Avast WEBforum
Consumer Products => Avast Free Antivirus / Premium Security (legacy Pro Antivirus, Internet Security, Premier) => Topic started by: JEfromCanada on June 29, 2006, 05:20:32 PM
-
Can someone from Alwil tell me why Virus Bulletin did not give a VB100% award to avast in its June 2006 test of avast for Windows XP.
I have confidence in this product, but my reputation is on the line for recommending it to several of my friends. Thanks for your response.
Jack
-
Can someone from Alwil tell me why Virus Bulletin did not give a VB100% award to avast in its June 2006 test of avast for Windows XP.
Actually, that's not [going to be] correct ;)
-
I look at real life experiences and not just tests which as far as I'm aware only test the on-demand scan. As a happy avast users for over two years, I have confidence in avast, however no single program is going to provide full protection, so the use of multi-level compatible security programs will beef up your overall protection.
If you haven't already got this software (freeware), download, install, update and run it.
1. Ad-Aware (http://www.lavasoft.de/support/download)
2. Spybot Search and Destroy (http://www.safer-networking.org/index.php?lang=en&page=download)
3. Spywareblaster (http://www.javacoolsoftware.com/spywareblaster.html) Don't install this until you are clean.
4. Ewido Security Suite (http://www.ewido.net/en/) If using winXP. or a-Squared free (http://www.emsisoft.com/en/software/free/) if using win98/ME.
-
Avast will get the VB100% mark for the June 06 XP test, together with an apology, in the July 2006 issue (due in a couple of days).
During the test, avast was blamed for having three false positives; however, it turned out that these were in fact not false... ;)
-
Rofl ;D
-
Avast will get the VB100% mark for the June 06 XP test, together with an apology, in the July 2006 issue (due in a couple of days).
During the test, avast was blamed for having three false positives; however, it turned out that these were in fact not false... ;)
Thanks, that makes me feel better.
Does that mean that all other products that did NOT report those "false positives" as actual positives will be downgraded to a failure? ;)
-
[snip] however no single program is going to provide full protection, so the use of multi-level compatible security programs will beef up your overall protection [snip]
I agree, and I urge a multi-level approach to security - I just wanted to ensure that my current recommendation for virus protection was still valid.
-
Does that mean that all other products that did NOT report those "false positives" as actual positives will be downgraded to a failure?
No, because they're not "ItW" samples (VB100% pass or failure is only given by the ability to detect ItW viruses)
-
During the test, avast was blamed for having three false positives; however, it turned out that these were in fact not false... ;)
LOL! :o That's great! ;D
-
Vlk,
That is good to know. I admit that I was surprised to see that Avast had not passed.
I wonder why they thought the three were FP? It seems to me that does not speak well for the tests.
Jerry
-
Well, let's put it this way: the files were very questionable. They were not really malicious, but it was not clear whether they should be detected or not. Such files should not be in a cleanset for an official test.
-
Well, let's put it this way: the files were very questionable. They were not really malicious, but it was not clear whether they should be detected or not. Such files should not be in a cleanset for an official test.
I agree, and that again, causes me to wonder as to the expertise of the testers. It is a sad fact that bad news travels fast, and an erroneous report is sometimes remembered while the correct version either not noticed or forgotten.
Best,
Jerry
-
It has happened a couple of times in the past, too.
Last time, it was Kasperky (if I remember correctly), about a year ago.
Once, it even happened to Avast (I think that was in 2001).
The problem is that the VB cleanset is not maintained too well - and sometimes, some questionable files slip in. This time, the files that avast was detecting were tools for adding the current user to the admin group, with the aid of a security hole in a Windows component. These were not false positives from avast - avast was detecting them intentionally (they were part of our database of samples). Strange that no other AV actually reported them as malicious... :)
-
Thanks for the additional information. Avast is too good an AV to suffer from such errors. However, I do not think a lot of folks are even aware of the test, and those of us who are can understand the problem, and that it is not an Avast shortcoming.
Best,
Jerry
-
http://www.avast.com/eng/100-virus-bulletin-award.html
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/2006/06 (free registration required)
http://www.virusbtn.com/news/vb_news/2006/07_01b.xml
-
http://www.avast.com/eng/100-virus-bulletin-award.html
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/2006/06 (free registration required)
That is indeed good news.
Also see:
http://www.virusbtn.com/news/vb_news/2006/07_01b.xml (free registration required)