Oct Real World Whole Product results - Avast is last!

[Dwarden]

@IBK i have question about Avast! settings used in the test(s)

i assume default was used
that mean Heuristic on File and Web at Normal (not High), same goes for on-demand setting
that mean PuP detection disabled (potencially unwanted programs)
right?

@Vlk will be these Avast! false positives fixed (or are they already?)
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/fp/avc_fp_aug2011.pdf

[DonZ63]

The point I find interesting is that Symantec aka Norton is missing from the latest 0-day malware test?

http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_retro_nov2011.pdf

[avast@@dvantage77.com]

Also interesting is this!  Something is going on here that does not meet the eye!

note 2 on page, and I quote

"AVG, K7, PC Tools, Symantec, Trend Micro, and Webroot decided to not get included in this test and to renounce to get awarded"

Notice this is spyware and not virus testing going on here.  I believe ALL A/V programs are somewhat weak at spyware.  The list of A/V companies above knew it and bailed.  I heard a Senior TCPIP Cisco  expert (ex is a has been, and a spert is a drip under pressure) say that 60% is average for A/V stopping spyware. I don't necessarily condone this statement, but it sure kinda fit this test.  We are having a higher success than this number.

For stopping virus spreading through a network (the key ingrediant of A/V), I haven't had a virus spread through an avast! protected network in 8 years.  This is the IT nightmare.  I have replaced many other A/V products with avast!, where the networks were destroyed from virus infection spreading to every single node and server.

VLK - we have to manually go in and set every system to high on the webshield.  The we have to set up PUPs on all the shields.  Why can't these be the defaults?

[DavidR]

Many people simply don't understand what a PUP is, even less what that particular detection might be, e.g. what the hell the file is or does and if it is legitimately on their system.

So a huge majority of your average Joe users aren't equipped to make the decision about PUP detections and would generally delete them (or rather allow avast to send to the chest, if that is the default detection).

You only need to browse the viruses and worms forum to see this in action, so avast have aired on the side of not having the user confused and making a bad decision. Whilst that is OK for most average users (not wanting to be constantly bombarded with decisions to make), it can reduce the detection rate on some tests like this.

[IBK]

you are mixing up various tests in this thread which is causing a lot of confusion.
anyway, PUPs are not included/used in the tests.

[avast@@dvantage77.com]

I understand your statement.  How about a check box to turn on PUPs, and Webshield to high, called "increased protection"  This covers the best of both worlds.

[avast@@dvantage77.com]

It is relevant, it makes avast! more resistant to infection of spyware, which is this thread!

[Dwarden]

my primary question was about the sensitivity used in tests ... not PUPs...
but i still assume it's just on normal default

speaking of which i think Avast! shall use as new default for next updates the high not normal