Avast WEBforum
Other => General Topics => Topic started by: avastfan18 on December 15, 2011, 01:07:52 PM
-
http://av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/removal/avc_removal_2011.pdf
Avast! is LAST
You should improve disinfection avast team!
-
I have to say I'm not impressed by this, not by the poor cleaning of the samples by avast but by the test itself.
To me reading the Test-Proceedure and malware selection, it just doesn't mirror real world use.
First infecting a system under the Administrator account with no AV present; it has to be a malware dropper that the AVs on-demand/on-access scanner already detects; then install the AV.
To me that is crazy, the whole point of an on-access AV is to prevent infection, so if it can detects the dropper in the first place it would prevent the infection, rendering the cleaning process redundant.
-
I have to say I'm not impressed by this, not by the poor cleaning of the samples by avast but by the test itself.
To me reading the Test-Proceedure and malware selection, it just doesn't mirror real world use.
First infecting a system under the Administrator account with no AV present; it has to be a malware dropper that the AVs on-demand/on-access scanner already detects; then install the AV.
To me that is crazy, the whole point of an on-access AV is to prevent infection, so if it can detects the dropper in the first place it would prevent the infection, rendering the cleaning process redundant.
I agree with you - it's weird... BUT... when someone with infected PC installs avast! then Avast! fails because it has poor cleaning process.
So really avast! should improve cleaning process.
-
Hi DavidR,
Does not surprise me one bit either. No resemblance to the real world theater. Made to suit the workings of certain av solutions better than others. It reminds me of the mythical story of Procustos bed. Everyone was made to fit in a very painful manner. Only those that fit the bed did not suffer.
polonus
-
<snip quote>
I agree with you - it's weird... BUT... when someone with infected PC installs avast! then Avast! fails because it has poor cleaning process.
So really avast! should improve cleaning process.
Well when running a system without any AV, the users is playing Russian roulette and has to take some responsibility for the consequences of their action/inaction.
In a perfect world, yes it would be nice if they could clean all infections present on the system at the time of installation, but that may not always be possible. We do however, see many instances in the viruses and worms forum, where avast does just that, but that isn't 100%.
-
Although avast could improve the cleaning capabilities, I'd rather always put the priority in detection first.
There are other tools for cleaning, and even better than that, users that are specialist on cleaning malware (with logic, knowledge and brain).
Those tools targeting cleaning aspects are a complement to avast detecting capabilities.
So, from my point of view, the test is just one additional parameter. I don't question how "valid" or "close to reality" the test is. It is just a parameter, and there is no "good" or "bad" parameter as an absolute concept.
I, personally, keep measuring avast (or any other security tool for that matter) according to my needs, my own experience with it, and as I mentioned I'd rather always have avast detecting first hand (so please keep improving, always, on that aspect) than cleaning (which comes later in the security steps). More important than one test, is what happens in "real life" during longer periods of time.
-
It does not show the real world. Ok.
But avast need to improve its cleaning capabilities or develop an specialized tool for that.
Easy to say. Hard to do. I know.
-
This more or less reflects what I have experienced myself with Avast!. I've tried ~3-4 times over last couple of years to install Avast! on an infected PC, none of those times played out very well.
It has seems they operate more or less along the lines of "Prevention is Better than a Cure", a wisdom I can't argue with.
Still....bottom of yet another test.....not the best publicity, many will do what they always have, treat AV comparatives like the gospel, pay attention to the colored bar graphs rather than the methodology.
But avast need to improve its cleaning capabilities or develop an specialized tool for that.
Well, there is a rescue disc. Unless you meant free tool.
-
Well, there is a rescue disc. Unless you meant free tool.
Well, do you really think the Rescue disk cleaning capability is *that* higher of the installed version?
-
Well, do you really think the Rescue disk cleaning capability is *that* higher of the installed version?
Its sole advantage is its medium, being a disc, it operates from outside Windows instead of within.
I'm taking it by "cleaning capability" you are not referring to cleaning an infected file, but detection/quarantine/deletion of an infection in general?
-
I'm taking it by "cleaning capability" you are not referring to cleaning an infected file, but detection/quarantine/deletion of an infection in general?
