Avast! VS AVG(Free Editions)

[Metal425]

I already know and have an Anti Virus I use.
I just want to stir some fire up between these two Free AV's.
So let the heat start!


~Matt~

[C.S.J]

for the free versions,

easily avast, apart from a script blocker (which you can get from firefox/opera) you dont lose any security over the paid version.

[aigle]

Avast for sure!

[btman]

If AVG and Ewido get up to over 90% detection on AV-Comparatives.... Just imagine what Avast and Ewido would get.

So yes easily Avast, if people don't want to pay for an AV I give them either Avira or Avast... Depending if they're dangerous surfers, or lazy ones (Avast does like everything for you)

[Tarq57]

I've used Avast, the older version of AVG, and Avira over a year ago.
Avast behaves the best, and we get on well.
A keeper!

[Badcompany]

Does Avast cover your e-mail inbox.

[strangequark]

{QUOTE-> I already know and have an Anti Virus I use.
I just want to stir some fire up between these two Free AV's.
So let the heat start!


~Matt~ <-QUOTE}

you stirrer you,
Avast of course, wins hands down.

although I was tempted to say the other one just to ad some fuel to your fire ;D

{QUOTE-> Does Avast cover your e-mail inbox <-QUOTE}
yep

[aigle]

{QUOTE-> Does Avast cover your e-mail inbox. <-QUOTE}It has seven real time scanners, as far as i can remember

E-mail scanner
pop3 mail scanner
p2p scanner
HTTP/ web scanner
Network scanner
Disk read/ write( standrad scanner)
IM ( messengers) scanner

and no troubles mostly. Isn,t it graet?

I am not using it, so I will expect some user to correct this list.

[strangequark]

this is from the avast web site about email, if you want to read everything it covers here's the link http://www.avast.com/eng/avast_4_home.html

{QUOTE-> avast! Home Edition contains resident protection of the computer file system and a resident module for e-mails and news.

File system protection ensures that no virus will be started on the computer. It offers a wide range of settings, such as the possibility to specify that files will be scanned during copying, or that the scanning will include files with given set of extensions only.

E-mail/News protection consists of two independent modules; first, there is a generic scanner working on the SMTP/POP3/IMAP4/NNTP protocol level. It is capable of protecting any existing e-mail client that uses these protocols. Second, there is a special plugin for MS Outlook only; the mail scanning is completely transparent, requiring no special settings.

A new feature of version 4 is heuristic analysis of e-mail scanners. This feature can protect against new, unknown viruses and worms that are not possible to detect by the usual means. The heuristic module performs a thorough investigation of every e-mail message and watches for suspicious signs, that might announce virus presence. When the number of those signs exceeds a user-defined level, the message is considered dangerous and the user is warned. <-QUOTE}

and you can get skins for it as well 8)

[aigle]

Or u can remove the default skin of it as well, just a nude AV.;D

[strangequark]

{QUOTE-> Or u can remove the default skin of it as well, just a nude AV.;D <-QUOTE}
it's a pitty us hamo sopiens can't swap our skins, as a species we're pretty bland really, what I wouldn't give for a prehensile tail :shifty:

[Jimpdx]

I'm a happy Avast Home user, but I feel compelled to mention in AVG's defense that it's a better choice for older, resource-challenged machines than Avast. AVG's RAM usage is negligible compared to just about anything else!

[C.S.J]

totally agree jimpdx,

avg is super light on pc performance, and very user-friendly to use, especially when compared to avast,

avast is light-ish too though, but for the free versions, id choose avast for its feature-set, however for paid versions, id still choose AVG anti-malware/Suite over avast pro.

[solcroft]

avast! has superior features, more real-time scanners, and prettier skins, but I'd just like to say that the reason we use antivirus software is for protection, not for how many fancy features it has. Here's the VT scan results for Grum, an ItW file infector virus that was first detected on March 12th, IIRC.

http://www.kaspersky.com/viruswatchlite?search_virus=grum&x=0&y=0&hour_offset=5.5

Would you trust a company with such a negligent attitude to new and emerging malware? It's up to you. Keep in mind that I know no virus scanner is perfect, but I'm using this example because I know Alwil definitely has a copy of this malware in their hands.


