Author Topic: According to a test of virus.gr avast is in the 13th rank among antivirus progs  (Read 9218 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline hariskar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
You can check it out:
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=59&mnu=59

1. F-Secure version 5.40 - 99.67%

2. Kaspersky version 4.0.5.37 - 99.55%

3. e-Scan Pro version 2.5.181.5 - 97.66%

4. McAfee version 7.00.5000 - 97.14%

5. RAV version 8.6.104 - 95.18%

6. F-Prot version 3.13 - 92.92%

7. PC-Cillin version 2003 10.01.1039 - 90.59%

8. Norton version 2003 Professional - 90.01%

9. Sophos Sweep version 3.69 - 89.37%

10. Dr. Web version 4.29c - 89.23%

11. Panda Titanium version 2.04.04 - 88.75%

12. Command version 4.75.0 - 87.09%

13. Avast version 4.0.202 - 86.85%

I started to feel not very secure with avast. Any opinions?
« Last Edit: November 18, 2003, 01:52:12 PM by hariskar »

Offline Waldo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
  • Avast does the ownage
This "test" has been discussed a few months ago already.

I can only say that Avast is one of the best in that test, Why ? Because there are still 30 other AV's behind it !

If you are number 13 out of a list of 46 > That's not bad at all !

If you see that AVG, Norman, Bullguard, Bitdefender,E-trust etc... are all behind AVAST ? Why do you think Avast is not safe ? There all good products also.

If only the big boys (so to speak) like Kaspersky, F-secure, Macafee, Norton etc seem to score a little better, than I'm more than happy to own Avast (wich is free).  ;D

kind regards,

Waldo
« Last Edit: November 18, 2003, 01:58:03 PM by Waldo »
**Guns are for show, knifes for a pro**

Offline hariskar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
Yes, but there is also about 13% diffrence in findin viruses comparing it to the first ones, I don't think it is a small diffrence. Of course I agree with you, that it is great for a free program, but the professional version, which is not free is also in the 13th position...

Offline Waldo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 397
  • Avast does the ownage
Yes, but there is also about 13% diffrence in findin viruses comparing it to the first ones, I

The first one (F-secure) uses 3 engines to detect virusses...so it's very hard to beat.

it uses :

-Kaspersky
-F-Prot
-Orion (Heuristics engine)

Can't say much more about it....

It's true that Avast Home and Pro have the same detection rate. They use the same engine.

Waldo

« Last Edit: November 18, 2003, 02:11:38 PM by Waldo »
**Guns are for show, knifes for a pro**

Offline Pavel

  • Massive Poster
  • ****
  • Posts: 4305
  • Nostalgia isn't what it used to be...
    • ALWIL Software
Yes, but there is also about 13% diffrence in findin viruses comparing it to the first ones, I don't think it is a small diffrence. Of course I agree with you, that it is great for a free program, but the professional version, which is not free is also in the 13th position...

Well, I think that the concept of this whole test is completely wrong. I have never seen their testbed but according to their web they did not replicate the viruses at all!!! And how they know the file is infected?? Let's quote them:

The 50795 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV and McAfee antivirus programs. Each virus sample was unique by virus name, meaning that AT LEAST 1 antivirus programs detected it as a new virus.

That means that:
  • the set can contain the false positives from the four products mentioned above, meaning that any other product is penalized while not detecting such file
  • also it means that if some virus is not detected by those scanners but is detected by some other antivirus, it will NOT be included in the test set, which gives the unfair advantage to those products
No wonder all of them are in the top five!

I am sorry to say this, but the antivirus detection testing is very difficult task and I do know many (if any?) people on the Earth which are able to do this in the right way. I definitely know that the authors of these tests do not belong to them...

BTW: Even in the most thorough tests avast! has more than 90% detection rate ;)

Pavel
All of us could take a lesson from the weather. It pays no attention to criticism.

Offline .: Mac :.

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Ultra Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
wow command beat avast
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." - Alan Kay

CoJo

  • Guest
[
Well, I think that the concept of this whole test is completely wrong. I have never seen their testbed but according to their web they did not replicate the viruses at all!!! And how they know the file is infected?? Let's quote them:

The 50795 virus samples were chosen using VS2000 according to Kaspersky, F-Prot, RAV and McAfee antivirus programs. Each virus sample was unique by virus name, meaning that AT LEAST 1 antivirus programs detected it as a new virus.

That means that:
  • the set can contain the false positives from the four products mentioned above, meaning that any other product is penalized while not detecting such file
  • also it means that if some virus is not detected by those scanners but is detected by some other antivirus, it will NOT be included in the test set, which gives the unfair advantage to those products
No wonder all of them are in the top five!

I am sorry to say this, but the antivirus detection testing is very difficult task and I do know many (if any?) people on the Earth which are able to do this in the right way. I definitely know that the authors of these tests do not belong to them...

BTW: Even in the most thorough tests avast! has more than 90% detection rate ;)

Pavel
Quote


Pavel, although I am a little more than a beginner, two things came to mind when I checked out that site...first, that was done in May...several months ago...maybe those results have changed .
second, who sponsored the testing? is it like the drug companies here in America do? announce results that make their drugs look good (so they can make money) and others look bad? was it really a disinterested 3rd party that did the testing and what was the exact protocol followed?
I sincerely doubt that this was a fair assessment of the antivirus programs...
Avast! Rules!!

CoJo

Offline .: Mac :.

  • Avast Überevangelist
  • Ultra Poster
  • *****
  • Posts: 5092
I only go by virus bulliten
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware." - Alan Kay

Offline Lisandro

  • Avast team
  • Certainly Bot
  • *
  • Posts: 67247
You can check it out:
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=59&mnu=59
8. Norton version 2003 Professional - 90.01%
.
.
.
13. Avast version 4.0.202 - 86.85%
I started to feel not very secure with avast. Any opinions?

I won't comment this ranking...  >:(
I won't believe in Norton. Maybe it caught virus but certainly it will bring more troubles (Windows Registry, performance, all-in-one application, etc.) that I won't use it again anymore. This is our place: avast  ;D
The best things in life are free.

CoJo

  • Guest
Technical, I am in total agreement with you!
I may be a B+ beginner, but avast! and this forums have saved my butt...and my computer 8)

CoJo

Offline hariskar

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 25
After trying the most AV programs above avast in virus.gr test, I decided that the AV that uses less resources, doesn't cause problems in my PC, is stable, is very much configurable, has a very nice interface and is easy to use, is nod32, but it is not free.  If someone is looking for a free program, avas is great.
Thank you for your opinions!
« Last Edit: November 22, 2003, 01:51:04 PM by hariskar »