Advice Request Nano-antivirus

[Andrew999]

If you are referring to the issue with WD periodic scanning, I checked it 5 minutes ago.

Oh ok. Maybe you could send a post on Feedback about the issue, hopefully they will fix it.
NANO Antivirus : Feedback

 

[shmu26]

Oh ok. Maybe you could send a post on Feedback about the issue, hopefully they will fix it.
NANO Antivirus : Feedback

I just did it through "report a problem to Support service."
I am totally impressed with how that worked. It automatically collects logs and system info and all kinds of stuff, and then when you make your report, it decides what is relevant, and uploads it along with the report. These guys are serious about user reports.
@Lockdown, you gotta check out this reporting mechanism.

 

[shmu26]

By the way, if anyone is interested, you can get an english translation of the manual here
Google Translate
Just keep scrolling down until you hit the text.
It is from Google Translate, but it is surprisingly good.

 

[Andrew999]

I just did it through "report a problem to Support service."
I am totally impressed with how that worked. It automatically collects logs and system info and all kinds of stuff, and then when you make your report, it decides what is relevant, and uploads it along with the report. These guys are serious about user reports.
@Lockdown, you gotta check out this reporting mechanism.

Yeah, I noticed it too. It's great.

 

[shmu26]

Like others said, this might be a good AV for people with a default/deny setup. I am going to give it a try.
It runs light, it's free, it is not complicated or paranoid or full of FPs. It seems to generally stay out of your face and not interfere too much with your digital life.

 

[shmu26]

The aesthetics of the GUI is inferior by any standards, and that's a good thing. They are not wasting their time and resources on eye candy, they are focusing on protection.

 

[Nestor]

Like others said, this might be a good AV for people with a default/deny setup. I am going to give it a try.
It runs light, it's free, it is not complicated or paranoid or full of FPs. It seems to generally stay out of your face and not interfere too much with your digital life.

Making a combo with OSA or Syshardener will make a great pair.

 

[shmu26]

Umm, there was some further testing done, reported on the other forum, and it doesn't look good...
Nano antivirus a great surprise. from now on will be my AV

 

[Sunshine-boy]

Good free antivirus
Contains unwanted or sponsored software ?????????? how did you find that? it's 100% clean.
discussion here:
NANO Ан- [13] :: Паммы :: Компьюый м Ru.Board

 

[shmu26]

Good free antivirus
Contains unwanted or sponsored software ?????????? how did you find that? it's 100% clean.
discussion here:
NANO Ан- [13] :: Паммы :: Компьюый м Ru.Board

Now it says "Bundled with PUP: None "
Jack fixed it.

 

[bribon77]

If I remember correctly, I think I tried this AV some time ago, and it was not a bad AV, but it was very heavy. Maybe they have solved it. Because Norton was a slab and now it is very light.

 

[shmu26]

I just did it through "report a problem to Support service."
I am totally impressed with how that worked. It automatically collects logs and system info and all kinds of stuff, and then when you make your report, it decides what is relevant, and uploads it along with the report. These guys are serious about user reports.
@Lockdown, you gotta check out this reporting mechanism.

And indeed, Nano support is responsive:

Support NANOAV <**@nanoav.ru>

4:31 PM (28 minutes ago)

to me

Hello,

thank you for provided information. Thanks to your logs we have found an error. We created an appropriate request to change the situation. We will contact you when new information about the problem will be available.

Best regards.

--
Служба технической поддержки
Technical Support Service
NANO Security Ltd.

 

[roger_m]

A new version has been released.
Просмотр темы - Revision history for version 1.0 • NANO Antivirus > Forum •

1.0.134.89835

• Implemented event logging, now a user can write events of NANO Antivirus / NANO Antivirus Pro into the log. Event logging is being activated on a user request, the log output can be viewed in the console.
• Fixed some problems of incorrect reflection of events in the NANO Antivirus / NANO Antivirus Pro GUI about which users informed us.
• Improved scanning of JS-script files.
• Improved heuristic detection of malicious VB-script files.
• Increased the antiviral complex stability.

 

[509322]

I just did it through "report a problem to Support service."
I am totally impressed with how that worked. It automatically collects logs and system info and all kinds of stuff, and then when you make your report, it decides what is relevant, and uploads it along with the report. These guys are serious about user reports.
@Lockdown, you gotta check out this reporting mechanism.

