Uninstalled Mcafee and installed NOD32

[BoundToEarth]

lucky you, I can't even afford any pay for antiviruses. :cry: I have $0 money.

[McLaren_F1]

just for the sake of comparison:

On-demand detection of virus/malware (TOTALS):

Norton Anti-Virus : 379.562 -->  98,31%

NOD32 Anti-Virus:  368.746 --> 95,50%

KAV Personal:    384.743 --> 99,65%

Source: Anti-Virus Comparative February 2005

Homepage of the tester: AV-Comparatives

I just think that it's important to look at some numbers when choosing which way you wanna go. You can check the numbers for more antivirus in the page.

Just my opinion  ;)

585927567[/snapback]

u cant alwyas trust those ;)

[kirk]

u cant alwyas trust those ;)

585928630[/snapback]

Agreed, but it's a start...to see results of what we're really getting from an organization which is not affiliated with antivirus companies and has the time to infect a system with hundreds of viruses to test. You can't trust in the developers, who will always say their product is the best. ;)

[ShaneSparky_YYZ]

Personally I love NOD32 and use and tell everyone to use it.

Why? Well its fast, uses little resources and works well.

Configuring it seems hard but it isn't really.

[imation2458]

Personally I love NOD32 and use and tell everyone to use it.

Why?  Well its fast, uses little resources and works well.

Configuring it seems hard but it isn't really.

585931487[/snapback]

I second that! For anyone that wants more info on NOD32, check out the following PDF file.. It really impresses me reading that.

http://www.nod32.com/flyer.pdf

[imation2458]

Also, another thing.. I hear a lot about Kaspersky being so great.. "Best detection around"... I don't believe this to be the case.. I have seen no evidenece to back up all those claims.. just look at Virus Bulletin results of NOD32 & Kaspersky:

Taken from: http://www.virusbtn.com

Virus testing...

NOD32- Result summary: 31 passes / 3 fails

Kaspersky- Result summary: 26 passes / 13 fails

[Miran]

just for the sake of comparison:

On-demand detection of virus/malware (TOTALS):

Norton Anti-Virus : 379.562 -->  98,31%

NOD32 Anti-Virus:  368.746 --> 95,50%

KAV Personal:    384.743 --> 99,65%

Source: Anti-Virus Comparative February 2005

Homepage of the tester: AV-Comparatives

I just think that it's important to look at some numbers when choosing which way you wanna go. You can check the numbers for more antivirus in the page.

Just my opinion  ;)

585927567[/snapback]

You also have to look at the history. VB100:

Kasperspy: 26 passes / 13 fails

Nod32: 31 passes / 3 fails

Norton: 27 passes / 6 fails

McAfee: 19 passes / 18 fails

VB100

[MrBear5587]

I've used Norton, Mcafee and Kaspersky before.

About 4 months ago, I bought NOD32 and haven't looked back since. I'll also be using it forever now, it's a dream. Couldn't ask for more - especially with the new 2.5 release.

[kirk]

You also have to look at the history.  VB100:

Kasperspy: 26 passes / 13 fails

Nod32: 31 passes / 3 fails

Norton: 27 passes / 6 fails

McAfee: 19 passes / 18 fails

VB100

585931524[/snapback]

Yes, and each time I see those kinds of comparisons i don't think norton is as bad as people say...

[viciv]

Yes, and each time I see those kinds of comparisons i don't think norton is as bad as people say...

585932601[/snapback]

it's not really as good as the other three, believe me~ :yes:

[Miran]

Yes, and each time I see those kinds of comparisons i don't think norton is as bad as people say...

585932601[/snapback]

Norton isn't as bad as people say when it comes to detection. The problem is that Norton is SLOW. It brings most systems to a halt, whereas Nod32 is light on resources and has a better detection rate (I don't trust that website posted earlier by imation2458 - it looks amateur and any website developer who doesn't take the time to make his site multi-platform compatible doesn't deserve my attention).

[imation2458]

(I don't trust that website posted earlier by imation2458 - it looks amateur and any website developer who doesn't take the time to make his site multi-platform compatible doesn't deserve my attention).

585933242[/snapback]

hmm. are you talking about http://www.virusbtn.com/ ? This is one of the most trusted testing oranizations around.. the site is very professional..what are you talking about..

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

The thing to keep in mind about the test done by Virus Bulliten is that you don't have to miss a virus to fail the test.