Prevx info: http://fileinfo.prevx.com/fileinfo.asp?PXC=c9a385855469

VirusTotal results removed per this post. http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=818225&postcount=2

[nowshining]

AVG as Avast is a resource hog, but both are stupid when first installed, by that i mean that both only scan virus infectable files and that's it, for best protection from either, go into the settings and make sure ALL files are scanned, both in realtime and in manual scannings...

Anyway so far AVG caught every infection or just about (right clicked and scanned zip file, exe file, etc.. before clicking on it...) on downloading on frostwire, I do have portable clamwin, it said that some files were trojan horses, however that was in a tank back to back shooting game and only in the wav files, i let (configured) it to delete/clean the infections, it did and I still get sound, I am keeping the game however since it is not infectious until further notice, I will not re-share it and i am keeping it since it didn't do harm to me, and the trojans had no effect, heck I still have it installed, :) but anyway no other scanner I have on me or my portable flash drive ever caught the really bad worm, trojan types, altho they do catch except avg free a process killer for smitremove program I found off hjt log post and such, however so far good with the tools I HAVE, I have processguard - free, avg free, SMSS free - avg antispyware -full, now antilove protection I hope from f-secure I need my fears to weaken, i did download from f-secure.com and their tools, It might just be me, anyway I also got a2antidialer - free, spywareguard - free, spywareblaster - free, and lots more protection on my flash drive, hehehe.. :) so far CLEAN SYSTEM..oh yeah and I do use my common sense 99% of the time which is 75% effective of protecting me.. ;D


EDIT: the post before me is right, and by the way I have sent exe files that AVG didn't detect from spam and within at least an hour, its ready for download, at times a download can range from .9 kb to 6mb, the higher the size-that means that it might just be to update the scanner engine, etc... since avg free gives me the best protection I won't pirate the serial key off of frostwire for the pro version...that's how good it is..

EDIT: head just came into itself, I am considering it safe.. as in it it is the antifun thing..i was typing earlier.

[Metal425]

I use KAV6, but I'm testing Avast!

[aigle]

{QUOTE-> avast! has superior features, more real-time scanners, and prettier skins, but I'd just like to say that the reason we use antivirus software is for protection, not for how many fancy features it has. Here's the VT scan results for Grum, an ItW file infector virus that was first detected on March 12th, IIRC.................

<-QUOTE}

VT results are not so reliable, so u can,t be sure.

[solcroft]

{QUOTE-> VT results are not so reliable, so u can,t be sure. <-QUOTE}
I have avast! on my second laptop. No detection. Grum isn't the only one; I have ItW samples dating back up to as long as 4 months that Alwil has yet to add detection for.

[Firecat]

To be honest, a lot of people in this thread underestimate AVG. Let me inform you that in many of my malware collections, even with AVG Anti-Malware, the Ewido engine makes a relatively small difference in detection rates. I would say that the Ewido engine contributes for 3-4 extra percentage in detection rates, and I will say with a certain confidence that Avast+Ewido will at best be only slightly (i.e.~1%) better than AVG. :)

IMO I would recommend both, but I favour AVG. :)

[Londonbeat]

I like avast! because of it's flawless updating, changeable interface, ease of use and the fact that when I've used it I've never had any problems installing, running or uninstalling.

However, I do repeatedly find what solcroft has mentioned above, I submit malware samples daily to AV vendors (some of them new and active ITW like the one above in solcrofts post) and avast! is one of the slowest to add them (if they add them at all). But, Avast! always seems to do better than AVG in av-comparatives (maybe IBK could shed some light on this - do they add loads of old sigs before a test?).

If avast! improved it's signature adding of submitted threats, it would for me be the better choice, but one man's meat is another man's poison - at the end of the day you should try them both and make your own choice.

Londonbeat

[aigle]

{QUOTE-> I have avast! on my second laptop. No detection. Grum isn't the only one; I have ItW samples dating back up to as long as 4 months that Alwil has yet to add detection for. <-QUOTE}
That,s too bad. As I know there is someone from them here on the forums( don,t remember the name). Will be interesting to see if he can comment.

Seems AVG is making great progress.

[tsilo]

Avast! is much better...

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Avast! is much better... <-QUOTE}
Its definitely better, but I wouldn't say much better. :)

@aigle: The member from Avast! team on Wilders is vlk, I think.

