Additional features for future avast! versions...

[XMAS]

Colour me confused on the latest av-comparatives May Retrospective tests, whilst avast has Received an Advanced rating, there would appear to be some issues with the bottom line detection percentages and the category awarded.

Some AVs have had a reasonable percentage, yet they have only received a Standard assessment and some with a lower percentage have received a higher assessment 'Advanced' category

That's because they have produced lots of false positives, that's way they received only standard mark (that's according to the test report)

[avvidro]

I will talk about the size or space of VPSs. Sometimes updates of avast downloads 8 kilobytes, sometimes 15 kilobytes. Did you see how big is updates of Norton? Avira, AVG and Nod32 updates are bigger than the Avast! ones too.

[Bluesman]

And if I HAD the money, I wouldn't settle for free antivirus software, wouldn't I?

Why not? I have a good job, I have a nice monthly salary, and I still prefer avast!

And I think avast! is really low on resources, I have installed it on my mothers Win98-computer, and avast! runs smooth!

I have tried Kaspersky and NOD32, but I don't like them, so I am back with avast...wich IMHO is the best antivirus, and it is the most configurable progam out here!

[DavidR]

I will talk about the size or space of VPSs. Sometimes updates of avast downloads 8 kilobytes, sometimes 15 kilobytes. Did you see how big is updates of Norton? Avira, AVG and Nod32 updates are bigger than the Avast! ones too.

Are you saying this is a good thing or a bad thing.

I know avast does incremental VPS updates so as to reduce the download size for the user so updates are quick and to reduce server load.

So unless you can clearly state that they too are using incremental updates then there is no direct comparison. I remember the old AVG updates being the download of virtually the complete signature file and on dial-up that was a nightmare, so I'm thankful for avast's quick incremental updates.

[Lisandro]

If anyone wants a nightmare update... just use AVG (either the antivirus and the antispyware).
I need to work one afternoon in a friend's computer... It just can't update at all... it's silly.

By the way, what a good detection rate has Kaspersky even in the on-line scanning.
An infected computer that passes through a-squared, Spybot, AVGas, AVG antivirus... it was detected by Kaspersky.
I wish I could have that scanning engine. AVK has two engines, one is Kaspersky, it would be nice if there is a freeware version 

[DavidR]

And this the same Kaspersky that was rated Standard behind avast rated Advanced on av-comparatives and also on a recent AV test (reported in the forums) I can't recall which one.

[tsilo]

Kaspersky V7 heuristic  detected 35% with few FP and also rated Advanced on av-comparatives..

[DavidR]

I'm looking at the av-comparatives, Retrospective / ProActive - Test May 2007 and shows an overall rating of Standard. Kaspersky was also rated Standard in the previous Retrospective / ProActive - Test.

However these Retrospective / ProActive tests throw up some anomalies as the signature database is three months old I believe so I'm not sure exactly how this works or its worth other than to point out that you should keep your AV up to date. Outside of these Retrospective / ProActive - Tests Kaspersky does very well frequently rated Advanced+.

[mouniernetwork]

Yes it does but the ProActive Test( I think), is a test meant to test for antivirus's possible detection of new and undetected malwares. So its basicly a test to see which AV uses heuristics or generic detections.

Al968

[Lisandro]

And this the same Kaspersky that was rated Standard behind avast rated Advanced on av-comparatives.

So its basicly a test to see which AV uses heuristics or generic detections.

Sorry, I did not make myself clear in the previous post. I was referring to the good detection of *normal* infections by Kaspersky signatures, and not a pro-active or generic behavior. As far I know I could say Kasperky detection is very good, couldn't I? Was Kaspersky in a low position in the detection rate right now?

[bwatson283]

If you think that Avast is a resource hog, then you haven't been running Norton.  I ran Norton for years until switching to avast, and i have to say im very impressed!  My lappy ran Norton with an 80gb drive and 2GB of ram, and when i uninstalled and went to Avast, my lappy went from a mustang to jet fighter!  My system became a lot more responsive.


But what struck me as odd is that you want lower disk space usage for the updates, but you also want them to include Rootkit?  Think before you post.

[tsilo]

How Avast! is better Kaspersky?
Have you see in AV-comparatives Kaspersky version 7 results?
In this test Kaspersky have 35 % an few FP-s too...

[mouniernetwork]

How Avast! is better Kaspersky?
Have you see in AV-comparatives Kaspersky version 7 results?
In this test Kaspersky have 35 % an few FP-s too...

May I ask what you mean by "AV-comparatives Kaspersky version 7 " ?
And could you also explain this "In this test Kaspersky have 35 % an few FP-s too... " ?

Thanks

Al968

[tsilo]

OK
After tests, av-comparatives testes Kaspersky 7 too (both AV and IS) and how I see you can't find this result, so there is link http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse/kav7.pdf

[mouniernetwork]

Thanks for the link, Actually I wonder why They didn't use the version 7 in the genera report
With that said Kaspersky with heuristic beats Avast but without its heuristics Avast is the Winner. So once Avast gets some type of Heuristic or Improved Generic Detection Avast will be able to beat Kasperky with heuristics.

Al968