort of thing has happened repeatedly to NOD32. I assume you are also defending the infamous Cnet/ZDnet testing? And the scam at DSLReports last year? If you don't know what I am referring to then I suggest you go to NOD32 Australia site and do some serious reading. Also go to DSLreports and search for NOD32 threads between September 2002 and December 2003 in the Security forum. As for Andreas...well...see there again if you don't even know who this is...wow! Please educate yourself before you go go off like you do. You make yourself look ignorant and I'm sure that is not your intent. :)

    And yes, WHERE IS RODZILLA?!
     
  13. Detox

    Detox Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    8,507
    Location:
    Texas, USA
    Then, you have clearly not paid attention to many things happening around this forum for past couple months - such as Paul refusing to ask for donations though many members were telling him they thought it would be a good idea; followed by his reluctance to even accept donations. he makes every effort to ensure anyone who wants to donate donates it to someone else. Anyway, let's not get OT - I just wanted to be sure that was clear.
     
  14. sig

    sig Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    716
    Paul does not receive any money for hosting vendor support forums here as has been mentioned before at this site and elsewhere when that canard is raised. Given the traffic that results from these forums it actually costs Paul money to provide this service for users. (As Detox pointed out Paul does not encourage people to provide donations to this site; in fact he discouraged people from donating to this site and encouraged donations to the freeware developers like javacool, for example.)

    The vendors forums are not a source of income for this site. The Wilders web site ranked NOD32 highly long before there was an ESET forum here. I'd also been familiar with Paul's posts at other venues long before this forum existed. Over time it seems to me that Paul has been fairly consistent in his views, without any financial motivation or reward as far as I can see.

    As for Andreas Marx's tests, I recall the last time there was a thread and the methodology and results came into question. At one point, as I recall, Andreas seemed to complain that people here were just focusing on the detection methodology and weren't appreciating the portions of the review/test that covered other factors like ease of use, GUI, etc. I went, "huh?" In a test that purports to determine which AV's are most effective, of course that would be the paramount issue in an AV forum....how good/reliable is the test? It appears that there were indeed issues regarding the testing methodology for that particular test/review although full public clarification apparently has not yet been made.

    As for the CTX virus, here are some write ups and decide for yourself:

    http://www.ravantivirus.com/virus/showvirus.php?v=17
    http://www.command.co.uk/html/virus/cholera.html
    http://www.viruslibrary.com/virusinfo/Win32.CTX.htm
    http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/simbios.shtml
    http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.ctx.and.w32.cholera.html
    http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/w32.dengue.html
    http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_10347.htm
    http://www.viruslist.com/eng/viruslist.html?id=3162
    http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/w32ctxa.html
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2004
  15. mht

    mht Guest

    I just wanna say my opinion as a user: I don't like NOD32, I used it in the past but became really concerned when reading on this forum it's only an antivirus and so it doesn't necessarily detect trojans. All other AV's say they cand detect trojans. I mean, what if I get infected with a trojan-virus, "NOD is not an antitrojan that's why it missed it". I don't trust such a program. Plus it never scaned all the files in the sysytem, that's why it's so quick.

    But the PCMag test sucks too. Norton has "outstanding detection"?! Give me a break, it missed viruses on my system that even AVG free could catch. And I agree Kaspersky is one of the best, why didn't they include it there? So NOD32 sucks but PCMag tests suck too.
     
  16. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,475
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Ladies and gents,

    Back after days work - and this thread has evolved and seems to be alive and kicking ;)

    First of all: thanks for the personal support - it's appreciated. I do wonder as of why my person has become an issue in the first place, but so be it.

    Allow me to summarize my personal stand on this once more:

    a) As a rule, tests should come with needed specifics: test bed used, insight how the test has been performed, O/S used, and so on and so on. This has not been the case regarding this particular test.

    b) I for one couldn't care less which software would end on top - provided all specifics mentioned above would be revealed and thus open for all to see and comment on. In case NOD32 wouldn't score top notch after all needed info had been revealed and found trusthworthy as well as reliable: that's the name of the game - period.

    c) As registered member over here, Mr. Marx (who obviously performed the test) is more then welcome to join in and comment and reveal the needed info as mentioned under a), as he has done before. In my book, that's a fair game. It's up to Mr. Marx wether or not to do so - or refrain from any comment. IMHO silence far from golden in this particular case.

    d) Money and integrity. It's common knowlegde - and not restricted to this particular magazine - advertisements can and are bought and payed for; no better way then doing so in tests. I for one am not accusing any magazine here. It's merely a matter of funding and marketing. Same goes for car magazines - you name them. Nothing unusual - just the way it fairly often works.

    Overall, I for one do agree all security software companies should do their upmost to improve - for the customers sake as well as their own. No question about that.

    Finally: I for one do not expect Eset joining in this thread - and rightly so. No offense intended - but this is just one more published test, no more and no less. Many of these are published frequently in all sorts of magazines etc. Rod(zilla) may comment if he pleases; he can't speak up for Eset though, being a (highly respected!) Australian reseller.

    P.S.: Dazed, you are not wearing out your welcome - you're welcome as ever ;).

    regards.

    paul
     
  17. Dazed_and_Confused

    Dazed_and_Confused Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Posts:
    1,831
    Location:
    USA
    Detox, Hi.