The privacy fanatics freak out over those log collectors because they don't scrub or anonymize the logs.

You like to watch porn ? Been visiting bomb-making websites ? You are political ? Spend a lot of time on surveillance sites or the Dark Web ? Use cracked softwares ? Using pirated Windows ?

It is collected in the logs.

But it's like this... if you don't give me the logs that I need to analyze your problem, then I am not going to look at your reported problem.

That's how it works.

 

[509322]

Umm, there was some further testing done, reported on the other forum, and it doesn't look good...
Nano antivirus a great surprise. from now on will be my AV

It is AV.

Anyone can make malicious files that will bypass any AV scan engine. 3650 days out too.

There are AV scan engines that don't detect malicious files from 20 years ago.

So what ?

It amazes me that people still get all worked up and bent out of shape about false negatives. Just goes to show you that so many people are stuck in the era of Windows 95 antivirus technology.

 

[shmu26]

The privacy fanatics freak out over those log collectors because they don't scrub or anonymize the logs.

You like to watch porn ? Been visiting bomb-making websites ? You are political ? Spend a lot of time on surveillance sites or the Dark Web ? Use cracked softwares ? Using pirated Windows ?

It is collected in the logs.

But it's like this... if you don't give me the logs that I need to analyze your problem, then I am not going to look at your reported problem.

That's how it works.

They wrote back to me and said that thanks to my logs, they found an error, which they will try to correct.

 

[shmu26]

It is AV.

Anyone can make malicious files that will bypass any AV scan engine. 3650 days out too.

There are AV scan engines that don't detect malicious files from 20 years ago.

So what ?

It amazes me that people still get all worked up and bent out of shape about false negatives. Just goes to show you that so many people are stuck in the era of Windows 95 antivirus technology.

Look, if an AV doesn't detect anything in a pack of 4 day old malware (we are talking about in the middle of the week), and it doesn't have a BB worth a dime, or any other fancy next-gen fairy tales, then it's time to switch AVs, wouldn't you say?

 

[509322]

Look, if an AV doesn't detect anything in a pack of 4 day old malware (we are talking about in the middle of the week), and it doesn't have a BB worth a dime, or any other fancy next-gen fairy tales, then it's time to switch AVs, wouldn't you say?

Default-allow is going to allow your system to be infected. Period. Put it up against enough samples, and eventually it will fail. No one can deny that fact.

I think the tester said "Missed some samples 4 days old."

He's running that very same campaign on DrWeb 12 at this very moment.

Detection within 4 days is quite fast detection. I don't know what people expect. If they expect anything significantly better, then their expectations are unrealistic. The whole detection thingy within minutes is a great promotion gimmick. In actual practice it doesn't work that way. There are inadequacies and inefficiencies inherent to the signature protection model.

The same logic you cite is the logic that people use when switching to or choosing the AV that seemingly scores 100 % in some lab test or yahoo review - only to have their systems infected.

Testing AV and then being disappointed because it fails is like a baby who cries because it doesn't get its way. The baby has an excuse... it is a baby. Adults that know better or should know better... someone please tell me what their excuse is ? Everybody, and I mean everybody, who has been on these forums for more than a few months knows that AV testing leads to disappointment.

And why is that ?

It is the expectation of perfection and technological miracle working. It is so very wrong on so many levels to even think that such things are possible. Oh well, I suppose it is never going to change because humans are great at flawed and wishful thinking.

 

[shmu26]

I am sure you will disagree, and perhaps write an even longer post to explain why, but I do think we need to send Nano to the Malware Hub and see how it compares to other AVs, since you question the previously mentioned tester's results.
Yes, it is unrealistic to expect a certain AV to detect everything, but it is still realistic to expect it to detect as much as the next product does. Otherwise, why should I use it?

 

[Moonhorse]

I am sure you will disagree, and perhaps write an even longer post to explain why, but I do think we need to send Nano to the Malware Hub and see how it compares to other AVs, since you question the previously mentioned tester's results.
Yes, it is unrealistic to expect a certain AV to detect everything, but it is still realistic to expect it to detect as much as the next product does. Otherwise, why should I use it?

Are you still using the free version of nano?
If so, does it has any kind of bb/monitoring feature or ability to whitelist/default deny

I just switched to chrome, to translate to have deeper insight