Author Topic: avast! test results - compared to others  (Read 7600 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Starfighter

  • Guest
avast! test results - compared to others
« on: September 13, 2005, 03:28:35 AM »
Another report comparing detection rates of anti-virus programs.... avast! is tested among many others...

Read report here:

http://www.overclockers.com/articles1260/

Andyslogos

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2005, 01:21:41 PM »
Hi
Another result...
After seeing your post Starfighter I had a look round on Google and it appears at the moment that Avast is poorly rated by a lot of people.
Would some one form Avast (not some avast worshiper !) like to comment, I realise it's free, but why the poor results ?

Quote
Avast (Alwil)
AVG (Grisoft)
- quite many people recommend these 2, but unfortunately here's the bad news - their AV shields are not strong, I'm afraid. They are not mature at this stage.
- They can't catch known viruses well. Avast (80.55%); AVG (72%). At least it needs to be above 90% in order to meet the case.
- They can become infirm in face of unknown viruses.
- They can't handle archived/compressed files properly.
- Generate far more false positives than Norton and McAfee.

This is just one quote from many different sources.

Regards
Andy

Nicolas

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2005, 01:30:33 PM »
Thanks Starfighter.

I see they have a winner.

Kaspersky is dealing very well with a great variety of encryptions and polymorphics. Its heuristic methods are outstanding, but the drawback is an increased number of false positives (which I prefer above false negatives). Moreover, they are very quick in providing new signatures. They have the highest number of updates/time.
 

dk70

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2005, 02:36:14 PM »
The opposite of getting response is to refer to Google quotes? That will be useful. http://forum.weborum.com/index.php?showtopic=2306 so absolutely nothing new except for his personal remarks. From 2004 and some of his links are from 2001. He kinda find out himself if you read it all.

Instead of hunting for that "100% Avast weeee" review you need so badly why not try look for user experiences? 50 stories from real life will make you wizer than 1 trying to tell you the truth. You can try http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=32 - I mention that cause just last night I read a simular story from that guy, this time about XP firewall. Same type of "methodelogy", you should be able to find it quickly. His logic cause like this "Firewall does not do outbound control = it is flawed" "Opposite xxxx XP firewall fail leaktests, do NOT use it!!!" Something like that. Anyway, I think you will have a hard time concluding Avast is "poorly rated".

As said all his findings have been discussed here a million times - by worshippers and normal people. Nothing new.

Starfighter

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2005, 02:40:53 PM »
What impresses me with that report is that he tested the a.v. programs against some 10,000+ viruses (that's quite a collection!).  Moreover, I'm actually horrified that so many viruses even exist!  It's like Dr. Evil has been very busy in his lab writing them....  :'(

Yes it would be nice to see avast! do better.  There is always room for improvement, as they say.

 It would have been of benefit to readers if the writer of the report noted what anti-virus versions and definitions he was using... (he says the latest versions--fair enough, but I suspect that he couldn't have tested the av programs all at the same time on his ?2? computers, so there likely may have been a time delay for testing -- so some programs had more up-to-date definitions than others.

I like the author's findings about Norton's av... it made me laugh because he is so correct: 

"Norton 2005 is ironic - much like viruses, it brings down to its knees even the fastest computers! A true resource hog!"

Yes indeed, that describes Norton very well!

dk70

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2005, 02:45:19 PM »
Oh I was responding to the Google survey from Andyslogos, did hardly read Overclockers test. Most important words in Wai Wai analysis is "my judgement" and "So you can save your time and troubles reading a lot of reports, or thinking hard on picking a good AV program." let me to the thinking for you ;)

Nicolas

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2005, 02:52:50 PM »
Oh yes, the number of viruses is unlimited with the latest viruskits (home, professional and gold versions; tested against all common virusscanners). You don't have to be a programmer anymore.



