Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: Timo Schmidt on January 06, 2005, 04:01:25 PM
-
Hi there!
I only want to mention, that AVAST 4 (4.1) Pro/Home was tested in the new c't, which is well known as "computer bible" here in Germany :D
The results don't look so bad at all, but in the ITW-Test AVAST failed in some (1 ?) Case and therefor it got "not recommended" for the whole product.
Other free scanners like AVG or ANTIVIR didn't fail in this test and got a better overall-mark ("better to have these scanners installed than no scanner" :D)
Conclusion of this (in my opinion very good) test: The free scanners are worse than it's comercial competitors (Kaspersky, Bitdefender).
Another note:
Norton Antivirus 2005 didn't get the best marks:
ITW: ++ (OK - almost all scanners got this mark)
Trojans, Backdoor / Heuristics: O / -
Signature Updates: --
Features/Rescue-Media: O / --
User-Friedlyness: O
Greetings
Timo
p.s. I will stay with AVAST coz when adding all points (plz. refer to c't :D) it still beats AVG and ANTIVIR :) and it is not so ressource hungry like Norton and even Kaspersky...
-
Here is my quote from Wilders Security...
If the file can be obtained in some way (email,P2P,WWW,CD) thats ITW for me and i don't care what experts say/rate that file.
Plus vlk's reply on why avast! failed ITW test (also Wilders Security):
avast of course DID detect all ItW samples in the test.
What it didn't was to detect them on-access because Andreas Marx (the lead tester) was not willing to set up avast to scan files on-copy (which was the way the on-access scanner test was done).
And avast 4.1 (unlike 4.5) was not scanning files on-copy by default...
-
Avast did get the VB 100% reward during the latest test. That means Avast is detecting all ITW malware.
And where is the link to that test?
-
Buy the magazine :D
-
I don't see the point of buying a copy (even if available in the UK) to get an out of date review of avast 4.1 ;D I doubt that there was any mention of the latest version 4.5 being released.
-
Yeah,i'm wondering how old is that test. avast! 4.5 was introduced on November 13, 2004. Thats almost 2 months ago. Do they make one AV test for two months? Nah...
-
The installation files were submitted to A.Marx on October 24th.
-
I don't see the point of buying a copy (even if available in the UK) to get an out of date review of avast 4.1 ;D I doubt that there was any mention of the latest version 4.5 being released.
But they mention that one screen is taken from "avast 4.5" ??? ...
-
The problem with Virus Bulletin is that unless you pay for an (expensive) subscription, you will only know passed/failed, not why (if it missed one sample or hundreds of them, of if the staff simply wasn't able to install the program).
-
if the staff simply wasn't able to install the program).
Or configure it...
They use the defaults and then start blaming :P
-
so,..if the "standard" settings of Avast aren't as good as the "high" settings,...wouldn't it be good idea to remove the standard settings from the program and simply enable the high settings automatically after a clean install of the program?
In that case, users shouldn't worry about the settings anymore,... I know, this seems silly cause it doesn't take much time to set the program to "high"setting,... you can always disable a few features afterwards,...
I am a bit surprised about the people from virusbtn, being unable to setup the program.
by the way, what is the main difference between the standard (default) setting and the high setting?
-
That's questionable, of course.
The main difference between the "normal" and "high" setting was whether the created/modified files were scanned.
I believe the main thing is that the virus is not activated. Of course, any avast! setting doesn't allow you to start a virus - so, you should always be safe.
If the created/modified files are not scanned, you are allowed to write a virus to your disk - but again, you won't be able to start it, so it's not dangerous. If the created/modified files are scanned, even writing a virus on your disk will be reported - but of course, it comes at a price: every write operation has to be monitored, so it will slow down your system more than the "normal" setting.
-
The results don't look so bad at all, but in the ITW-Test AVAST failed in some (1 ?) Case and therefor it got "not recommended" for the whole product.
failed only in one casa is a good resutl
can u post the results as well?
-
Grunger, that's exactly what we did in v4.5. Changed what used to be High to be Normal, and called High something even more thorough.
Not really that we'd believe that this will considerably improve the security of avast users though. Most importantly, because of tests like this one - it was simply shame to see avast failing just because the tester(s) didn't understand why (well this is not the case with Andreas Marx - we TOLD him multiple times that on-copy scanning must be enabled manually - but he insisted to test the program ONLY with default settings :-\ :-X).
