NOD32 or AntiVirusKit? Look at Anti-Virus Comparative test.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jones
  • Start date Start date
J

Jones

Hi, I have NOD32 but looking to the
Anti-Virus Comparative test I notice AntiVirusKit seems the best antivirus 2006.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php
How you value that test?
I surf in Internet very much and I receive many infected emails every day around
the world and I need a very effective antivirus.
In your opinion what is better NOD32 or AntiVirusKit?
thanks

bye Jones
 
Jones said:
I surf in Internet very much and I receive many infected emails every day around
the world and I need a very effective antivirus.
Click to expand...

What you need is an effective mail filtering application that's not
going to let the emails reach the machine unless you want them to reach
the machine by deleting the ones you don't want at the POP3 server.
After review and deletion of the emails you don't want, you pull the
ones you want using the email client program.

The other part of this is use some common sense and not surf the world
going to unknown or dubious sites that could lead to a possible
compromise with the *happy* fingers clinking on everything under the Moon.
In your opinion what is better NOD32 or AntiVirusKit?
thanks
Click to expand...

They all do the same thing and the buck stops with you as the first line
of defense. It doesn't stop anywhere else.

Duane :)
 
Jones said:
Hi, I have NOD32 but looking to the
Anti-Virus Comparative test I notice AntiVirusKit seems the best antivirus 2006.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php
How you value that test?
I surf in Internet very much and I receive many infected emails every day around
the world and I need a very effective antivirus.
In your opinion what is better NOD32 or AntiVirusKit?
thanks

bye Jones
Click to expand...

Read the caveat below the results tables:

"Please do not put to much attention to the percentages, as little
differences in the percentages do not say much. It is better you rely on
the levels (advanced+, advanced, standard) reached in this test

(see http://www.av comparatives.org/seiten/overview.html)

Products belonging to a category can be considered as good as the other
products in the same category (regarding the on-demand detection rate)."

I've been using NOD32 for a year and a half and I've been very pleased
with it's performance. I too search the internet for technical topics
(metallurgy, material science and manufacturing technology) that take me
to questionable sites. NOD32 has been very good so far at catching
malware attacks and blocking them.

Practicing Safe Hex is your best defense against problems. NEVER open an
E-mail attachment in a mail reading program - save it to disk.

Ad-Aware and SpyBot are free programs that are effective against aware,
spyware and some malware. But they are reactive measures. You can also
still find the freeware version of Kerio Personal Firewall 2.15 but a
hardware firewall is still your best protection.

Chas.
 
Hi, I have NOD32 but looking to the
Anti-Virus Comparative test I notice AntiVirusKit seems the best antivirus
2006.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2006_02.php
How you value that test?
I surf in Internet very much and I receive many infected emails every day
around
the world and I need a very effective antivirus.
In your opinion what is better NOD32 or AntiVirusKit?
thanks

bye Jones
Click to expand...

I see that AntiVirusKit uses the KAV Engine which was developed by Kaspersky
and which is why it has a high detection rate. Kaspersky will be coming out
with KAV 6 shortly and we will see if detection rate will even go higher. We
will have to wait and see.
 
Gary said:
I see that AntiVirusKit uses the KAV Engine which was developed by Kaspersky
and which is why it has a high detection rate. Kaspersky will be coming out
with KAV 6 shortly and we will see if detection rate will even go higher. We
will have to wait and see.
Click to expand...

Even higher? Oh, that's right. To paraphrase Geo. Bush, "malware has to
get it right only once. An AV product has to get it right 100% of the
time". lol.
 
In your opinion what is better NOD32 or AntiVirusKit?
Click to expand...

NOD32 is a superior solution in my book. Here are my reasons why.

NOD32 has excellent signature detection and best of breed proactive
detection of malware while remaining light on resources. Once
configured (See official forum at wilders) it's simple enough to use
and is well supported by ESET should you run into a spot of bother. I
also believe it's reasonably priced at €39.

AVK uses two detection engines (KAV and Bitdefender) which provides
excellent signature detection of malware but the heuristics aren't so
hot. The load on the system is huge (thanks to the multiple engines)
by comparison to NOD32 and the program has a bloated feel about it. I
think as a solution it's not transparent enough for my liking. Another
point... compare the virus detection statistics - from a historical
perspective is the extra fractions of a percent worth the extra load
generated by multi engine solutions? I don't believe it is.

If I were you I would take the marginal detection statistics
differences with a grain of salt. You are well protected by an
excellent product and there is noo need to jump ship based on a single
test.
 
Ian said:
If I were you I would take the marginal detection statistics
differences with a grain of salt. You are well protected by an
excellent product and there is noo need to jump ship based on a single
test.
Click to expand...

Actually, Ian, I'm waiting with bated breath for the imminent release of
that next generation unified threat management suite coming from the
same folks in the UAE who are now managing US Ports. I only want the
best for my systems.
 
Actually, Ian, I'm waiting with bated breath for the imminent release of
that next generation unified threat management suite coming from the
same folks in the UAE who are now managing US Ports. I only want the
best for my systems.
Click to expand...

