Why?

Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Vestibulum id ligula porta felis euismod semper. Donec ullamcorper nulla non metus auctor fringilla. Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Cras mattis consectetur purus sit amet fermentum. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis. Etiam porta sem malesuada magna mollis euismod. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Duis mollis, est non commodo luctus, nisi erat porttitor ligula, eget lacinia odio sem nec elit. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas eget quam. Aenean eu leo quam. Pellentesque ornare sem lacinia quam venenatis vestibulum. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Sed posuere consectetur est at lobortis.

I have NAV2009.

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

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

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.

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
1 Like

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

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

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.

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......:smileysurprised: 

That’s another question indeed. Norton just works in mysterious ways sometimes


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......:smileysurprised: 


 

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. 

1 Like

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

 

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