Why NAV and Avira have different results of this test.
Test executed on files from this side. http://depositfiles.com/en/files/4267487
I have NAV2009.
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
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.
I really hate the versus threads but in this case I thought it was fun.
KIS gets all
ESS gets all
You did not understand me.I know that it detects.I know these testsI am only interesting,why norton does not scan whole compressed file treat it interrupts and whole remove recommends.This is mistake or deliberately working.
zbycho wrote:You did not understand me.I know that it detects.I know these testsI 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.