:=) ha ha. Safe as houses ye are, safe as houses! Although I won't
say much for the Irish Antiterrorist measures. I'm fully convinced
after recently flying into our own local airport and bypassing our
passport control that I could (if I managed to get it on the plane in
the first place) bring a full size elephant through Irish Customs. I'd
say if you flashed your dirty underpants at him he woulld have
permitted you access to Ireland. So you might have some dodgy
characters controlling your ports... we have ourselves to br worried
about controlling ours.
 
Virus said:
Do I read that right?

Over 200,000 "DOS" viruses/malware?

"DOS" ???

As in Disk Operating System? As in "not-windows" ???
Click to expand...

is suspect they mean ibm pc... 200,000 is NOT right for dos alone... not
without duplication...
Are there *that* many different varients of DOS malware?

How exactly does one obtain 400-odd thousand examples of malware?
Click to expand...

better question, how does one verify all the samples are what they
purport to be...
 
that interpretation of DOS doesn't fit with the context... plus, it's
usually expressed as DoS...
Click to expand...
You could be correct, the context in the table is a little ambiguous imo.
Since Win9x is based on DOS I wonder why they are separated into "DOS
viruses/malware" and "Windows viruses".
 
Since Win9x is based on DOS I wonder why they are separated into "DOS
viruses/malware" and "Windows viruses".
Click to expand...

Malwares are programs. Programs are written for different platforms.
Windows programs cannot be run under any version of DOS. OTOH, many
DOS programs run under Windows, and not just Win 9X.

Art
http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Art said:
Malwares are programs. Programs are written for different
platforms. Windows programs cannot be run under any version
of DOS. OTOH, many DOS programs run under Windows, and not
just Win 9X.
Click to expand...

Just because a given piece of malware can be executed in a 16-bit DOS
shell (or in pure DOS mode) does that necessarily make it DOS
malware? What if it's intent is to affect some aspect of the
overlying Windows OS? Is it still appropriate to catagorize it as DOS
malware?

DOS viruses/malware 231.088
Windows viruses 20.546
Macro viruses 37.181
Script viruses/malware 7.449
Worms 23.398
Backdoors 78.092
Trojans 69.008
other malware 5.912
OtherOS viruses/malware 2.085

If a given piece of malware is (somehow) catagorized as "DOS" based,
but if it's also a worm (it's got to be something, a worm, virus, etc)
then shouldn't it be put in the "Worm" catagory (and to hell with the
"DOS" label) ?

And again if it's really DOS based, but it's not a virus, a worm, a
back-door, a trojan, a macro or script, then what is it?
 
Just because a given piece of malware can be executed in a 16-bit DOS
shell (or in pure DOS mode) does that necessarily make it DOS
malware?
Click to expand...

Of course not. Many command line programs are Windows programs which
cannot be run in "pure" DOS.
What if it's intent is to affect some aspect of the
overlying Windows OS? Is it still appropriate to catagorize it as DOS
malware?
Click to expand...

I offer a 16 bit non-malicious program which can only do its thing
when run in a command line Window of Windows. (Updater using
the Windows version of WGET). That doesn't make my program a Windows
program. Similarly, a DOS program which purposely causes damage when
run in a command line Window is still a DOS program and thus DOS
malware, IMO.
DOS viruses/malware 231.088
Windows viruses 20.546
Macro viruses 37.181
Script viruses/malware 7.449
Worms 23.398
Backdoors 78.092
Trojans 69.008
other malware 5.912
OtherOS viruses/malware 2.085
Click to expand...

This looks very fishy to me. I know there's a large number of DOS
malwares, but 231,000 seems awfully high.
If a given piece of malware is (somehow) catagorized as "DOS" based,
but if it's also a worm (it's got to be something, a worm, virus, etc)
then shouldn't it be put in the "Worm" catagory (and to hell with the
"DOS" label) ?
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. He simply didn't break down DOS malwares into
categories. That's not unusual in some large scale tests.

I have no idea how he selected "DOS malwares". IMO it would have
been wrong and misleading to include Windows command line programs
since they aren't DOS programs (can't be run in DOS). Somehow I don't
think Clementi would do that on purpose. But who knows?

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
Ian Kenefick said:
NOD32 is a superior solution in my book. Here are my reasons why.

NOD32 has excellent signature detection and best of breed proactive
detection of malware while remaining light on resources. Once
configured (See official forum at wilders) it's simple enough to use
and is well supported by ESET should you run into a spot of bother. I
also believe it's reasonably priced at ?39.

AVK uses two detection engines (KAV and Bitdefender) which provides
excellent signature detection of malware but the heuristics aren't so
hot. The load on the system is huge (thanks to the multiple engines)
by comparison to NOD32 and the program has a bloated feel about it. I
think as a solution it's not transparent enough for my liking. Another
point... compare the virus detection statistics - from a historical
perspective is the extra fractions of a percent worth the extra load
generated by multi engine solutions? I don't believe it is.

If I were you I would take the marginal detection statistics
differences with a grain of salt. You are well protected by an
excellent product and there is noo need to jump ship based on a single
test.
Ian Kenefick
Click to expand...

In additions to your comments, how many of the viruses tested are "In
The Wild"?

Chas.
 
Back
Top