Bit Defender or Nod32?

louise,

I would suggest Nod32.

--
Sir_George


"louise" <nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d61701de25aa7e498969a@news-server.nyc.rr.com...
> I'm becoming a little disillusioned with my trial version of Avast
> Pro. The log is showing errors with files it cannot scan and also
> a few files it refers to as "decompression bombs". This was
> defined by Avast tech support as a file that is so tightly
> compressed that it would freeze Avast and/or the computer. Now,
> Avast isn't registering updates although it seems to updating. A
> repair didn't fix it. As I say, not convinced but somewhat
> disillusioned.
>
> So, I'm looking at Bit Defender or Nod32.
>
> As I see it, the advantage of Nod32 is that it simply doesn't
> provide a free version and maybe therefore, it doesn't have so many
> rough edges?
>
> QUESTION: I can't have two anti-virus programs running at once.
> Therefore, what is the proper proceedure for uninstalling one and
> installing another? If I just disconnect my always on connection,
> would the new one be able to install properly?
>
> AND - Nod32 or Bit Defender? Pros and Cons?
>
> TIA
>
> Louise
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

In article <MPG.1d61701de25aa7e498969a.TakeThisOut@news-server.nyc.rr.com>,
nospam.TakeThisOut@nospam.com says...

[...]

> AND - Nod32 or Bit Defender? Pros and Cons?

One thing that put me off on the Bit Defender pages was some client
feedback ... "I took the chance and updated .... "

I want to have every confidence in my AV vendor, not take a chance, and
that's why I choose NOD32.

Never had a problem, and for me, UK support is superb, when on the rare
occasions i've needed it due to my own grey matter not giving me the
answer I was looking for.
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

In article <A0PJe.12$hY.6@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>,
optikl.TakeThisOut@invalid.net says...
> louise wrote:
>
> >
> > QUESTION: I can't have two anti-virus programs running at once.
> > Therefore, what is the proper proceedure for uninstalling one and
> > installing another? If I just disconnect my always on connection,
> > would the new one be able to install properly?
> >
> > AND - Nod32 or Bit Defender? Pros and Cons?
> >
> > TIA
> >
> > Louise
>
> Louise, if you're at all familiar with configuring a Windows utility,
> you can configure one of them, you're choice, to not run on access. It's
> actually quite simple and most AV utilities give you that option when
> installing them.
>
> I think you might be spending far too much energy worrying about which
> utility is the right AV utility to run. Do you visit porn sites,
> download programs indiscriminately from file shares or run IE in its
> default configuration? If your answer is "no", which I suspect it will
> be, then it's really unimportant in the vast scheme of things (perhaps
> except to you) which one you choose. Both are well regarded products,
> intended primarily for folks that lack the means to manage their
> security without them. No offense intended.
>
>
>
You're probably correct. However, something brought almost every
prgram on my hard drive to a hault about two weeks ago. My Norton
Ghost image restore wouldn't even correct matters, although I do
have all my data.

Therefore, I'm quite concerned because there's probably a 50%
chance the cause was a virus/worm and the other 50% chance was a
very brief brownout.

I feel compelled to get the best AV I can and to not have to go
throught reinstalling all the little utilities, odds and ends and
customizations ever again (I know the "ever" part is very unlikely)


Louise
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

louise wrote:
However, something brought almost every
> prgram on my hard drive to a hault about two weeks ago. My Norton
> Ghost image restore wouldn't even correct matters, although I do
> have all my data.
>

Well, if reimaging your HD didn't correct the "problem", what makes you
so sure it was a software (malware) problem? You might want to make sure
the problem isn't hardware related.
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

In article <A0PJe.12$hY.6@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>, optikl.DeleteThis@invalid.net
says...

> Both are well regarded products,intended primarily
> for folks that lack the means to manage their
> security without them. No offense intended.

None taken, but nonsense nonetheless.
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

"ComPCs" <newscompcs RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d61e529b825b9129896ed@news.individual.net...
> In article <A0PJe.12$hY.6@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>,
optikl RemoveThis @invalid.net
> says...
>
> > Both are well regarded products,intended primarily
> > for folks that lack the means to manage their
> > security without them. No offense intended.
>
> None taken, but nonsense nonetheless.

Not really. Security can be complete, even without "any" AV if you have
the means. The main way the means become a problem is in those cases
where you "have" to allow weak links to be involved.
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

ComPCs wrote:
> In article <A0PJe.12$hY.6@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>, optikl RemoveThis @invalid.net
> says...
>
>
>>Both are well regarded products,intended primarily
>>for folks that lack the means to manage their
>>security without them. No offense intended.
>
>
> None taken, but nonsense nonetheless.