See alot of antivirus programs, Nod 32 included, have something called heuristics. What this is is a means to identify new viruses without actually having a signature in thier database. Heuristics are a lot like spam filters, they check each file for certain characteristics and based on those characteristics give a yay or nay for whether it's harmful or not, and just like a spam filter will sometimes misidentify a legitaimate message as spam, a virus scanner with heuristics will sometimes misreport a legitimate file as a virus. In the virus world we generally call this a "false positive".

Now most antivirus programs with heuristics actually give you alot of control over both:

How strict the heuristics are

and

What to do if something is found by heuristics only.

Heuristics were and should never be blindly followed, and a file labelled harmful should never be blindly deleted. Heuristics are an extra tool but due to thier relatively low false positive ratio compared to the trade off of not having them at all, are generally enabled by defualt. So what any rational and sane competent person should do after thier antivirus says "potentially harmful file detected by heuristics" is look up the freaking file themselves before deleting it. It's meant to give some power back to the user but at the same time protect them against threats that have yet to be detected or added to the signatures. Trust me you want some kind of heuristics in your antivirus. Nod 32's site themselves proudly proclaimed how thier heuristics engine stopped thier users from getting bugbear(I think) before it had even been added to thier database.

Now why am I giving you this BS lesson? Because all it takes to fail the VB test is 1 false positive. If you go to Nod 32's support forums, there's even a few threads here on Neowin, you'll find that Nod 32 also sometimes reports false positives. Now they've been pretty luckiy since they added thier new more thorough heuristics engine but now that they have it's only a matter of time before Nod 32 gets a false positive and misses getting a VB award. further missing a VB award because of a false positive shouldn't mean jack, but most people don't understand them. Further you could completely turn off heuristics in most AV's that include them and in many instances that configuration might pass the VB test, so alot of times a pass/fail is completely dependant on how that tester sets up that antivirus program.

Another thing to consider is each month Virus Bulliten tests on a different platform. One month it's linux, one month Windows NT, one month it's Windows ME, and so-on. So what you say? Well not every AV works as well across different platforms. Really how good is it to include Sophos' linux performance when making a decision on the windows client? None, they're two different animals, yet when you get the total pass and fail from the VB site it's not for whatever OS you're looking at but for all OSes. That's a skewed result which really means nothing since most users here only care about Anti Virus performance on the Windows platform.

Take the VB tests very lightly. Oh and Kaspersky has way better detection than NOD 32, it's not even up for debate.

[imation2458]

Take the VB tests very lightly.  Oh and Kaspersky has way better detection than NOD 32, it's not even up for debate.

585933423[/snapback]

How do you "know" Kaspersky has way better detection rate than NOD32? Is this just opinon?

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

How do you "know" Kaspersky has way better detection rate than NOD32? Is this just opinon?

585933537[/snapback]

Because Kaspersky has the largest database of all the anti-virus programs out there. It's a fact. Of course I can't give you a number for Nod 32 because they don't ever say how many they detect, but a key difference between Kaspersky and Nod 32 is that Nod 32 claims to have the best "ITW detection", which is a little different than "best detection".

Of course you might call it an opinion since Eset will never tell you the amount of sinatures in thier database, kaspersky will though, but it's still a fact. A fact not backed up by someone saying it's a fact, is after all still a fact.

Of course better detection doesn't necessarilly mean "best" anti virus, which some people have a hard time grasping. I tried Kaspersky but thought it was a little too slow, McAfee on the other hand is just a noth below McAfee in terms of detection and ran a lot better so I chose McAfee. Of course McAfee also has it's share of problems like it's reliance on active X which might lead someone to even a different company.

Fact is this. Kaspersky does have the largest database. However size isn't the only thing to take into consideration when choosing an antivirus. There's also price, your internet usage, performance, software conflicts, update timing, etc.

To be honest if all you do is surf and read email, then nod 32 will protect you just the same as Kaspersky because you won't get any of that ancient stuff that Kaspersky keeps in it's database. A while back Eset removed all the old virus signatures from thier database since they can't infect current machines, kaspersky left those in. Right or wrong decision? Neither, just different approach.

Kaspersky doesn't care about speed, or usability, it's obviouse Eset does. So they've provided a smaller and faster program that focuses only on the current spreading threats. If that suits you fine, after all what are the chances you'll get an old dos virus anyways? But Kaspersky still has a larger database.

