I did some testing (Someone from Alwil should read this)

[RejZoR]

It may or it may not, but that still doesn't have much to do with EICAR specifically.
It just means those three do not follow EICAR rules as designed by EICAR creators.

[essexboy]

AVG is now running heuristics and the amount of people posting and asking for help at G2G has increased with false positives generated by AVG.  Also it blocks some analysis tools making the cleanup task harder.   Heuristics are a two edged sword

My 2p

[BJ_GeOrgE]

You should ask yourself why only those 3 are detecting it and NO one else...
My answer is that all others follow the very specific detection rules for EICAR and these 3 AV's don't.

torelly agree with RejZor....the question is not why only three detected it but why did they detect it?

[Mike Buxton]

PotatoMan,

(a) Re your final words as quoted from your Reply # 7 [my corrections]:

....every member on this forum is going to do everything in there [their] power to prove me wrong. Please lock this forum [thread].

(b) Re your final words as quoted from your Reply # 23 [my comment]

I swear, I would make a good lawyer, hmmm??

[Lawyers are trained to understand the importance of grammar,. words and spelling.]

[PapaSmurf]

AVG is now running heuristics and the amount of people posting and asking for help at G2G has increased with false positives generated by AVG.  Also it blocks some analysis tools making the cleanup task harder.   Heuristics are a two edged sword

My 2p

I would have to agree with this, but that will be true for any AV that is advancing scanning techniques.
I think it is important to note that you should not depend solely on a single piece of software, but rather a combination
that work well together to provide an all around balanced approach to keeping the system safe.
I am NOT a big fan of false positives, but they are bound to happen as the AV software versions advance. Sort of a debug
phase.
If I thought that one single piece of software would do the job, my start up folder would be alot smaller..lol. 

[PotatoMan]

PotatoMan,

(a) Re your final words as quoted from your Reply # 7 [my corrections]:

....every member on this forum is going to do everything in there [their] power to prove me wrong. Please lock this forum [thread].

(b) Re your final words as quoted from your Reply # 23 [my comment]

I swear, I would make a good lawyer, hmmm??

[Lawyers are trained to understand the importance of grammar,. words and spelling.]

I hate you, please go away, troll...


Anyways, I guess I am wrong, I just thought this test would help avast! improve, but, oh well. Thanks for everyone who posted positive comments (not the guy I am quoting).

Sorry for any false data I may have provided...

[DavidR]

avast! still needs better heuristics

You keep talking about avast! Heuristics (or better heuristics) and as far as the definition of Heuristics goes, avast doesn't have heuristics, confirmed in many topics in these forums. So any test you devise to test its heuristics will fail as it doesn't have heuristics.

The Internet mail is said to have heuristics (which doesn't extend to the standard shield or other shields), but this is very basic and not what most would call heuristics.

[Lisandro]

avast! still needs better heuristics

Besides what David said, the effectiveness of the generic signatures is there...
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=38131.msg319212#msg319212