Re: Followup re AntiVirus Scanners; Nod32, Kaspersky, etc
- From: "GTS" <x>
- Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:29:58 -0400
You're wise to look for something better than AVG. That's a greatly
overrated product. Take a look at ETrust from Computer Associates. As well
as being highly effective and light on resources it has a "snooze" feature
that's easily accessible from a simple right click on the tray icon.
There's a special one year free offer at http://www.my-etrust.com/microsoft/
I don't believe it's generally necessary to "Supplement a primary scanner
with online scanners". It is highly advisable though to protect against and
scan for spyware regularly as none of the AV programs are very effective
against it.
--
"_RR" <_RR@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ki85b1duptk068fbe5eql69061jq553hdj@xxxxxxxxxx
>I read thru replies in another thread re AV scanners. Between that
> and some online reports, it looked like NOD32 would be the best first
> choice. The others that looked good were Kaspersky, Trend,
> Bit-Defender, in roughly that order. (Anyone else have different
> experience?)
>
> So...I tried the NOD32 eval. Nod32 does look like it's very good with
> system resources, CPU usage, etc. It did find some suspect files that
> were not located by AVG, so it looks like it's probably a very good
> choice all-around (I prefer not to have systems slow down
> unpredictably).
>
> Nod32's control panel also allows temp-disabling of 'AMON,' their file
> monitoring program. I would love to know how to do the same with
> DMON, EMON and IMON as well. Their disable buttons caution that their
> entries will be removed from the registry. I presume that would
> require a reinstall. Anyone know about this?
>
> Another couple NOD32 anomalies: It sometimes reports "Error occurred
> while scanning active boot sector of the 1 physical disk." (or the "4
> physical disk"). Not sure what that's about, as I've run chkdsk
> several times w no problems reported.
>
> Also, NOD32 often reports problems opening some ZIP or RAR files. It
> seems to get to others OK. Not sure why it would be inconsistent.
>
> -----
>
> Another suggestion from this group: Supplement a primary scanner with
> online scanners. So I decided to try the online versions of the other
> three.
>
> Trend worked pretty quickly. It located about 10 files that were not
> caught by NOD32. I was surprised at this. Of course some may be
> mistriggers, but some were pifs embedded in .tbb files (Inbox
> messages). That's stuff that I would not have opened, but I was
> impressed that Trend caught this when NOD32 did not.
>
> I decided to leave the suspect files in place and try Kaspersky
> online. The current scan has been running for hours and only
> registers 58% complete (I take it that Kaspersky is not the fastest
> scanner). BUT so far it claims to have found 33 viruses in 392
> infected objects (!!!!!) I admit to some skepticism, but I haven't
> seen the final list yet. If it has found that many files that were
> missed by both NOD32 and Trend, then it must be the best scanner
> hands-down. Again, the jury is out.
>
> I'll check back after completing other tests. Meanwhile, if anyone
> knows about temporarily disabling the secondary NOD32 modules, or
> about the other NOD32 problems, please feel free to follow up.
>
>
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: RE: "Send To" freezes for 13+ seconds when moused over
- Next by Date: Who's using my COM1 ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Followup re AntiVirus Scanners; Nod32, Kaspersky, etc
- Next by thread: Re: Followup re AntiVirus Scanners; Nod32, Kaspersky, etc
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