It's nonsense to you because you probably think AV utilities are
proactive. Just like police, AV utilities are reactive.
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

In article <11ffn9hiqm8k048 RemoveThis @corp.supernews.com>,
yesman RemoveThis @yourservice.invalid says...
>
> "ComPCs" <newscompcs RemoveThis @yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d61e529b825b9129896ed@news.individual.net...
> > In article <A0PJe.12$hY.6@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>,
> optikl RemoveThis @invalid.net
> > says...
> >
> > > Both are well regarded products,intended primarily
> > > for folks that lack the means to manage their
> > > security without them. No offense intended.
> >
> > None taken, but nonsense nonetheless.
>
> Not really. Security can be complete, even without "any" AV if you have
> the means. The main way the means become a problem is in those cases
> where you "have" to allow weak links to be involved.

The "means" being?

Cisco thought they were "complete" until recently AIUI.

Having an AV solution in place as an additional line of defence doesn't
in any way portray the user as someone with a lack of means. It portrays
someone with common sense and courtesy for other users of the network.

Those who manage their security without them (in respect of anything
Windows related) are risk taking and at best somewhat reckless, IMO.
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

"ComPCs" <newscompcs.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d6310103ff813639896f1@news.individual.net...
> In article <11ffn9hiqm8k048.TakeThisOut@corp.supernews.com>,
> yesman.TakeThisOut@yourservice.invalid says...
> >
> > "ComPCs" <newscompcs.TakeThisOut@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:MPG.1d61e529b825b9129896ed@news.individual.net...
> > > In article <A0PJe.12$hY.6@dfw-service2.ext.ray.com>,
> > optikl.TakeThisOut@invalid.net
> > > says...
> > >
> > > > Both are well regarded products,intended primarily
> > > > for folks that lack the means to manage their
> > > > security without them. No offense intended.
> > >
> > > None taken, but nonsense nonetheless.
> >
> > Not really. Security can be complete, even without "any" AV if you
have
> > the means. The main way the means become a problem is in those cases
> > where you "have" to allow weak links to be involved.
>
> The "means" being?

Isolationism. No need to worry about malicious code if no outside code
is ever allowed in. But since just about every communications
application has been extended to include the ability to transfer
executable files it becomes a daunting task for the average user to keep
track of all ingress vectors. If FTP were the only way to transfer
executable files, then transfering them to a specific directory every
time and scanning them after a suitable cooling off period would be easy
enough even for the novice. Now, there are so many ingress vectors that
even the advanced user feels the "need" for active scanning.

> Cisco thought they were "complete" until recently AIUI.
>
> Having an AV solution in place as an additional line of defence
doesn't
> in any way portray the user as someone with a lack of means.

If you take that "lack of means" as an insult, then you are right. The
fact is that highly clued users also lack the means to handle it any
other way - especially if they are trying to protect a multi-user
system.

> It portrays
> someone with common sense and courtesy for other users of the network.

I don't think anyone is saying otherwise, optikl referred probably to
the vast improvement that safe practice does for your security. As an
example, I have an old AV program that I have used for years - and it
has never detected a virus. It has never "had" to detect one. Since it
has never "had" to detect one - then what difference would it make which
one I used?

> Those who manage their security without them (in respect of anything
> Windows related) are risk taking and at best somewhat reckless, IMO.

That's because you bought into the mindset of having additional software
handle your security for you. Or maybe you fall into the category I
mentioned above where you have little or no control over the behavior of
those using your system.
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

In article <MPG.1d62758fd33f205798a7fe.DeleteThis@204.127.36.1>, ernie-
baresch_REMOVE_.DeleteThis@att._THIS_net says...
> On Mon, 08 Aug 2005 21:00:40 GMT louise wrote:
>
> > Therefore, I'm quite concerned because there's probably a 50%
> > chance the cause was a virus/worm and the other 50% chance was a
> > very brief brownout.
> >
> Louise, do you have a UPS, Uninterruptible Power Supply, in your
> system? I got one about five years ago, best $50.00 I ever spent.
>
That was the other "weak link". I did have a UPS but it was almost
10 years old and although the battery tested ok (I replaced it
once), it was way....underpowered for my present system.

I have since purchased a new UPS which should have enough power for
my next two computers.

As you can see, even though I lost no data, it has taken many many
hours and I'm working real hard to never have it happen again.

Louise
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

In article <11fieb0m34u0s22.DeleteThis@corp.supernews.com>,
yesman.DeleteThis@yourservice.invalid says...


> "ComPCs" <newscompcs.DeleteThis@yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d6310103ff813639896f1@news.individual.net...

