Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: 12-es_csaj on November 04, 2010, 03:39:37 PM
-
New results here:
http://av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/dyn/wholedynamic2010.pdf
avast! :( :'(
-
I don't see anything that i haven't seen. Where are the new results?
-
Yes, I downloaded this pdf file on the 22/9/2010.
However it was 388KB (just August 2010 stata) then and now this one (August-September 2010) is 1,982KB so they have re run this test or updated it.
-
I don't see anything that i haven't seen. Where are the new results?
Compare the results august-september.
-
But...What's your opinion?
-
Those people who know me, they know I'm happy with result!! 8) 8) ::) ;D
Yet, almost a good result from avast, indeed could be better, need to wait for next test.
-
I think that it would be best if they end support for avast4.8 right away. avast Team has stated that version 5 has the capability to detect more types of malware, but they need virus definitions for both versions (or make separate signatures for both versions, but thats too much work). something along those lines
-
Idk, 95% is pretty good to me, considering I've got Threatfire, Def+, and WinPatrol to cover the rest.
-
I think the key issue that caught my eye today at Wilders is actually in http://www.av-test.org/certifications.php and the associated reference that says that Avast! protection is poor. Avast! blocked 20% of their Dynamic Detection cases, where the average was 50%. Only Norman scored lower in protection than Avast! Not a good message at all! And do the average users know which test organization is more reliable?
-
Idk, 95% is pretty good to me, considering I've got Threatfire, Def+, and WinPatrol to cover the rest.
An ordinary user doesn't use more than 1 or 2 (firewall, antivirus) security software.
For them, avast! could be weak.... :'(
I hope that avast would be better; because I like avast!
-
Idk, 95% is pretty good to me, considering I've got Threatfire, Def+, and WinPatrol to cover the rest.
An ordinary user doesn't use more than 1 or 2 (firewall, antivirus) security software.
For them, avast! could be weak.... :'(
I hope that avast would be better; because I like avast!
With the exception on ThreatFire. It's a good partner. Until avast! BS is improved.
-
With the exception on ThreatFire. It's a good partner. Until avast! BS is improved.
A huge amount of users don't know ThreatFire, MBAM and so on...
-
With the exception on ThreatFire. It's a good partner. Until avast! BS is improved.
A huge amount of users don't know ThreatFire, MBAM and so on...
I know, also on keeping their programs updated. This is one of the most cause of infections.
-
I know, also on keeping their programs updated. This is one of the most cause of infections.
Hackers are often faster (with exploits) than the programmers (with program (not AV, eg. browser etc.) updates).
-
Hackers are often faster (with exploits) than the programmers (with updates).
True, "Zero-day-attacks". This is the problem, but what we can do?
People that have the knowledge of Internet Security, are fine. But is more the people that don't have the knowledge than us. At the moment, there are no security software that guarantee 100% of security in real-time at any-time. We can't share our knowledge with all the world, because many people not have the interest of this, or simply, don't know that Cybercrime exist.
-
True, "Zero-day-attacks". This is the problem, but what we can do?
Increase zero day protection in *anyway*...: http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=64382.msg546016#msg546016
At the first post of that thread I've mentioned the wish/necessity of having a better 0-day protection.
-
ThreatFire sure was good but now I don't use it as it is not updated often.
-
ThreatFire sure was good but now I don't use it as it is not updated often.
Behavior based-protection not need daily virus updates as traditional AVs.