HTH,
Vlk
-
Yeah,but many users moved the slider to High just because Higher usually means better protection. I doubt that anyone is using antivirus perfectly out-of-the box without changing at least one setting. So comparing AVs on default settings is stupid.
That should be mentioned in test if the tester insists on such testing philosophy.
-
By default I think Avast on access scanner should be set to high.
And if users are getting a significant performance hit then they can change their settings.
-
avast! 4.5 is already using modified sensitivity settings (On-Copy is now active by default)
-
On the other hand you have many types of Internet users who need different kinds of protection
- people who only use the Internet to send and receive emails
- people who only chat all the time (and there many like those)
- peopel who run their pc all day, all week,...a whole month or more,... and download often.
the first category of people will have enough with the standard setting I think, while other prefer the high setting,....
-
i think alwil shoud improve the virus database
the other company like drweb and kaspersky add every days ton of virii
by the way i'm an avast guy
-
Well, on my machine it updates at least 2 times a week,...miminum,...
I do not check it that much,...cause when I am at work I use MacOS X Panther,...so no compatible Avast soft for this OS.
I might agree with you Mantra if you say that other AV's add new virusses every day,...
NOD32 seems to update very fast daily,..
Maybe indeed there should be more frequent updates,...daily,....if possible!
However I do not know how the updates are scheduled at Alwil.
As for me Avast! caught all the virusses I received by email and I haven't got any single virus yet!
I admit,...I have scanned my PC with trials of other AV's to test if Avast is doing its job! ;D (no offence Alwil,..but this is just to find any leaks) and things seem virus-free,...so,...
If you have the pro,..you have the so called "push updates" (if I remember correctly),...faster updates,....
However one tiny question towards the programmers perhaps:
-> What is meant by: "Standard update"? Are it just trojans and little viruses who are not that dangerous?
Cause when newer virusses like Zafi-D are added, it is mentioned in the emails I receive from Alwil.
-
Alwil is updating the vps about twice a week. This is the standard update and does contain 'minor' malware.
If there is a outbreak from something that is a real huge threat to systems, a 'emergency' update will be released, normally with a few minutes after detection.
When you receive the 'emergency' update depends on several things. Lets say you are connected to the net permantly or are busy and spend a couple of hours on the net without disconnecting. With the standard settings in Avast, Avast is checking every 4 hours for updates. So if Avast checks for an update and one minute after that a 'emergency' update is released, it can take 3H 59m before you recieve it.
When a real threat is detected, this (normally) will be on (most?) website of av vendors within minutes after detection as well as on many news sites. So if you want to receive the update a.s.a.p., you can always run a manual update for the vps.
-
I think the best test for me is that i've never had any virus since using avast (one year) with sygate .And following advices of the OLD users on this forum (excuse for the ""olds").
Many people aroud me with Greats av ,alaways spreak about their last virus....but are too snobs for using a free av....
-
I am a bit surprised about the people from virusbtn, being unable to setup the program.
I doubt that anyone is using antivirus perfectly out-of-the box without changing at least one setting. So comparing AVs on default settings is stupid. That should be mentioned in test if the tester insists on such testing philosophy.
We TOLD him multiple times that on-copy scanning must be enabled manually - but he insisted to test the program ONLY with default settings :-\ :-X).
I'm happy that, for the first time, I blamed here against this tests and I have the support of the others... I mean, the tester must know the program it's managing... Ok, if he wants to see what the 'first' look of the program is, ok, now avast will let it see 8)
Thanks Vlk... You allowed our 'fanatism' at least once 8) ;)
-
Only once Technical? Oh, come on, give the good fellow a break and allow him twice :D
He and all the others at Alwil deserve that (at least). ;)
-
Only once Technical? Oh, come on, give the good fellow a break and allow him twice :D
He and all the others at Alwil deserve that (at least). ;)
Yeah ;D 8)
-
Move to General Topic section
-
I might agree with you Mantra if you say that other AV's add new virusses every day,...
NOD32 seems to update very fast daily,..
grunger but the nod32 update are fast like avast? incremental or download the full pattern?
-
Hi,
here are my 0,02€ on that topic.
If you test multiple virus scanners the only option is to install them and let them run in their standard out-of-the-box config because this is the only way to get comparable results.
