New Virus.gr Tests! "2-16 April 2005"

[lee16]

I say this with the utmost respect for you guys' knowledge and experience.

We know, this is a discussion, the idea of what is to get your opinons voiced, so no offence taken 

Anyway,

Never heard of disk imaging? Test a program on a infected hard disk. See what it cleans up. Restore the disk image and try another program.

Good point, didn't think of that.

Testing anti-virus programs against real malware is fundamentally pointless? Oh, come off it!

I didn't say that, i was saying that making a decision on a AV's detection rate by using 0.03% of all known malware is fundamentally pointless (using my example anyway).

Avast! provides a perfectly good level of protection and detection. The few things it does miss it probably catches a few days later. (I used Kaspersky to clean up a new variation of Codbot which Avast! couldn't touch last week. The next day a new definition came through from Avast! for a Codbot variant. Betcha that was the same one!)

I would of agreed with this anyway, its a logical statment.

But anybody who claims in the face of ALL the tests and reviews published of anti-virus programs that Avast! has the best detection rate or is the best anti-virus program is living in cloud cuckoo land.

I didn't say it is the best, there is no 'best' scanner, they all find and do different things, anyone trying to find the 'best' scanner is 'living in cloud cuckoo land', again, my opinon.

It's like saying a Skoda (another fine Czech product I believe) is better than a BMW. Nobody will believe you. Tell me you drive a Skoda because it's more economical, more practical around town, has more character, is less likely to get nicked and anyway most BMW drivers are knobheads and I'll believe you.

Depends on what kinda cars you like, same can be applied to anything.

In my opinion, such a test like this (even the most respectable Virus Bulletin, ICSA Labs) almost tell nothing about the "real-world detection" of an antivirus software.

True, i actulary liked FastGame's way of testing an AV, this to me is the most logical and scientific way.

Norman Sandbox desperately depend on proactive detection such as so-called heuristics.

Never really liked the idea of relying on heuristics myself.

Avast can be very fast to response to the major malware but also slow to some lesser priority malware.

Mostly true, but overal the detection rate is still very very good, or it would be pointless using it.

--lee

[xistenz]

What I find interesting is that product that came second (AVK) uses both the Kaspersky and Bitdefender engines and yet Kaspersky on its own beat AVK!!! 

[xistenz]

And avast! beat 63.8% of the competition. Not too shabby. 

[NAMOR]

What I find interesting is that product that came second (AVK) uses both the Kaspersky and Bitdefender engines and yet Kaspersky on its own beat AVK!!! 

Maybe the reason that KAV did slightly better is because the use of extended database? I don't know if AVK uses them.

[FreewheelinFrank]

But anybody who claims in the face of ALL the tests and reviews published of anti-virus programs that Avast! has the best detection rate or is the best anti-virus program is living in cloud cuckoo land.

Sorry, Lee.

This one wasn't aimed at you specifically. Just at the general reaction to tests and reviews like this: that no such test can every have anything to say about the quality of the program (and other anti-virus programs) or could ever reveal any one program to be less good in any specific area.

I think Avast! is a very good anti-virus product, and getting better. I'd recommend it to anybody. Indeed I put it on three computers last week. I hope those people like it enough to buy it, but a least I know that if they can't afford to, they'll still have excellent protection from the free version. But I couldn't honestly say to somebody that there are no other choices, some of which may have an edge in some areas.

I don't think anybody here is doing Avast! any favours by denying that any review that does not put Avast! at No.1 has any value.

I always try to point out the positive things these tests show: the difference between these tests is small, Avast! protected against 100% of nasties in a recent major computer mag. review (where other major anti-virus programs [Panda] did not,) Avast! is improving all the time and is (in my opinion at least) probably the best free anti-virus program now, and a worthy pay program.

It got a recommendation from the BBC only last week, both in free and pay form ('a bargain'.)

But I still think there's room for improvement. Why, if there is no room for improvement in Avast!'s detection rate, is the big drive for Version 5 (as I've read) an improved detection rate?

[o2xygen]

Plus this
The programs Extendia AVK , BOClean , VET , Titan , RisingAV and Freedom were not tested because there was no demo version available.

Rank

1. Kaspersky Personal Pro version 5.0.20 - 99.28%

2. AVK version 15.0.5 - 97.93%

 

can someone explain this to me?