> > The "means" being?
>
> Isolationism.

So the "means" are, in actual fact, quite unrealistic, in the general
terms of computing which this newsgroup covers - e.g. PC's connected to
the internet/network in some way or another?

> No need to worry about malicious code if no outside code
> is ever allowed in.

And you prevent that occurring by ... ?

> But

.... there's always a but

> since just about every communications
> application has been extended to include the ability to transfer
> executable files it becomes a daunting task for the average user to keep
> track of all ingress vectors.

Average user? It would be daunting for even the most experienced.

> If FTP were the only way to transfer executable files,
> then transfering them to a specific directory every
> time and scanning them after a suitable cooling off
> period would be easy enough even for the novice.

But would still require an AV solution .... the "means" seems to have
been forgotten?

> Now, there are so many ingress vectors that
> even the advanced user feels the "need" for active scanning.

Ditto that which I mentioned above.

The reason for these "ingress vectors" is that people who use computers
desire such to operate as simply and efficiently as they can. FTP is an
excellent way of transferring files, but if that file is an .exe that at
some point needs to be run, the end user is simply going to trust the
source and do so? Not on this machine .... how do I know the FTP server
hasn't been interfered with and/or the file replaced by someone?

[...]

> I have an old AV program that I have used for years -

Which is?

> and it has never detected a virus. It has never "had" to detect
> one.

Why has it never detected a virus? And if so, why are you using it?
Maybe it's so dreadful it has let viruses/malware onto your system
without your knowledge?

> Since it has never "had" to detect one -
> then what difference would it make which
> one I used?

There appears little logic there. If you don't have to have anything in
place detect viruses, then why are using one [AV] in the first place?

Please keep this in context of course .... concern yourself with network
connected 'at risk' PC's, not stand alone workstations that have never
had anything else introduced onto them.

> > Those who manage their security without them (in respect of anything
> > Windows related) are risk taking and at best somewhat reckless, IMO.
>
> That's because you bought into the mindset of having additional software
> handle your security for you. Or maybe you fall into the category I
> mentioned above where you have little or no control over the behavior of
> those using your system.

No, I use Windows, and to use it safely and sensibly because I am aware
of the flaws within it, I have no *sensible* and *selfless* option other
than to use an AV solution.

Mindset Schmindset.

I have every control of those using my system - me.

As expected therefore, that control has resulted in a) hardly any SPAM
in my inbox b) no traces of spyware/malware on my system c) as secure
system as I can possibly (and ultimately) enable within my EULA terms.

Unfortunately, total control of said system is taken away from me by
outsiders who desire to 'break into' my system - thus I add an extra
layer of protection that I, as an above average user, could not possibly
introduce alone given the criteria under which I choose, nay *have* to
operate - e.g. Windows XP, SP2 fully patched, networked and connected to
the internet.

In the context I mention, I stand by my sentiment - anyone who connects
their PC to the internet (read: network) without additional layers of
security (e.g AV solution, firewall) is being reckless, taking risks,
and to add another sentiment, selfish.
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32? 

In article <11fkc6refcbg77e DeleteThis @corp.supernews.com>,
yesman DeleteThis @yourservice.invalid says...
>
> "ComPCs" <newscompcs DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1d63d8cdde740fcb9896f4@news.individual.net...
> > In article <11fieb0m34u0s22 DeleteThis @corp.supernews.com>,
> > yesman DeleteThis @yourservice.invalid says...
> >
> >
> > > "ComPCs" <newscompcs DeleteThis @yahoo.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:MPG.1d6310103ff813639896f1@news.individual.net...
> >
> > > > The "means" being?
> > >
> > > Isolationism.
> >
> > So the "means" are, in actual fact, quite unrealistic, in the general
> > terms of computing which this newsgroup covers - e.g. PC's connected
> to
> > the internet/network in some way or another?
>
> Nothing unrealistic about isolationism being a secure system without AV.

Can I clarify a point here ... I am talking about networked machines, as
in those folks use to connect to the internet; as in those of us who
Usenet et al.

You are talking of some bearded geek sitting in a darkened bedroom with
the curtains closed programming in VB ?

> No, short of isolationism you need only on-demand scanning capability of
> those programs you do feel the need to bring onto the machine.
> Preferably one that has a good detection rating, but even a lesser one
> could be enough seeing as the exposure is limited by safe practices.

Sorry chum, you've lost me now ... I'm talking about everyday usage of
the home PC, you are talking about some hi-tech geek driven enterprise
where every system is maintained to perfection by perfection.

Oddly enough, there is actually no need for this conversation to
continue ....

</eot> AFAIC
 >> Stay informed about: Bit Defender or Nod32?