An old fight : Avast! vs Antivir

[igor]

The Pro version gets more often updated than the free version?

yes, with "push iavs" 

Well, the Pro version isn't really updated "more often" - it's just that with Push iAVS function, you can get the update as soon as it's released (provided you check for e-mails often enough), while normally you'd get it during the next periodic update check. And yes, I think it's also possible to set the periodic update check to a lower value than in the Home version (though it's probably not necessary).

the main problem seems to be the lack of reactivity of vps toward new infections and the fact that webshield  doesn't completely stops infection even when malware is detected (some process are still alive after blocking )

I admit I didn't check the page carefully (don't speak French anyway), but I think the problem doesn't have anything to do with WebShield not stopping the infection; it's probably caused by the fact that avast! didn't detect some component of the malware.

[davidpr]

This is the problem with tests, and then users start to swap AV's based on such tests. I think we have all done this and I have used Anti Vir in the past. However Avast is good, not the best, and if yoi layer it with something like GESWall you are very secure.

[news]

This is the problem with tests, and then users start to swap AV's based on such tests. I think we have all done this and I have used Anti Vir in the past. However Avast is good, not the best, and if yoi layer it with something like GESWall you are very secure.

You are so very right. I'm the type of person that loves to test different products.

I am well aware of why they are done.  I will only say this...everyone has to make up their own mind. I've tried Antivir...was not happy with it. To each his or her own. avast! works for me. 

Remember...I said I was on the internet with no antivirus software..so...I was very lucky and had no problems.  As so many others have stated...common sense has to figure into the equation as well.

Layers of protection keep your pc in total check. The tests are there to persuade people to change.
Think before you do this is all I'm saying.

[davidpr]

Well said.

[Lisandro]

If you like avast, stay with it, you can use Antivir as a backupscanner. Just install it without the AV-guard.

It conflicts with avast... the Antivir service messes avast installation. You need to manually change the Antivir service.
I don't recommend it as a second, non-resident, scanner because of this.
BitDefender would do the job on a second opinion.

I think it's also possible to set the periodic update check to a lower value than in the Home version (though it's probably not necessary).

The lower value allowed to home version is 120 minutes.

[lian]

What are your experiences in the three years you have had avast, does that count for nothing ?

I don't say so. You're always satisfied with an antivirus...until you got a virus 
Avast did a pretty job: I felt secure with Avast...until I read this test. I feel no more secure, so I changed to Antivir. Maybe I will change again in some months...

[alanrf]

Some people are easily swayed by the latest press report that may or may not be truthful or biased based on many factors.  I find that, as I get older, I now question the facts and bias behind almost every press report I read and I find that the facts I can rely on in press reports are less and less.  Sadly, I speak of technical reporting in just the same way as political or financial reporting.

When it comes to an antivirus product I do not leave well enough alone, I continue my research but I do not dart from product to product based on the latest report I read in a computer magazine or by some "service" biased by who pays for advertising in that "service".  I support a group of users (pro bono - for those who do not read Latin - for free) - they look to me for a recommendation.  I base my decision on the history of service as well as my own 30+ years of IT experience (where I also made such decisions for a Fortune 500 company). Yes, in those days I did make such decisions as to ditch the leader (Symantec) for a then startup company. I would make it again for the much smaller group I now support if I felt it necessary. 

The fact is, since deploying avast to my supported users, not one of them (including me) has yet become the victim of a virus.  avast has detected viruses in our email, in our Web connections and has (so far) kept us safe.  Yes, I do have them run other,on demand, scanners to double check avast.  If avast ever fails one of us I will have to reconsider its value ... but a free product ... providing this level of years of protection ... it will take more than this ever recalled thread to make me change.

[mojako_2you]

Just want to give some comment.....
For your information....
I have already use many antivirus.....
from lack of knowledge of virus know i already know how the virus func....etc....
as i know.... Kaspersky is the better antivirus but are slightly heavy.....
avast is the second best in detecting virus....but very light and can be used with many computer
and laptop with lower ram.... usually kaspersky already detect the virus faster than the avast....
but i hope avast team will work hard to give the 200% its commitment to get the new virus database...

go go avast  

[alanrf]

One other thought.

