Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: RejZoR on November 30, 2007, 09:23:51 PM
-
http://www.av-comparatives.org
(click Comparatives on the left and select the latest test for November 2007).
Very low false positives rate and surprisingly high detection rate for signature only antivirus (if we compare it to others that do have heuristics). ALWIL team proved themself yet again.
Btw, i think it would be smart to add all the ADVANCED awards on your webpage. AV-Comparatives test is already pretty well known and respected. Some AV vendors are already using their awards to promote their product capabilities. I think ALWIL should do it too as streak ADVANCED awards aren't something to be forgotten or to chit chat about it just in AV geek circles...
Congrats again!
-
Congratulations.
Let's run after Kaspersky and ESET the Advanced+ ones ;)
-
Congratulations to Alwill Team 8)
Very impressive results :)
-
Congratulations.
But not all is positive.
I use free version and i'm very happy, but when someone purchases Pro version demand the best ;)
Keep up the good work.
-
That isn't bad considering it is the Retrospective test.
-
Especially when you look at percentage. 37% for signature only antivirus is really not bad. Other competitors all have heuristics, yet they don't score much better or they have awful false positives problems.
-
I don't quite understand how they come up with their certification level. For instance, AntiVir PE detected 81% and received only standard. Avast detected 37% and received Advanced. How does this make sense?
-
have you read the report? it explains quite well why they got standard.
-
I don't quite understand how they come up with their certification level. For instance, AntiVir PE detected 81% and received only standard. Avast detected 37% and received Advanced. How does this make sense?
If you read the whole report you'll see that this is because AntiVir produced many false positives , that's why Antivir received Standard mark ;)
-
Yeah, not bad... only 3 percent behind Kaspersky 7 (which got Advanced+) -- that was close... :)
And things should improve quite substantially in avast 5...
Seems that this is a consequence of the relatively strong unpacking engine...
Thanks
Vlk
-
Congrats to all the team ;D
-
Other than the Script Blocker in Avast Pro making a difference, shouldn't Avast Home be very close to the Pro versions results for both of the AV Comparitive Tests? I of course will add how impressive the latest test for Avast was, and not to be snide. But it did better than AVG Anti-Malware which has Heuristics and uses the Ewido engine for help. Also I have used AVG AM and it runs higher in memory than Avast Home.
-
Congratulation, Keep up the good work :)
Al968
-
***
Way to go avast team! :D
***
-
Congrats to all at ALWIL.
-
And things should improve quite substantially in avast 5... Vlk
Again with the tease , another crumb please ::)
-
congrats to us ;) ;D
-
grats to alwil team which proves for once again that avast is competitive and can reach kaspersky and eset and even become better than them ;D alwil keep up the gd work..and its indeed a gd idea to post the results in the webpage..it would be a nice way to advertise avast as u show y they should trust it..
-
keep the progress ... or ideally speed it up even more ;D
-
I don't know if I get it... To hit 81% detection you have to have a high false-positive rate??? ???
-
no.
-
NOD32 prowes that but you certanly tolerate more FPs easily if AV justifies them with extreme detection rate of actual malware (opposed to AV with awful detection and lots of false positives).
-
@Andreas
Can you elaborate a little on how Avira`s score deteriorated from what looked great to standard rating
-
its due false positives.
getting high scores (also in the tests of august) with a noisy heuristic is easy. as FP's are not something tolerable (and passing our FP test "should" be easy) it does not deserve the A+ or A rating.
e.g. in virusbulletin tests only 1 FP is needed to do not get any award.
-
This just means heuristics are indeed strong, but not fine tuned enough. NOD32 is a live proof of that, they offer excellent heuristics with very low false positive rates (if we look globally, not just this test). Thats why avast! scored that well too. They have detection and false positives nicely balanced.
-
But, the thing is if you look at the rate of improvement for AVIRA, when its detection rate was something like 41% it received Advanced++ standing, so it increased its number of false positives from about 6 to 16 but its detection increased from 41% to 81% and now its just standard. The AV comparative seems very made up.
-
A++ does not exist. A+ is the highest. FP's are sent to the vendors after the tests, so if FP's still raise in our FP tests it means that a product has a very noisy heuristic / weak signatures and this makes it easy to get high scores when scanning malware. to get A+ it is only needed to reach 40% and have only few FP's. the categorization is unchanged since years; changing the rating system to make avira look better is unfair. FP's are an issue and should not be talked down.
-
Statistics:
Depending on how they are put together, can make 1+1=3
The best way to judge a product is by how it performs for you on your system. :)
-
Well, i totally agree with IBK and his rules. Most of AVs even show they can work just fine with those rules (NOD32 and KAV7 specifically, you can also include avast! in there). Avira has to iron out false positives in their heuristics engine. As simple as that.