Detection/quarantine/deletion of files, related files, registry keys, links, rootkits, temporary files.
-
Although avast could improve the cleaning capabilities, I'd rather always put the priority in detection first.
There are other tools for cleaning, and even better than that, users that are specialist on cleaning malware (with logic, knowledge and brain).
Those tools targeting cleaning aspects are a complement to avast detecting capabilities.
So, from my point of view, the test is just one additional parameter. I don't question how "valid" or "close to reality" the test is. It is just a parameter, and there is no "good" or "bad" parameter as an absolute concept.
I, personally, keep measuring avast (or any other security tool for that matter) according to my needs, my own experience with it, and as I mentioned I'd rather always have avast detecting first hand (so please keep improving, always, on that aspect) than cleaning (which comes later in the security steps). More important than one test, is what happens in "real life" during longer periods of time.
When Avast is installed on an infected computer it may not clean it all, but and here is the best part - it stops the processes from accessing the net to get some friends in...
-
Detection and prevention is clearly better. Yet Avast has done very poorly in initial detections as well recently (last recently). This was admitted by Vlk (in another thread I started) and that avast has some work to do to improve those results. No excuses or candy coating it from him, which I admire. Whatever quibbles we have with various tests when Avast admits they are lagging, they are lagging.
-
It does not show the real world. Ok.
But avast need to improve its cleaning capabilities or develop an specialized tool for that.
Easy to say. Hard to do. I know.
That worries me if Avast doesn't improve on cleaning capabilities or develop an specialized tool for that, I'm stuck with Comodo Cleaning Essentials (CCE) which its free and it not an FW & AV software it a cleaning tool and you'll have to be extra careful otherwise it can lead to false positives :-\ :'( :'( :'(
I'm not very happy about this so what can I do, I don't mind walking up to Vlk or Igor and belt them with a baseball bat to give them a bloody huge wake up call ;D
-
avast has been doing excellent in my removal tests though i infect a VM with over some trojans fakeAV worms a rootkit
and it always removes all of them what is left behind is ignorable adware...not a problrm at all ;D
i think the test done by av-comparatives has a very small amount of malware sample to test with as to what i see in their report...who knows if these guys are being paid for the results by some av vendors :P
-
I'm not very happy about this so what can I do, I don't mind walking up to Vlk or Igor and belt them with a baseball bat to give them a bloody huge wake up call ;D
I think you should take an anger management course. ;D
http://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control.aspx
-
I think you should take an anger management course. ;D
I've already been through that twice ;) ;D
-
when avast has very good results, everybody is excited. when the test results are poor, then the tests are not relevant or wrongly conducted or something like this. let's not get our personal feelings get in the way here. when it's bad, it's bad. all antiviruses were tested the same way, so finding excuses doesn't bring anything. let's hope it will get better.
-
when avast has very good results, everybody is excited. when the test results are poor, then the tests are not relevant or wrongly conducted or something like this. let's not get our personal feelings get in the way here. when it's bad, it's bad. all antiviruses were tested the same way, so finding excuses doesn't bring anything. let's hope it will get better.
Exactly. Well said dansorin. Avast is aware of this downward trend in legit testing and no doubt work hard to address this. But ignoring or pretending away is simply denial. These tests do say something. I'm hopeful avast will fix this, I just wish version 7 which is to be the fix is out soon before avast looses its loyal (but not stupid) following. There are many options and these kinds of results with poor detection could change their market share. Certainly for those (like me) who pay to use the product.
-
Hi forum friends,
Yes, let us see this in the right perspective, please. Do not worry. It is a test theater and not the real"malcode-world". There could be just some delay on automated detections. And there could be circumstances in development that could explain that lag. DrWeb is in a similar situation with their new implementation and version coming and every user's AV experience is for better or for worse. I think avast biorythms will improve. ;D They have to check them regularly. :P
Remember also that avast has some spearhead technology and in some fields beats all the others (shields). I will cling to avast,
polonus
-
I don't get excited when these AV Comparative results put us at the top of the list or,
have us at the bottom of the list. To me these tests are meaningless except from
a marketing standpoint.
What really counts for me is whether my computer is secure or not.
