Poor Test Ratings with Avast?

[darchell]

nulled

[Spyros]

So, if you're still shopping for a package that will keep nasties such as MyDoom at bay

So what is this guy exactly saying; that only expensive AV's will catch ITW viruses? Oh, please. Even my grandmother would detect ITW viruses!
The latest av-comparatives virus test gives avast! a 91% score (http://www.av-comparatives.org), which is not bad.
And one more very important thing: avast! is NOT a free antivirus. Avast Pro is the complete version, which costs money. It also has a free Home version. So, if Norton gave it's home edition for free, would that mean that this "antivirus expert" would say that Norton is crap because it doesn't cost money?

[Arup]

By offering a product free, it gets the biggest installed clientbase, this gives it the chance to get feedback no other pay product can even come close to. Take a look at Avast, Anti Vir, AVG and firewalls like Kerio, Sygate, Jetico and even Zone Alarm. They get a chance to hone their products to the best as they get feedback from variety of installed clientbase.

[DavidR]

If only I had a Dollar for every bum supposed reports with a thread in these forums, I would be sunning myself in on a tropical island.

Seriously, there are loads of such threads littering these forums (that they become tiresome), these are by far outnumbered by the numbers of happy avast users, who have jumped ship from the supposed 'top antivirus software makers' to avast. Have confidence in avast! a great anti-virus product, providing protection in depth.

And to devote a whole paragraph to such an important topic as anti-virus protection, to me shows a lack of a serious review, more a space filler.

Extract from the Norton Review in cnet

Editors' rating:
7.8 Good

Average user rating:
4.5 Poor (from 110 users)

So the editor thinks its great but users tell a different story.

[sded]

Latest version didn't do as well.  Glad I never installed it.

[TAP]

"Using Virus ulletin's VB100% list, AVG, from Gist, has failed 20 times and passed only 3. Avast, from a Czech company named Alwil, fares a little better, failing only 19 times, but passing only 7

For me, the number of pass/fail in Virus Bulletin test is almost tell nothing but good marketing tool, avast! has continuously certified by ICSA Labs that's enough for me to prove that avast! can deal with ITW malware 100% at a given time.

Just simply count the number of pass/fail in Virus Bulletin test to judge the quality of an antivirus is misleading, except some people that have no idea about what Virus Bulletin test, have no idea about ITW concept or some people that are driven by marketing point in order to convince potential customers.

I'm not say avast! is the best antivirus in the world or it better than Norton or others, avast! is not perfect but it's good enough to protect you from common malware and today's most dangerous malware, that's all.

[Lisandro]

I think we 'lose' that much time on reviews and ratings stuffs... We very well know that is ruled by money, paid reviews, big companies, marketing strategies... Do the independent testers have that much freedom? If so, see the settings used in the comparison and tests... we round on circles 

[FreewheelinFrank]

Poor test ratings with Avast!? Not always!

A major UK computer magazine (Computer Shopper) recently tested anti-virus programs. Avast! 4.0 Free appeared in this test and did well. The test was in February this year, but has still not gone on the web site. Here is a brief summary until it does:

The test:

"Each program was installed on a fresh Windows XP Professional system, and once it had been updated with the latest definitions and program enhancements we downloaded a number of email messages using outlook express. These included examples of today's most prevalent viruses (including variants of MyDoom, NetSky, LovGate and Bagle), as well as some well-known Trojans and some scripts that can be created by anyone lacking a social conscience and with the ability to download the software.
We've also taken some common steps to disguise one of the Trojans. Again, using well-known free software, we've done what a knowledgeable attacker would do."

So, a tough real life test.

The result?

Avast caught all the nasties, and was only criticized for its email integration and not having a script blocker. Version 4.6 of course does have seamless email integration, and Avast! Pro has a script blocker. (as does Microsoft's AntiSpyware, fellow paupers).

Avast! got three stars, as did eTrust EZ anti-virus and ESET NOD32. AVG got four, as did Kaspersky and Symantec. McAfee, F-secure and Steganos got five. Poor old Panda got two, by the way.

In summary: Avast! has appeared in a test with the anti-virus 'big-boys' and can hold its head high about the results.

The timing was bad for Avast!, the test looking at AVG 7.0 Free but missing 
Avast! 4.5 Free by just a month or so.

When Avast! 4.6 goes into future tests, it will almost certainly do better: I'm sure four stars easily!

You can see a scan of the magazine article here:

http://www.geocities.com/dontsurfinthenude/antivir.htm

[smokethapimp]

One thing to keep in mind. If you are worried you can always use Symantec/Norton and PC Cillin's free online scans in addition to having Avast or AVG free(or Pro) installed on  your computer for daily protection. My experience has been that each scan will occasionally catch a Malware that one or both of the others miss. When I had AVG it would miss stuff Norton and/or PC Cillin found, and conversely it would find some things they missed.

Norton seems to find a good many very obscure "low-risk" Malwares that no one else EVER scans for.  

I use Avast and the two free online scans plus Spybot and Adaware, but heck, you can't scan all day every day - try not to worry and stay away from Porn and Warez sites and you will greatly reduce your Malware risks. I don't say that in Judgement of whatever anyone here might like to do - That is COMPLETELY your business. But the fact is those sites are just LITTERED with Malware.

[Lisandro]

Norton seems to find a good many very obscure "low-risk" Malwares that no one else EVER scans for.

In short: false positives sometimes 

[smokethapimp]

Norton seems to find a good many very obscure "low-risk" Malwares that no one else EVER scans for.

In short: false positives sometimes 

Ya think!