Author Topic: anti-virus comparatives Dec 2005  (Read 6490 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Omar

  • Guest
anti-virus comparatives Dec 2005
« on: April 11, 2006, 10:29:18 PM »
http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=72&mnu=72


Avast at no 17 :o

antivir is doing well!

obviously I don`t know how trustworthy these comparisons are!

Offline polonus

  • Avast √úberevangelist
  • Probably Bot
  • *****
  • Posts: 33577
  • malware fighter
Re: anti-virus comparatives Dec 2005
« Reply #1 on: April 11, 2006, 10:48:17 PM »
Hi Omar,

It is with these things as with all listings. They're worth the same as the paper it is printed on. These things don't relate to reality.
The chances that you get infected by some of the vectors that are fed in the test, and the new in the wild ones, is zero anyway.
More important is the man handling the av software. Does he know what is on his OS? Is he awake in terms of security? Has he updated and patched all that is on this machine(s). If his AV solution is part of a broader multi-level security solution, he is basically safe with any of the reliable products. That we are a little pre-occupied with Avast, and like the touch of it, well so much the better. Then again after what I learned in this forum consolidated, I have been literally malware free in every sense of the word. And that is all that counts in the end, isn't it?

polonus
Cybersecurity is more of an attitude than anything else. Avast Evangelists.

Use NoScript, a limited user account and a virtual machine and be safe(r)!

Omar

  • Guest
Re: anti-virus comparatives Dec 2005
« Reply #2 on: April 11, 2006, 10:54:34 PM »
I`m not an expert with anti virus software nor with tests!

But is no 17 for avast a true reflection of this product?

Do you agree with 79% for avast?

Offline polonus

  • Avast √úberevangelist
  • Probably Bot
  • *****
  • Posts: 33577
  • malware fighter
Re: anti-virus comparatives Dec 2005
« Reply #3 on: April 11, 2006, 11:31:55 PM »
Hi Omar,

We do not know the settings of the test, and the criteria. So what does this tell us all? In one test Bitdefender is number one, in another test it is number last.
You should just evaluate what avast as a AV-solution means for you! I know what I like in particular. It is reliable, does not carry things it should not. Very important thing for an AV-scanner, it has never harmed my OS. It silently does what it should in the background. Sometimes I use additional scanning (Fprot for Dos, yes it is still around), DrWebCureIt, Bitdefender online). What is striking that I do not get FPs that others flag because of heuristic scanning. DrWebCureIt flags toolbarcop and aimfix as probably malicious, typical FP's, Fprot, very reliable and profound, once found a decomposition bomb, Bitdefender never falsely flagged a thing. But after some time analyzing these things you know where dangers lure, and you take measures to avoid them.

polonus
Cybersecurity is more of an attitude than anything else. Avast Evangelists.

Use NoScript, a limited user account and a virtual machine and be safe(r)!