As long as avast! continues to protect me in the real world of computing,
I'm happy. If it does not, that's when I start to get excited.
So far, that has not happened so I'm still a happy and contented avast! user. :)
-
thx Bob, that's the point.. this test result is definitely nothing to celebrate, but it's not a tragedy... all the pros and cons of the test methodology have been discussed, i don't wanna elaborate on it even more.. the only difference is probably "whether you are protected" vs. "whether you feel protected".. we can work on the first statement, the second is up to the user, after all ;)
-
I am a very safe/non-risky computer user, yet in the last six months avast allowed two things onto the system. I know nothing is perfect and don't expect that. But the testing shows serious need for improvement and so does my "real world" experience and use. It is what it is.
One person's experience good or bad is actually meaningless because it could be other factors that are keeping them safe or infecting them than the AV. But my experience is not making me feel as good I as would like.
-
Maxx, I agree but... there is a but...
If it is not giving you the feeling of protection is because *something* is not getting protected/detected.
This exactly point can be better. So we wish it 8)
-
Frankly I am somewhat shocked by this latest AV-Comparatives Removal Test.
Avast has never been known for it's malware cleaning and removal capabilities but to come in dead last, now that bears notice.
Yes, it can be argued about testing methodolgy and the like. However, we not talking about Matousec here but a certifed AV lab. Of course most of their tests do not represent real world. If they did, zero day threats would be not having the field day they are currently having.
Again malware protection consists of two primary components, protection and removal. If either are deficient, your system is not protected.
Maybe the theorists are right; the days of conventional signature based anti-malware are over. Malware creators today are sophisticated criminal organizations employing the best in the field to generate the greatest illegal profit capable. Or they are nationalist entities engaged in cyber warfare, infrastructure disruption, and espionage. The days of the script kiddies are long past.
I have the solution. Return to IBM mainframes, dumb terminals, value added networks and pitch the Internet for e-Commerce. 8)
-
I have the solution.
Me too.
We're working to achieve it last 10 years together, side by side :)
-
honestly,i never believe in such fake tests...what if those guys are being paid for such results ;)
-
honestly,i never believe in such fake tests...what if those guys are being paid for such results ;)
there's no conspiracy behind the test and its results.. it's a true evaluation of cleaning capabilities on a very small subset of samples, which has lower statisctical value (thus i wouldn't fraek out due to that), but may show something in particular...
btw: http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/Roel_S_back_to_the_future.pdf with this approach e.g. you'd be great AV when it comes to prevention, but terrible one in such test... even though there's something about it..
-
I think the questions we have to ask ourselves here are these...
1. How long have i been using Avast?
2. Has a virus/malware ever screwed my system beyond repair that Avast has not been able to fix it?
My answers to the above are, i have been using Avast for a number of years and no i have never had problems with viruses/malware that Avast couldn't solve.
So, i would say for me the test provided is completely irrelevant!
I also think that we all understand that no one AV is going to protect you against everything, which is why you will find that many people on here use a combination of Avast & MBAM for extra protection.
I am very happy with Avast and will continue to use :)
-
Quote from Vlk on another thread regarding detection results:
First, let me say that the recent results (especially the Oct 2011 results) don't make me too happy. You're right that avast did quite poorly, and this needs to be fixed....
...In any case, we do understand the importance of doing well in these tests (and we do even have a limited understanding of the necessity of protecting our users better against those manually downloaded malware binaries) and that's why we're making some important changes in our upcoming avast version 7, due in Q1 next year. It will be very interesting to see whether the new version will live up to its expectations. Fingers crossed.
Possibly Vlk or some else from Avast! could share some specifics on how Version 7 will better address detection and removal. I'm optimistic about Ver 7, but would love to know at least in general terms what in the future that will inspire improved confidence. I'm hoping that such information will keep the faithful, faithful to avast! and keep some from jumping ship.
-
Removing and cleaning up from infections has always been avast!'s weak point.
About six months ago my nephew switched to MSE because avast! detected a virus on his computer but couldn't remove it.
He put MSE on his machine and it detected the infection and removed it with no trace left behind.
I'm not knocking avast!, but we have to face reality.