Another point is, that a lot of users will never change the config of the program, maybe because they are simply not interested, don't want to break anything or don't know how, what and why to change anything. Hell, a lot of (most?) users wouldn't even update virus defintions if the program wouldn't do it automatically. Why? They don't know they have to, they don't know how, forget it or whatever. Fact is: they wouldn't do it.
So therefore the correct way of testing is: unpack the software, install it and test it. If there are weak points in that configuration, the software needs to be improved, not the user needs to tweak the software.
No, I'm not working for c't magazine, nor is the tester a friend or relative of me. ;D
I too found it strange, that the test was done with an outdated version of the scanner when the most up-to-date version is available for download.
Don't get me wrong: I'm using avast 4.5 Home and I'm highly satisfied with it but that had to be said.
Bye
Gen. F.
-
In this case - when you really want to simulate the user's environment - you should RUN the viruses and see what happens and not just COPY them.
I know, taking the number of viruses and number of products, this is the task which can't be probably done in reasonable time, but only in a such test are your arguments fully valid ;)
Pavel
-
You should do both.
- Run viruses and see what happens
- try to copy a virus via defferent means to a machine and see what happens
First test is important to see what scanners do when a machine is infected prior to the install.
Second test shows the ability of the scanner to protect a virus from entering the PC. What I think is important. I wouldn't want a virus to sit on my machine even if it is detected when it is started. I'd prefer the virus to be smashed on entering.
These tests would have to be performed with viruses that are on the wildlist that is valid at the time of the test.
That could explain the huge time gap between ordering the software and publishing the results of the test. Hmmm... Install and image a PC, install scanner, run test 1 (run virus), apply image, install scanner, run test 2 (copy virus), apply image *repeat as necessary*
Bye
Gen. F.
-
Hi everyone!
I'm new to avast! but I have to admit I'm surprised at how good this thing actually looks and feels! ;D
Unfortunately a few things confuse me: In the c't 01/05 avast! failed the on-access ITW-test although "all tested scan-engines were configured for maximum scanning depth". ["Die Scanner konfigurierten wir stets auf die maximale Suchtiefe."]
Another thing that irritates me is the fact that in the ICSA Labs AV Laboratory Testing Report for October and November 2004 (http://www.icsalabs.com/) avast! doesn't show up in the list of programs that passed the ITW-test. (Please correct me if I'm wrong!) :-\ (btw these are the latest tests i know (14.01.2005))
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to fuel any fire here. I just thought some of you might be intersted in this. I hope future tests will prove the true quality of avast! Nonetheless I will continue to use avast! and support it's effort's from time to time with the bitdefender free edition 7.2. ;)
Keep it up everybody!! :)
-
I hope future tests will prove the true quality of avast!
Ok... a very old-discussed topic: the effectiveness of the virus tests...
I won't start it again... You can browse the board.
Last time, Vlk gave me the reason that some tests are useless because the tester does not know how to configure and run a test that really compares the antivirus programs.
If I were you, I'll be self confident about your protection... Anyway, it's up to you: you must trust your security company 8)
-
To Mantra; I do not know what the updates from NOD32 contain exactly. At work we have our server protected with NOD32, all PC's are running Panda Titanium 2004 and all macs are having Norton AV for mac.
I guess NOD32 only updates its virusdatabase,...but the program itself doesn't seem to evolve,...
the build dates from 2003 if I remember correctly,....
I don't know,... I discovered and started using Avast at the end of 2003 since my subscription to Norton Interet Security expired,...and I do not think I will switch to another AV,...
You know, many people will think Avast is a "silly program" because it uses skins,... ::) and,..so what? :D
I must admit,..I am not a skin fanatic myself,..but in the case with Avast I can live with that! ;D
In my eyes Avast is a wonderfull product that is evolving every day with the suggestions and support of their customers. And like Technical says in his reply: you have to thrust your security company,...
And if you have doubts about certain things,...ask them :)
-
Well WinAMP was also just a silly audio player with skin support,but look it now!?
It's used worldwide by milions of users. Not to mention how many skins you can use.
avast! is indeed an antivirus,but who forces you to use skins anyway? Pro version has a normal interface which is very nice in v4.5 (main icons)
-
Silly? WinAMP was the first usable MP3 player every done, IMHO (in the times when most of the players weren't even able to seek the songs, took too much CPU, etc.).
Btw, anybody remembers any older program (than WinAMP) using skins? Or was it the first one?