Terrible results in Removal Tests

[YoKenny]

I'm not very happy about this so what can I do, I don't mind walking up to Vlk or Igor and belt them with a baseball bat to give them a bloody huge wake up call

I think you should take an anger management course. 
http://www.apa.org/topics/anger/control.aspx

[SpeedyPC]

I think you should take an anger management course. 

I've already been through that twice

[dansorin]

when avast has very good results, everybody is excited. when the test results are poor, then the tests are not relevant or wrongly conducted or something like this. let's not get our personal feelings get in the way here. when it's bad, it's bad. all antiviruses were tested the same way, so finding excuses doesn't bring anything. let's hope it will get better.

[dagrev]

when avast has very good results, everybody is excited. when the test results are poor, then the tests are not relevant or wrongly conducted or something like this. let's not get our personal feelings get in the way here. when it's bad, it's bad. all antiviruses were tested the same way, so finding excuses doesn't bring anything. let's hope it will get better.

Exactly.  Well said dansorin.  Avast is aware of this downward trend in legit testing and no doubt work hard to address this.  But ignoring or pretending away is simply denial.  These tests do say something.  I'm hopeful avast will fix this, I just wish version 7 which is to be the fix is out soon before avast looses its loyal (but not stupid) following.  There are many options and these kinds of results with poor detection could change their market share.  Certainly for those (like me) who pay to use the product. 

[polonus]

Hi forum friends,

Yes, let us see this in the right perspective, please. Do not worry. It is a test theater and not the real"malcode-world". There could be just some delay on automated detections. And there could be circumstances in development that could explain that lag. DrWeb is in a similar situation with their new implementation and version coming and every user's AV experience is for better or for worse. I think avast biorythms will improve.   They have to check them regularly.  
Remember also that avast has some spearhead technology and in some fields beats all the others (shields). I will cling to avast,

polonus

[bob3160]

I don't get excited when these AV Comparative results put us at the top of the list or,
have us at the bottom of the list. To me these tests are meaningless except from
a marketing standpoint.

What really counts for me is whether my computer is secure or not.
As long as avast! continues to protect me in the real world of computing,
I'm happy. If it does not, that's when I start to get excited.
So far, that has not happened so I'm still a happy and contented avast! user.

[Maxx_original]

thx Bob, that's the point.. this test result is definitely nothing to celebrate, but it's not a tragedy... all the pros and cons of the test methodology have been discussed, i don't wanna elaborate on it even more.. the only difference is probably "whether you are protected" vs. "whether you feel protected".. we can work on the first statement, the second is up to the user, after all

[dagrev]

I am a very safe/non-risky computer user, yet in the last six months avast allowed two things onto the system.  I know nothing is perfect and don't expect that.  But the testing shows serious need for improvement and so does my "real world" experience and use.  It is what it is. 

One person's experience good or bad is actually meaningless because it could be other factors that are keeping them safe or infecting them than the AV.  But my experience is not making me feel as good I as would like. 

[Lisandro]

Maxx, I agree but... there is a but...
If it is not giving you the feeling of protection is because *something* is not getting protected/detected.
This exactly point can be better. So we wish it 

[DonZ63]

Frankly I am somewhat shocked by this latest AV-Comparatives Removal Test.

Avast has never been known for it's malware cleaning and removal capabilities but to come in dead last, now that bears notice.

Yes, it can be argued about testing methodolgy and the like. However, we not talking about Matousec here but a certifed AV lab. Of course most of their tests do not represent real world. If they did, zero day threats would be not having the field day they are currently having.

Again malware protection consists of two primary components, protection and removal. If either are deficient, your system is not protected.

Maybe the theorists are right; the days of conventional signature based anti-malware are over. Malware creators today are sophisticated criminal organizations employing the best in the field to generate the greatest illegal profit capable. Or they are nationalist entities engaged in cyber warfare, infrastructure disruption, and espionage. The days of the script kiddies are long past.

I have the solution. Return to IBM mainframes, dumb terminals, value added networks and pitch the Internet for e-Commerce.

[Lisandro]

I have the solution.

Me too.
We're working to achieve it last 10 years together, side by side

[true indian]

honestly,i never believe in such fake tests...what if those guys are being paid for such results 

[Maxx_original]

honestly,i never believe in such fake tests...what if those guys are being paid for such results 

there's no conspiracy behind the test and its results.. it's a true evaluation of cleaning capabilities on a very small subset of samples, which has lower statisctical value (thus i wouldn't fraek out due to that), but may show something in particular...

btw: http://www.f-secure.com/weblog/archives/Roel_S_back_to_the_future.pdf with this approach e.g. you'd be great AV when it comes to prevention, but terrible one in such test... even though there's something about it..

[justinlee]

I think the questions we have to ask ourselves here are these...

1. How long have i been using Avast?

2. Has a virus/malware ever screwed my system beyond repair that Avast has not been able to fix it?

My answers to the above are, i have been using Avast for a number of years and no i have never had problems with viruses/malware that Avast couldn't solve.

So, i would say for me the test provided is completely irrelevant!

I also think that we all understand that no one AV is going to protect you against everything, which is why you will find that many people on here use a combination of Avast & MBAM for extra protection.

I am very happy with Avast and will continue to use

[dagrev]

Quote from Vlk on another thread regarding detection results:
First, let me say that the recent results (especially the Oct 2011 results) don't make me too happy. You're right that avast did quite poorly, and this needs to be fixed....
...In any case, we do understand the importance of doing well in these tests (and we do even have a limited understanding of the necessity of protecting our users better against those manually downloaded malware binaries) and that's why we're making some important changes in our upcoming avast version 7, due in Q1 next year. It will be very interesting to see whether the new version will live up to its expectations. Fingers crossed.

Possibly Vlk or some else from Avast! could share some specifics on how Version 7 will better address detection and removal.  I'm optimistic about Ver 7, but would love to know at least in general terms what in the future that will inspire improved confidence.  I'm hoping that such information will keep the faithful, faithful to avast! and keep some from jumping ship.