[Spyros]

Plus this
The programs Extendia AVK , BOClean , VET , Titan , RisingAV and Freedom were not tested because there was no demo version available.

Rank

1. Kaspersky Personal Pro version 5.0.20 - 99.28%

2. AVK version 15.0.5 - 97.93%

 

can someone explain this to me?

He probably tested the G Data AVK (http://www.gdata.de/trade/productview/488/16/)

[Komm]

Hello avast users, i´m a new member.

I think that Virus.gr test is not tendentious and must be considered valid.  Practical results showed me that. You shoud compare their 3 last tests.

Clearly, the contender for Avast Home isn´t  AVG, but Antivir and  I saw it, in this last test, getting much better rate detection than Avast.

We, brazilian users, are suffering with a lot bank password stealers that Avast not detect, but Antivir does.  I´ve read in other brazilian forums that users have sent several samples but Alwill never implemented them in your VPS updates.  This is my point: Why i have 7 providers if none detects the virus?

I consider Avast a good product, with potential to grown ever more, but PLEASE, PLEASE don´t forget the VPS updates. 

[Lisandro]

Hello avast users, i´m a new member.

I'm not a newbie

Clearly, the contender for Avast Home isn´t AVG, but Antivir and I saw it, in this last test, getting much better rate detection than Avast.

In fact, I use Antivir (free) and it's far from being avast competitor in my opinion.
Well, here is Brazil we have AVG the most advertisement and newspapers recommended but, in fact, this is the only reason that we have an AVG office here in Brazil and, you know, they talk about what they earn from 

We, brazilian users, are suffering with a lot bank password stealers that Avast not detect, but Antivir does.  I´ve read in other brazilian forums that users have sent several samples but Alwill never implemented them in your VPS updates. This is my point: Why i have 7 providers if none detects the virus? I consider Avast a good product, with potential to grown ever more, but PLEASE, PLEASE don´t forget the VPS updates.

Pishing is not the avast best but, in fact, the virus samples are added with a priority. The most spread ones (in the wild) are faster.
Maybe just Karel (the Alwil virus analyst) is too busy 
Joking... Let's hope they could add this signature fast...

Welcome to avast! 

[TAP]

This is my point: Why i have 7 providers if none detects the virus?

I consider Avast a good product, with potential to grown ever more, but PLEASE, PLEASE don´t forget the VPS updates. 

I totally agree with you.

7 providers or advanced multi-layered real-time protection of Avast is totally useless if it has no malware signature in VPS.

Since Avast has no heuristics (or other effective proactive protections) as NOD32, Norman or Dr.Web and Avast solely based on its signature so then why Avast delays to response to non-urgent malware that may be spreading somewhere in the world?

Avast itself is a great antivirus package so PLEASE, PLEASE don´t forget to speed up the VPS updates for non-urgent malware. 

[Lisandro]

Avast itself is a great antivirus package so PLEASE, PLEASE don´t forget to speed up the VPS updates for non-urgent malware. 

You're right... I've asked for a response and, usually, the guys are nice with my wishes 
But, most of them are working outside of the Czech office right now and, maybe, they could not react that fast.
For this kind of malware, there is the firewall, the antispywares, the antispams and, best of all, safe surfing and mailing.
I know, they could be better but, please, do not yell them that much guys 

[Lisandro]

NOD32, Norman or Dr.Web

Again, not to fight, but they're not free as avast... 

[TAP]

NOD32, Norman or Dr.Web

Again, not to fight, but they're not free as avast... 

Hey, you know that in my opinion I consider Avast Home Edition AS GOOD AS paid AVs or it better than some paid AVs.

[Pavel Baudis]

I think that Virus.gr test is not tendentious and must be considered valid.

No, their concept is unfortunately completely wrong, as I explained here. I think that such tests (without replicated samples and based on some products detection only) are quite useless. It is really a pity to see such waste of work and resources....

[Komm]

I think that Virus.gr test is not tendentious and must be considered valid.

No, their concept is unfortunately completely wrong, as I explained here. I think that such tests (without replicated samples and based on some products detection only) are quite useless. It is really a pity to see such waste of work and resources....

Antivir not participated of samples but had higher detection rate against Avast.  How do you explain this? Luck? For my comparison, free antivirus, the test continues valid. Remember: Good or bad, there are 91202 samples...