[Mrkvonic]

Hello,
I very much like AVG. Avast is ok too, but I prefer AVG. It's light and tight.
Mrk

[aigle]

{QUOTE-> @aigle: The member from Avast! team on Wilders is vlk, I think. <-QUOTE}

Ya thanks, I remember now.

[larryb52]

without hesitation I'd use Avast!

[jadinolf]

{QUOTE-> I've used Avast, the older version of AVG, and Avira over a year ago.
Avast behaves the best, and we get on well.
A keeper! <-QUOTE}
I agree. I gave up [cough] Norton for Avast!.

[cheater87]

Avast is great. I love for its many shields and its quick scanner.

[vlk]

The only comment I have, regarding the speed (or slowness) of adding detection of new samples (submitted by users) to the avast database is that things are improving.

A whole new submission system is now under preparation and we hope it will bring many enhancements and generally improve the overall quality of the product.

Cheers
Vlk

[aigle]

Thanks vlk, I am really cocerned about ITW samples as some users posted here. I install Avast for many novice users.

But to be honest, I am unable to understand ur coments. The problem we discussed here is not with submission of samples, samples are being submitted but problems is that they are not being added. I am not sure how new submission system can improve addition of signatures.

BTW anything about heuristics? I remember that in the past you have informed us that heuristics will improve too.

[vlk]

On our side, the problem is related to the submission process. We're getting 3,000+ samples daily. More than half of these is junk (legal/benign files), many files are also corrupted (may be of malware nature but are not functional) and there are other problems, too.

Unless we streamline the submission process and our internal (backend) systems, it's really hard to cope with such volumes. Our analysts are just losing too much precious time dealing with unnecessary stuff.

[solcroft]

{QUOTE-> On our side, the problem is related to the submission process. We're getting 3,000+ samples daily. More than half of these is junk (legal/benign files), many files are also corrupted (may be of malware nature but are not functional) and there are other problems, too.

Unless we streamline the submission process and our internal (backend) systems, it's really hard to cope with such volumes. Our analysts are just losing too much precious time dealing with unnecessary stuff. <-QUOTE}
Glad to hear it. :thumb:

For the meantime, though, you could include some short instructions to users with the proper know-how on how to make things easier for you. For instance, I'm willing to include a brief analysis along with the samples I submit, if it'd help.

[coldplay]

I dont like avg cuz I think it doesn't have good detection on virus
I dont like avast cuz its web shield slow down IE a lot for me soemtimes it even crashes IE and I dont see the point of using avast if run it without web shield.

my .02

[vlk]

{QUOTE-> I dont like avast cuz its web shield slow down IE a lot for me soemtimes it even crashes IE and I dont see the point of using avast if run it without web shield. <-QUOTE}

I'd suggest heading to the avast forum (http://forum.avast.com) and spending a while trying to solve the issue. Millions of users are happy with WebShield and I'm sure your problems are solvable.

[aigle]

{QUOTE-> Our analysts are just losing too much precious time dealing with unnecessary stuff. <-QUOTE}
That a real issue!

Thanks for input.

[warwagon]

Avast because of one word..... "Boot time scan"

[Pedro]

{QUOTE-> On our side, the problem is related to the submission process. We're getting 3,000+ samples daily. More than half of these is junk (legal/benign files), many files are also corrupted (may be of malware nature but are not functional) and there are other problems, too.

Unless we streamline the submission process and our internal (backend) systems, it's really hard to cope with such volumes. Our analysts are just losing too much precious time dealing with unnecessary stuff. <-QUOTE}
Seems to be a problem. Good luck sorting things out. Never uninstalled Avast!. Thanks for this fine program.

What about this question:
{QUOTE->
BTW anything about heuristics? I remember that in the past you have informed us that heuristics will improve too. <-QUOTE}
Is it classified information?:P

[jawadde]

i use avast and avira, but i have to say that avg has better detection than avast -> see av-comparison ;)

PS. avast make your system slower when it starts up, its a big surprise when you've just install it, so be aware ;)

[JerryM]

{QUOTE-> i use avast and avira, but i have to say that avg has better detection than avast -> see av-comparison ;)

PS. avast make your system slower when it starts up, its a big surprise when you've just install it, so be aware ;) <-QUOTE}

Hi jawadde,

If you are referring to AV Comparatives, IBK has stated that the free version would not have made Advanced. The paid version tested has the AVG AS as part of it. That is absent from the free version. With that being the case, Avast would have the better detection rate in the free versions.

