VPS: 0624-0

[TAP]

Isn't it all in the way they are counted?  Avast! counts families of malware as a detection while others count each member of the family.

Yes, I know but it's so sceptical why they do that way, I think it's probably all about "marketing gimmick", IMHO.

But that brings up a question. If 25,000 new detections were just added and we now have a total of 55,899 did we really just increase are detections by almost 70% !?

 

[mauserme]

Yes, I know but it's so sceptical why they do that way, I think it's probably all about "marketing gimmick", IMHO.

I'm sure that's it.

[Klavier]

But.. if avast with its 55000+ sig. records detects like between 90 or 93 % of av-comparatives and maybe others test.. with 25.000 (more than 50% new signatures)... Avast should detect like 130 or 140%!!! that sounds odd.
It would be nice more info. from avast about that update of 25.000
it almost duplicates avast detection? Considering that avast detects families as 1 virii name.., in practice, 25.000 would be like 200.000 new viruses?
Regards,
K.

[TAP]

I don't know, but I think these 25,000 new detection signatures are so-called generic signature or generic detection for Trojan-like malware.

See this thread: http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=14273.0

[Klavier]

That gives more light on the detections added, nice for alwill!

[TAP]

If I'm not wrong, it should be generic signature for Trojan-like malware, I've noticed avast! now detects some malware samples I sent to Alwil a few weeks a go as Win32:Trojan-gen. xxx.

[TAP]

Some scanners probably don't detect this sample (but don't heavily rely on such online scanners).

[Vlk]

But that brings up a question. If 25,000 new detections were just added and we now have a total of 55,899 did we really just increase are detections by almost 70% !?

Not at all...

I mean, look e.g. at the latest AV-comparatives.org on-demand test (since it's so popular quoting it here) - February 2006.

The test consisted of (unique) 474,759 samples, of which avast detected 444,293.

So, even in February, avast detected at least 444,293 "viruses" - even though in reality, it is much more, actually... (IBK's archives, while comprehensive, are by no means "complete" - they can't really be).


Thanks
Vlk

[mauserme]

Ok, thanks.  I think I've got it.

If nothing else I learned to leave the malware counting to the experts.

[crofty59]

Ok, thanks.  I think I've got it.

If nothing else I learned to leave the malware counting to the experts.

Me too

Cheers

[DaveD]

I don't know, but I think these 25,000 new detection signatures are so-called generic signature or generic detection for Trojan-like malware.

See this thread: http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=14273.0

Let's hope that there are many new generic signatures for Trojan-like malware because that is really the only area in which avast! is lacking at this time. If it can improve in detecting trojans than that will be incredible.

Keep pumping 'em out (signatures that is) avast! Team. It is becoming very obvious just how much avast! has been improving it's overall detections over the last year or so. Keep up the good work.

[RejZoR]

I'm hoping to see more signatures like Win32:Ardamax-gen, Win32:Swizzor-gen, Win32:SpyBot-gen and Win32SdBot-gen4 (and etc with numbers).
McAfee is making generic signatures for nearly every family and they're pretty good in general because of this.

[Lisandro]

[So, even in February, avast detected at least 444,293 "viruses"

Just a curiosity, why doesn't you count the virus like the 'other' antiviruses?
Won't make the things easier and improve your marketing?  

[avvidro]

And so... is this? When an VPS update does not show in Avast web page (happens with certain frequency) is it because of soooooo many virus detected that makes it virtually "impossible" to be written in the home page?

[XMAS]

And so... is this? When an VPS update does not show in Avast web page (happens with certain frequency) is it because of soooooo many virus detected that makes it virtually "impossible" to be written in the home page?

Well, not exactly - when the VPS update is not listed on the history page, this is because there were not new samples names(witch is the case with the last VPS update, the update contained 25000 new detections, but these detections are so-called generic detections, like the others in this topic mentioned) added or just the VPS update fixes some False positive.

[So, even in February, avast detected at least 444,293 "viruses"

Just a curiosity, why doesn't you count the virus like the 'other' antiviruses?
Won't make the things easier and improve your marketing? 

Yes, this is very interesting question 
Or won't it be better to fully remove the virus encyclopedia from the program (I know that this should be in the WishList topic, but...) - I mean when an ordinary user opens the encyclopedia and see only 56000 sample names, and after that compare avast! with other AV, in many cases the user will choose the AV with more virus signatures showed in the program. So this is a bit confusing or let it say missleading for some users, in my opinion. For example if  I am not wrong for the same reason VBA32 removed their Virus list from their product.

I mean, look e.g. at the latest AV-comparatives.org on-demand test (since it's so popular quoting it here) - February 2006.

The test consisted of (unique) 474,759 samples, of which avast detected 444,293.

So, even in February, avast detected at least 444,293 "viruses" - even though in reality, it is much more, actually... (IBK's archives, while comprehensive, are by no means "complete" - they can't really be).

BTW: Vlk, have you already added the missed samples from the February AV-comparatives test ?