-
Aggressive heuristic could sell an image that the product is detecting MORE than the others. It could be used as an advertisement. I agree with IBK and RejZor. Also with Bob, as no product will be perfect and we do like layered defense 8)
-
When will we get the "On-demand comparative February 2008" ? ;)
-
When will we get the "On-demand comparative February 2008" ? ;)
They will be released on 1st March ;)
-
Thank you :D
-
i don't think tha AV Comparatives are too important ...
to understood what i mean read
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=199292
especially since http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=199292&page=7
it get's interesting where company experts explain why security companies bail out of AV comparatives due testset and methology mistakes etc ...
quite shocking (tho i knew some of it - i never paid closer attention to that mess around) ....
and in thread are mentioned some interesting numbers from russian virus tests and other infos ...
-
the opinion of bontchev about tests with large test-sets is known. he does not represent the position of f-prot as company. if you read the whole thread you will better understand who is just trying to discredit a test/tester and why.
-
suddenly IBK's testbed is full of garbage files. Until recently, AV-C tests were considered to be reliable by the industry, with garbage files kept to a minimum. im sure the top-scorers just recieve the dvds from IBK and just add them all to their database. 20 minutes work, simple and scores high in the test.
I can't believe it ::)
-
Heh, why ppl always jump so fast on "garbage" files as soon as they fall behind competition. It's not like you can "desinfect" trojans and break them like it used to be in the file infectors era, DSL and cable connections are now almost 100% error free compared to crappy 56k full of errors and packet loss. Where the hell all these "garbage" comes from? If you ask me it's just an lame excuse for AVs that suck and just can't get over that fact. Why can avast! score good, yet ALWIL guys still sometimes have slow samples adding and similar administrative problems, Dr Web which has oh and so heuristics, hourly updates and god knows what is still worse in lots of points?
Same for F-Prot. Long history and developement, recently a very good dev joined their team, yet they still just can't make any visible progress. Then there is AVIRA on the other side, lets face it, they were pretty lame like year and a half ago, AntiVir 6 was like ancient software with it's non incrimental updates and quiet crappy detection. But look it now, probably the best heuristics, they offer hourly updates and they've beaten pretty much all vendors hands down in pretty much all tests done to date. Why can AVIRA actually show the progress and improvements and others can't? Garbage files, right...
Same goes for avast!. It's not THE best but constantly achieving ADVANCED rating and also improving in proactive field without any heuristics does show that devs can keep up a certain level of quality. Garbage files pheh...
-
avast! earned ADVANCED+ rating behind AVG and Avira :o
-
What can i say, excellent job ALWIL!
-
Great job ALWIL team ;)
-
great going avast!squad ;)
hello snowhite...long time :)
-
great going avast!squad ;)
hello snowhite...long time :)
yep... nice to see you too drhayden :)
-
Yes, excellent result team.
-
Yep, a 2.36% increase (compared to the last [August 07] test) is not bad indeed...
If we keep this pace, we're going to detect 99.96% in the next test... ;D
Cheers
Vlk
-
well done Alwil team, keep up the good work
-
I didn't expect anything less.... :) :)
Once 4.8 comes out it will be even better. :)
-
Keep your good work.
We're proud of the improvements.
-
Well done keep up the Excelent work :)
P.S : Congradulation also on the avast home page (french version) as it has already been updated and shows the press releases for avast 4.8 and antirookit. :)
Al968
-
It's great Avast has gained an advanced + in av-comparatives and other tests. But too bad Avast no not gained the following westcoastlabs checkmark certifications: Anti-virus disinfection and Anti-Trojan. I hope to see Avast 4.8 get these certifications. :-\
-
It's great Avast has gained an advanced + in av-comparatives and other tests. But too bad Avast no not gained the following westcoastlabs checkmark certifications: Anti-virus disinfection and Anti-Trojan. I hope to see Avast 4.8 get these certifications. :-\
They are already certified. :)
-
It's great Avast has gained an advanced + in av-comparatives and other tests. But too bad Avast no not gained the following westcoastlabs checkmark certifications: Anti-virus disinfection and Anti-Trojan. I hope to see Avast 4.8 get these certifications. :-\
They are already certified. :)
Hey Bob, Avast has gained the Anti-virus desktop(which is level 1) and also Anti-spyware desktop, but the under Anti-virus disinfection(level 2) I don't see Avast as well as in Anti-trojan. Avast should've got these two certifications since it has a good detection rate.
-
Each category = roughly $10K annual fee. Is it really a good way to spend the money?
-
Each category = roughly $10K annual fee. Is it really a good way to spend the money?
Spend it on program improvements instead. :)
-
Each category = roughly $10K annual fee. Is it really a good way to spend the money?
I had no idea it takes roughly 10k for each category in westcoastlabs. Anyways Avast has good detection rate.