If I have not remembered correctly someone please correct me.

Regards,
Jerry

[Pedro]

I think you are correct;)
Also, if it scans during boot, it should be slower;)
XP boots just fine for me.

[Technic]

{QUOTE-> To be honest, a lot of people in this thread underestimate AVG. Let me inform you that in many of my malware collections, even with AVG Anti-Malware, the Ewido engine makes a relatively small difference in detection rates. I would say that the Ewido engine contributes for 3-4 extra percentage in detection rates, and I will say with a certain confidence that Avast+Ewido will at best be only slightly (i.e.~1%) better than AVG. :)

IMO I would recommend both, but I favour AVG. :) <-QUOTE}

Oh, you are sure about that Firecat? I just remember when IBK (in some thread) told us that AVG wont perform as good as tested (av comparatives) because they are stripped off spyware detection. http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=950978&postcount=44

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> I already know and have an Anti Virus I use.
I just want to stir some fire up between these two Free AV's.
So let the heat start!


~Matt~ <-QUOTE}

Well, if the goal of the OP was to throw raw meat into the lions den it is as usual a roaring:-[ success.

What was your real question?;D

The answer my friend in written in the thread :

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=167941

But we really can't have yet another pot stirrer here, I can't stand the competion8)

Well done! I await your comments on AV selection methods that you use!8)

[Technic]

{QUOTE-> Well, if the goal of the OP was to throw raw meat into the lions den it is as usual a roaring:-[ success.

What was your real question?;D

The answer my friend in written in the thread :

http://www.wilderssecurity.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=167941

But we really can't have yet another pot stirrer here, I can't stand the competion8)

Well done! I await your comments on AV selection methods that you use!8) <-QUOTE}


Sorry, that thread is too old to be replied to. Please look for a more current thread on the same subject or start a new thread for your post.

[mercurie]

AVG for me. (full disclosure: I have never used Avast)

[strangequark]

{QUOTE->
I dont like avast cuz its web shield slow down IE a lot for me soemtimes it even crashes IE and I dont see the point of using avast if run it without web shield.
<-QUOTE}

solution - keep avast dump IE ;D

[Escalader]

{QUOTE-> Sorry, that thread is too old to be replied to. Please look for a more current thread on the same subject or start a new thread for your post. <-QUOTE}

Right! I'm going to update the thread anyway so that's that for now till after tax time!8)

[RejZoR]

It's "known" that avast! 5.x will most probably be equiped with generic unpacker and behaviour analyzer. Not sure about actual heuristics...

[aigle]

{QUOTE-> Is it classified information?:P <-QUOTE} I have read it somewhere on these forums.

[madaro]

AVG is the best free antivirus solution, I personally, have ever used. Would not hesitate to recommend any Grisoft product. Good, solid performance and protection, in my opinion.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Oh, you are sure about that Firecat? I just remember when IBK (in some thread) told us that AVG wont perform as good as tested (av comparatives) because they are stripped off spyware detection. http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showpost.php?p=950978&postcount=44 <-QUOTE}
Actually, the difference is that AVG Pro does detect spyware. A lot of trojans too are detected as Potentially Unwanted Programs by AVG Pro. ;)

I'm pretty sure that the difference between Avast and AVG Pro would be approximately 1 to 1.5% and AV-comparatives' percentages do not take spyware detection into account. However, I completely forgot about spyware, and since Avast detects spyware while AVG (free edition) does not, I suppose in the real world Avast would be a lot better. My mistake. I am getting VERY forgetful these days. :(

But in any case, using AVG Free with a free and good antispyware will still offer good protection. :)

[aigle]

{QUOTE-> I'm pretty sure that the difference between Avast and AVG Pro would be approximately 1 to 1.5% and AV-comparatives' percentages do not take spyware detection into account. However, I completely forgot about spyware, and since Avast detects spyware while AVG (free edition) does not, I suppose in the real world Avast would be a lot better. My mistake. I am getting VERY forgetful these days. :() <-QUOTE}
In that case I can say that for a safe surfer and who is not installing doubtful software, AVG AV might be as effective as AVG antimalware( Pro).