I aint saying Kaspersky is better, I personally think it's better and yes that's opinion, but you really can't argue over the size of thier database when compared to Esets.

[imation2458]

Because Kaspersky has the largest database of all the anti-virus programs out there.  It's a fact.  Of course I can't give you a number for Nod 32 because they don't ever say how many they detect, but a key difference between Kaspersky and Nod 32 is that Nod 32 claims to have the best "ITW detection", which is a little different than "best detection".

Of course you might call it an opinion since Eset will never tell you the amount of sinatures in thier database, kaspersky will though, but it's still a fact.  A fact not backed up by someone saying it's a fact, is after all still a fact.

Of course better detection doesn't necessarilly mean "best" anti virus, which some people have a hard time grasping.  I tried Kaspersky but thought it was a little too slow, McAfee on the other hand is just a noth below McAfee in terms of detection and ran a lot better so I chose McAfee.  Of course McAfee also has it's share of problems like it's reliance on active X which might lead someone to even a different company.

Fact is this.  Kaspersky does have the largest database.  However size isn't the only thing to take into consideration when choosing an antivirus.  There's also price, your internet usage, performance, software conflicts, update timing, etc.

To be honest if all you do is surf and read email, then nod 32 will protect you just the same as Kaspersky because you won't get any of that ancient stuff that Kaspersky keeps in it's database.  A while back Eset removed all the old virus signatures from thier database since they can't infect current machines, kaspersky left those in.  Right or wrong decision?  Neither, just different approach.

Kaspersky doesn't care about speed, or usability, it's obviouse Eset does.  So they've provided a smaller and faster program that focuses only on the current spreading threats.  If that suits you fine, after all what are the chances you'll get an old dos virus anyways?  But Kaspersky still has a larger database.

I aint saying Kaspersky is better, I personally think it's better and yes that's opinion, but you really can't argue over the size of thier database when compared to Esets.

585933691[/snapback]

Okay, Kasp. may have a "larger" database of viruses.. (and im not certain this is fact being NOD32 doesn't say how large their database is.) I don't think just because Kasp. can detect old viruses means it's any better. Every time iv'e attempted to try it.. it has ruined my system. I think a top anti-virus soultion is light on resources, fast on-demand scanning and is updated much..NOD32 is updated hourly sometimes which is great. If your "anti-virus" software runs so slow and sometimes restircts your computing usage, then it in itself is almost virus-like. (IMO)

[mAcOdIn Veteran]

Okay, Kasp. may have a "larger" database of viruses.. (and im not certain this is fact being NOD32 doesn't say how large their database is.) I don't think just because Kasp. can detect old viruses means it's any better. Every time iv'e attempted to try it.. it has ruined my system. I think a top anti-virus soultion is light on resources, fast on-demand scanning and is updated much..NOD32 is updated hourly sometimes which is great. If your "anti-virus" software runs so slow and sometimes restircts your computing usage, then it in itself is almost virus-like. (IMO)

585933796[/snapback]

That is completely true. I was never saying Nod 32 sucks, just that the database is not as big as Kasperskys, that's why I gave the long post about the VB Award, because I think there's a lot of misunderstanding surrounding the test, and I thought you were being too hard on Kaspersky's performance by using that test. It's unfortunate that you have to pay money to actually see why an AV fails or passes a test, but if you sign up they'll give you a free trial PDF of an issue before you subscribe, that'll give you some insight into the test.

But you are completely right, system usability is a huge factor in choosing an AV and that's why I also don't use Kav, and Nod 32 is a great AV.

[kirk]

Anyone knows which is the antivirus solution chosen by most of the corporations? To my knowledge it's norton and mcafee but I'd like to know if this has changed... :rolleyes:

[Miran]

hmm. are you talking about http://www.virusbtn.com/ ? This is one of the most trusted testing oranizations around.. the site is very professional..what are you talking about..

585933315[/snapback]

Ya sorry, my bad.

[|Maxim|]

Anyone knows which is the antivirus solution chosen by most of the corporations? To my knowledge it's norton and mcafee but I'd like to know if this has changed... :rolleyes:

585936879[/snapback]

i use mcafee ent, my school uses mcafee ent, my tafe uses mcafee ent, my dads work uses mcafee ent.

personally i find the enterprise edition a lot better then the standard one. nortan is isnt so good from what ive had to do with it, it may detect the virus's but it dosent remove them

[migo]

Larger database doesn't mean it has better detection.