Starfighter

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2005, 03:02:17 PM »
That's evil..... virus-kits?!   yikes..... so you can make your own viruses without even needing to be a programmer now?!  (like script-kiddies)?   This is bad news.   :( >:(

dk70... glad you saw the link to overclockers.com in my very first post in this discussion..... as it is the report I'm referencing.

FastGame

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2005, 04:04:30 PM »
Quote
Wai Wai analysis
::) ahh yes,  the one and only ::)

Hi
Another result...
After seeing your post Starfighter I had a look round on Google and it appears at the moment that Avast is poorly rated by a lot of people.
Would some one form Avast (not some avast worshiper !) like to comment, I realise it's free, but why the poor results ?

Quote
Avast (Alwil)
AVG (Grisoft)
- quite many people recommend these 2, but unfortunately here's the bad news - their AV shields are not strong, I'm afraid. They are not mature at this stage.
- They can't catch known viruses well. Avast (80.55%); AVG (72%). At least it needs to be above 90% in order to meet the case.
- They can become infirm in face of unknown viruses.
- They can't handle archived/compressed files properly.
- Generate far more false positives than Norton and McAfee.

This is just one quote from many different sources.

Regards
Andy

Actually your remarks ("I had a look round on Google and it appears at the moment that Avast is poorly rated by a lot of people.") are almost as misleading as those of the famous Wai Wai  ::)

http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/avast_Home/1034566665/1

http://www.download.com/Avast-Home-Edition/3000-2239_4-10375520.html

Just a small sample of the many happy users  ;)

Nicolas

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2005, 04:27:37 PM »
Quote
That's evil..... virus-kits?!   yikes..... so you can make your own viruses without even needing to be a programmer now?!  (like script-kiddies)?   This is bad news.   

For $ 450 you have the gold version from the author of HackerDefender. There are some 200 different viruskits offered on the web. Also anti-anti-virusscanners  :'( 
So, I'm not very impressed by the comparative AV reports. This is big business

Offline RejZoR

  • Polymorphic Sheep
  • Serious Graphoman
  • *****
  • Posts: 9406
  • We are supersheep, resistance is futile!
    • RejZoR's Flock of Sheep
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2005, 04:56:14 PM »
Tell me what overclockers have to do with antivirus programs!?!?! >:(
And they're judging AV based on base with size of 9k samples.
Compared to over 400k in Clemeti's base this looks really dumb.
I also can't agree they can't handle archives properly. Hell NOD32 can't even clean isnide classic ZIP files. And they even compare false positives to McAfee. C'mon people?
avast! has a false positve here and there by kistake! McAfee FLAGS the files as new malware judging just by the packer. Read the frustration of the HiJack this program author regarding McAfee...
So forget about this test since it's load of garbage and nonsence. They even't don't know for sure how many samples do they have. Now that is just the cherry on the top... :o
Visit my webpage Angry Sheep Blog

Cha2k

  • Guest
Re: avast! test results - compared to others
« Reply #11 on: September 15, 2005, 04:31:05 PM »
It's always fun to read amateur AV tests... except when it's simply depressing.

One major factor the testers usually manage overlook is that, though tens of thousands viruses have been written since the seventies, 'only' about 2700 viruses actually circulate at the moment. Those are the viruses that need to be detected, not the DOS virus written in 1983 that only exists in AV company databases.

See http://www.wildlist.org/ for a list of currently circulating viruses.

See http://www.virusbtn.com/ for regular tests of AV products using the wildlist.

For those who don't want to sign up: Avast has 100% scores up to and including the Nov 2004 test. Earlier on, Avast's performance was far worse, but that has no impact on current results (as long as the hard-working people at Alwil software don't start to goof off).

The other two gratis scanners, Grisoft AV (AVG) and H+BEDV (AntiVir), have a similar track records, shaping up in mid-2004 with 100% scores.

Of the two most famous scanners, Norton did fine while McAfee missed in Feb 2005.

Kaspersky and NOD32 stand out as notably reliable scanners.