    From one Texan to another, I think you, and maybe others, missed my point. I'm wasn't accusing Paul of lending support for Eset for money. As I stated, I know Paul wouldn't do that just from reading posts the last couple of months. What I said is that someone who doesn't know Paul might not be aware of the situation you alluded to above. And an accusation by someone like that would be wrong, unfounded, and uninformed. So, unless one has proof that PC Magazine's opinions are paid for in what are supposed to be objective tests, the I suggest one refrain from insulting them as well.
     
  18. Dazed_and_Confused

    Dazed_and_Confused Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Posts:
    1,831
    Location:
    USA
    I admit, I am naive. But I am doing research by reading posts on this site!

    And the last few posts have finally produced some facts / references as to why the PC World test could be considered flawed. The first few posts "appeard" to be uninformed PC World bashing.
     
  19. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,475
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Well, I'm not Detox or Texan :) But since you are addressing my person: please read my comment on this above.

    supposed as well as objective are key words here - and Mr. Marx can fill in the gaps if he pleases :)

    I for one am not insulting anyone for the record; I just want some common test standards (as mentioned before) respected. Seems not that much to ask :)

    regards.

    paul
     
  20. bigc73542

    bigc73542 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Posts:
    23,932
    Location:
    SW. Oklahoma
    Seems like a very reasonable thing to ask for IMO.

    bigc
     
  21. Dazed_and_Confused

    Dazed_and_Confused Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Posts:
    1,831
    Location:
    USA
    Paul,

    I agree with you here. However, I'm not too sure the average reader (unlike the highly intellectual folks lurking nearby) are interested in reading the fine print. They usually want the Readers Digest version - just want the conclusions with general supporting comments. And that is basically what is in the article, although the conclusions may be inaccurate as many have argued. As I stated much earlier on, it sounds as if you have evidence the author is typically unscientific in his approach. That's fine. However, without proof, I disagree that editors at PC World are biased. Marx?? maybe.
     
  22. norky

    norky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    172
    Location:
    Lithia, FL
    i don't see why pcworld or pcmag would be biased. i don't see a mcafee, trend micro or symantec ad in their latest issues. i do, however, see an ad for nod32 in both. as a matter of fact, the only other av ad i saw was in pc mag for ca which wasn't even reviewed in either test.
     
  23. sig

    sig Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    716
    As for the test and article itself, one thing that I find striking is not so much what zoo viruses NOD reportedly misses (CTX, for example, at least according to some of the AV writeups, exists only in collections and hasn't been released in the wild; NOD's trojan detection has been improving but it's not KAV or McAfee) but that NOD supposedly came up with 31 false positives on clean files?

    That seems rather high, since in real world use as far as I know I haven't seen comments or complaints about a high rate of false positives for NOD. One would think that the sheer randomness of various experiences would have resulted in a reputation for false positives if the test results were at all illustrative of performance in daily use. (As with Dr. Web for example, known for its heuristics and false positives that could be problematic for newbies.) Also, is the AV reporting a file as potentially suspicious considered the same as a false positve in this test? If the info is there then I've just missed it with my cursory reading. I find that the most notable result so far which no one has mentioned.

    Another item I found curious is this from pg. 4 of the mag's article: "The antivirus scanners in our roundup succeeded only in detecting new members of known malware families. They did not catch any of the truly new viruses--a finding confirmed by AV-Test's separate outbreak response survey of 22 antivirus companies." The first sentence seems somewhat surprising given real world experience (reported by users, not just claimed by the vendor) in which NOD has been known to detect some completely new email viruses/worms (not just variants of known malware) with IMON's heuristics prior to a signature being released.

    The second sentence confuses me for this reason: how can AV-Test's outbreak response survey "confirm" these results for all the AV's included in the PCWorld article when the AV-Test surveys (that I've seen at least) do not include NOD? (As noted in an earlier thread here, for example:
    https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=31183)

    And of course I concur that the omission of KAV while including NOD (perhaps even less of a "household name" than KAV) is interesting. Did it not meet the mag's criteria of detecting all "ITW" viruses or did they just choose not to feature it in the article?* And the mag's choice for "best buy" dosen't appear to be based on dectection performance, even within the perameters of their own testing. According to the mag, PC-cillin is not as good at detection as McAfee or NAV, but that's the one to buy to protect your PC. Hmn.

    * "Each product met our minimum requirement of catching all "in the wild" malware. Such viruses have been sighted by at least two members of the WildList Organization, a cooperative effort of antivirus researchers and member companies worldwide. Though approximately 100,000 viruses exist, only about 250 are considered in-the-wild threats at any given time."
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2004
  24. norky

    norky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    172
    Location:
    Lithia, FL
    i think that by "best buy" they mean exactly that. with the pc-cillin you get av, anti spam and a firewall for $39.95.
     
  25. sig

    sig Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    716
    Yes, I understand that's what the mag means. I just question the real value of the "best buy" when the test the mag cites indicates the recommended product is less efficacious at its job than its competitors. The really "best buy" perhaps would be one of the better free AV's along with a free firewall and a free antispam app. ;)
     
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.