• All Community
    • All Community
    • Forums
    • Ideas
    • Blogs

Not what you are looking for? Ask the experts!

Kudos0

WHY?

I

Iapologize for my english language.

Question

Why NAV and Avira have different results of this test.

Test executed on files from this side. http://depositfiles.com/en/files/4267487

Replies

Kudos0

Re: WHY?

I

Iapologize for my english language.

Question

Why NAV and Avira have different results of this test.

Test executed on files from this side. http://depositfiles.com/en/files/4267487

Kudos0

Re: WHY?

You have the free edition of Avira, which does not detect spyware.
=\
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

I have NAV2009.

It interests me, why less files show.
3732 compressed but "norton" sees 1119. Why ?
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

N.AV. Quick Scan only Scans the most-likely places; the other Scanner obviously does more of the Scanning Files of it's, i assume, Quick Scan (not Norton).
Thursday, November 21, 2013: The THREATCON was changed to Level 1: Normal | Tue., Nov. 05, 2013: Zero-Day Vulnerability: Microsoft Security Advisory 2896666 | Saturday, November 09, 2013: Cyber-Criminals Serve Up A Veritable Smorgasbord Of Threats For South Koreans | Wednesday, October 09, 2013: New Internet Explorer Zero-Day Targeted In Attacks Against Korea And Japan [C.V.E.-2013-3897]
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

Different AV software have different methods of counting files scanned. Also, are you sure that you only scanned the archive wiht NIS and Avira?
=\
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

You cannot compare av's side by side. Every av is different ans scans different. AVira free is no where near as complete as Avira premium. I have AVira Premium,NOD32 and KAV. They all have different results but as long as they find the nasty's it doesnt matter.
Real Time Protection = NIS 2009 + NATBehavior Analysis = ThreatfireOn Demand = MBAM
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

By the way. I see a big difference between scanning the .rar and the unzipped samples.

By the way it was catching 3226 samples here

Message Edited by Stu on 10-05-2008 09:23 PM
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

If they find,then well but more important how a lot of
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

Norton found all because it has Anti-Spyware capibilities. Avira did not because its the free edition.

Detection is important, but so is removal. I hear that Kaspersky boasts about their detection all the time, yet they were rated 4/5 by IISCA for removal, while Norton has comparable or better detection with its 2009 line and was rated 5/5 by IISCA. 

=\
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

I really hate the versus threads but in this case I thought it was fun.

KIS gets all

ESS gets all

"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

Wrong. Av-test.org and Av comparitives prove you wrong. And also the fact that you said all...no av has 100% detection. However, Symantec is working on it xD.
=\
Kudos0

Re: WHY?

You did not understand me.
I know that it detects.I know these tests
I am only interesting,why norton does not scan whole compressed file treat it interrupts and whole remove recommends.
This is mistake or deliberately working.

Sorry,my english...... 

Kudos0

Re: WHY?

That's another question indeed. Norton just works in mysterious ways sometimes
"All that we are is the result of what we have thought"
Kudos0

Re: WHY?


zbycho wrote:

You did not understand me.
I know that it detects.I know these tests
I am only interesting,why norton does not scan whole compressed file treat it interrupts and whole remove recommends.
This is mistake or deliberately working.

Sorry,my english...... 


Well it is easier to remove the whole file. Also, sometimes the infections are so complex and intertwined with ... say a .zip archive, that by removing the infected portion would render the whole .zip file useless or invalid. If part of a brain was infected and dying, removing even that portion would be highly risky, dangerous, and possibly not feasible. 

=\

Replies are locked for this thread.