BTW really Firecat I think AVG AS has a significant contribution to good detection by AVG malware. I have AVG AS on-demand and I see it detecting more and more trojans/ spyware. Though ofcourse my experience is much limited than u.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> In that case I can say that for a safe surfer and who is not installing doubtful software, AVG AV might be as effective as AVD antimalware( Pro).

BTW really Firecat I think AVG AS has a significant contribution to good detection by AVG malware. I have AVG AS on-demand and I see it detecting more and more trojans/ spyware. Though ofcourse my experience is much limited than u. <-QUOTE}
Not very significant, but yes it makes a difference. For example, I recently got 135 samples. AVG without Anti-Spyware engine (i.e. AVG Pro) detects 116, while AVG AV+AS (i.e. Anti-Malware) detects 132. So overall, not too significant, but yes it contributes a lot to the detection rate. Also nowadays Ewido adds my samples faster than AVG itself does. :D

[Escalader]

Hi Firecat and aigle and others here on this thread:

Glad to see you are all enjoying yourselves!

Just some of learning questions from me:

1) Where/How do you get these "malware samples"?
2) Isn't the very act of getting them a threat to your own PC's?
3) Or maybe you are using a test or high risk PC only for that work?
4) Why not just use the AV comparative work?
5) If I wanted to test your samples against my setup how would I go about it?

[aigle]

{QUOTE-> 1) Where/How do you get these "malware samples"?
2) Isn't the very act of getting them a threat to your own PC's?
3) Or maybe you are using a test or high risk PC only for that work?
4) Why not just use the AV comparative work?
5) If I wanted to test your samples against my setup how would I go about it? <-QUOTE}
1- From here n there, I have to PM to some memberes here.;D
2- Not really. SSM, GW, ATI
3- No test PC- ATI
4- Just curiosity
5- PM, but u need reliable backup and/ or a test PC.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE-> Hi Firecat and aigle and others here on this thread:

Glad to see you are all enjoying yourselves!

Just some of learning questions from me:

1) Where/How do you get these "malware samples"?
2) Isn't the very act of getting them a threat to your own PC's?
3) Or maybe you are using a test or high risk PC only for that work?
4) Why not just use the AV comparative work?
5) If I wanted to test your samples against my setup how would I go about it? <-QUOTE}
OK, here are your answers :P ;D

1) Through various sources, such as PMing certain members. Also, if you have a base sample set, you can always trade these with VXers to get new ones. :)

2) As long as you keep them safely locked in password protected archives, it is no threat. If you are extra paranoid, use Virtual Machine software while handling such malware samples. :)

3) A separate folder that is full of these nasties locked up in password protected archives. ;)

4) Good point, but the point of my testing is not really to test detection rates and compare AVs but rather to submit the undetected samples for analysis. This way more users may be protected, and besides, there is no guarantee that my samples may also be a part of IBK's test set. The detection rates are secondary, but obviously the one that detects more protects me better and hence is good for me. ;)

Of course, when I submit undetected samples for analysis, often I am also told which of the samples are corrupted ones (and hence pose no threat), and those samples can be deleted. :)

5) Contact some of the members here and ask around, and ask them to always send the samples in password protected archives. Then, use the password and extract the archives to a separate folder created for this purpose. Next, right click that folder and run your on-demand scanner to see what is detected and what is not. And submit the undetected ones to whoever you want. :)

BTW, sometimes these samples may occasionally expose a bug or two in the real-time scanner of your AV/AS/AT program. This is not a common occurence, however, and should you come across a situation where your RTM crashes or a file is detected on-demand but not real-time, do not panic. Submit the sample along with a description of the problem to your product vendor. Again, this is not a common occurrence and you should not worry about it, as such bugs occur very rarely. :)

Also, I would like to say that almost all AV/AS/AT vendors have priorities and need to add signatures on the basis of importance, since manpower and workforce is limited. If you have got a reply from a vendor that your samples will be added, and they are not added into the next signature database, please wait for at least 2-3 days more so as to give the vendor some time to add the samples. One cannot expect all samples to be added within 24 hours. :)