"Those who venture in dark alleyways should always go prepared for whatever they might meet".

Your antivirus product should be chosen to meet your level of adventure. 

If you want to go play in the less well worn paths of the Internet ... into those places where the more risk-averse choose not to go then you are, I suspect, more likely to encounter the malware that seeks to make you a member of a bot army. This is not a universal rule but is a pretty good generalization.

If you are very adventurous then it may well be that a paid for, bleeding edge, antivirus product is more appropriate for your needs.

We, the great mass of the not-too-adventurous (yes, I know a number of interesting words could be inserted here), can carry on with protection of avast.

Sorry - avast team - to characterize your users thus ... but I think my point is made.

[cvsa]

I admit I didn't check the page carefully (don't speak French anyway), but I think the problem doesn't have anything to do with WebShield not stopping the infection; it's probably caused by the fact that avast! didn't detect some component of the malware.

i didn't post this thread to say Avast is a bad antivirus  I still think that it's very good and will keep it in the future (specially if v5 has an antirootkit and heuristic !). But what you say seems to be related with the lack of reactivity toward new infections that is pointed out in the french tests ( some components of the malware are not recognized maybe because they have been modified recently by the malware maker...).

[Lisandro]

But what you say seems to be related with the lack of reactivity toward new infections that is pointed out in the french tests ( some components of the malware are not recognized maybe because they have been modified recently by the malware maker...).

Time of reaction against infection is not the best of avast, indeed.
I would like to have AVK (Kaspersky + avast) but I don't think I'll pay for it...

[DavidR]

But what you say seems to be related with the lack of reactivity toward new infections that is pointed out in the french tests ( some components of the malware are not recognized maybe because they have been modified recently by the malware maker...).

I have watched the rate of VPS updates grow in size and frequency from when I first started using avast three and a half years ago rise from 3-4 a week to almost daily and frequently multiple times a day so there is most certainly an improvement in that regard. I believe avast's link with AVK can also only lead to a quicker response time to new malware.

I have also seen when avast has been the first on the block to combat a new threat, anyone remember the animated gif treat/vulnerability avast was very quick of the mark. Can it improve, absolutely, but would I go looking elsewhere because of one report when I have three and a half years of practical experience, absolutely not, that decision would be based on practical experiences.

[gd]

Well, we can have an update a day, and have that update address a two week-old threat, can't we?

I've been using Avast for years now and recommending it to all my friends & customers. I had no virus problem, but it's hard to tell if it's thanks to Avast or not, because I'm very cautious. However, when I had to clean an infected computer, I achieved better results with other antiviruses.

A few days ago my roommate got infected and started to offer me infected files on msn. (I'm using bitlbee, so not a chance ) She had Avast running all the time, I installed it myself. I proceeded to update, do a full scan in safe mode and Avast found nothing at all! (note: that wasn't a rootkit) I did a search on the lines "she" said while offering me the files, and found out this could be the variant of this threat: http://www.viruslist.com/en/viruses/encyclopedia?virusid=56713. I easily removed the infection with Anti-Vir.

Then just today, a friend of mine had a similar problem, asking me for help. Needless to say, she also had Avast, she installed it following my advice.

That's also how I came here. Now I'm switching to Anti-Vir, and telling my friends to do the same. Avast is a great product, but after two very recent, real-world proofs in my environment and this topic, I think it's reasonable to try something new out. A false feeling of security may be worse than no antivirus.

But I'll keep an eye on Avast in the future, I still like it very much. I hope they will be able to improve their response time.

[jwall]

In my limited experience, it seems AntiVir probably has better detection, but updates are a problem.  Go to their forum and the primary topic is update problems.

After a program update, it's nearly impossible to update during normal hours.  It could take up to a week.  Even during off hours, it's very difficult.

They give priority to the paid version users.

My newbie opinion?  It seems all the free versions have some sort of problems, none are perfect.  They are free after all and I'm glad they work as well as they do.

[stevey]

I found Antivir a little unsettling when I tried it out a while ago. For some reason it was constantly communicating with the internet.