PCMAG Review:Avira AntiVir Premium Security Suite

[Legendkiller]

Link:Review (http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2129688,00.asp)

[FRug]

Uh, realtime AntiSpyware? Excessive yammering? WTF?
Spam can be trained quite well and email coresspondents can be whitelisted easily in the anti spam gui (two clicks or something)....

Either the tester was pretty blind, didn't bother doing a thorough test, or wanted to bash the product.

[trjam]

Some of that is accurate.

[The Hammer]

{QUOTE-> Some of that is accurate. <-QUOTE}Which parts? I've since read the review so I deleted previous post in which I asked about the yammering.

[C.S.J]

i think its a good review, as a suite, it just doesnt match up to what others have on offer.

2.5/5 sounds bad, that would be 5/10 which sounds worse, but the label fair is decent enough.

[Joliet Jake]

{QUOTE-> i think its a good review, as a suite, it just doesnt match up to what others have on offer.

2.5/5 sounds bad, that would be 5/10 which sounds worse, but the label fair is decent enough. <-QUOTE}

Not as bad as half a million out of a million! Informative test all the same.

[C.S.J]

i think the premium would either be given 3.5 or 4/5 though.

[Mele20]

I don't understand the poor virus detection rating. I mean that is what an antivirus is for. Why even review these suites? I hate suites. Avira has the best detection and THAT is what is important. If you want to detect spyware get CounterSpy or something. If you want to detect Spam there are all sorts of software out there. Firewalls? What for? Most of us are behind routers and use something like PG to control what calls out. I have no need for a Security Suite. Bah.

[Technic]

{QUOTE-> i think the premium would either be given 3.5 or 4/5 though. <-QUOTE}

They tested Premium. :P

[C.S.J]

but it was judged as a suite, as they tested the suite.

[Legendkiller]

leaving aside whether the rating is fair or not......i am happy to see that the reviewer did look beyond the "detection-rates" to judge the suite...

And i have always believed that neil does a pretty fair job at reviewing security products...

[C.S.J]

{QUOTE-> i am happy to see that the reviewer did look beyond the "detection-rates" to judge the suite... <-QUOTE}

thats what i meant if it wasnt clear :thumb:

[FRug]

AntiVir does not have a dedicated real time AntiSpyware so how could it be yammering all the time? It does have a real time AV guard which includes Spyware signatures but that can be set to act completely quiet, so I don't get his point on that one.

And his point about AntiSpam being hard to train to exclude mail adresses is ridiculous too, I've checked. It's one right click and one left click in the AntiSpam overview (same goes for training as Spam or Ham). It is normal for such solutions to require a certain amount of training to get proper classification, look at thunderbirds antispam, it's just the same there.

So I have to repeat myself, I don't get the point of his argumentation on firewall and antispam since the issues he mentions do not exist IMHO. The only somewhat valid point I agree with is that it doesn't come with an option to preconfigure some system service rules for the firewall leading to some more popups due to program execution stack checks (running iexplore from explorer.exe requiring separate allowance from an iexplore that gets started by an arbitrary application like badmalware.exe, which in my eyes is a good thing).

Personally I wouldn't use preconfigured settings even if they were offered, but it might be nice for people that are less tech-savvy.

[coolbluewater]

{QUOTE-> I don't understand the poor virus detection rating. I mean that is what an antivirus is for. Why even review these suites? I hate suites. Avira has the best detection and THAT is what is important. If you want to detect spyware get CounterSpy or something. If you want to detect Spam there are all sorts of software out there. Firewalls? What for? Most of us are behind routers and use something like PG to control what calls out. I have no need for a Security Suite. Bah. <-QUOTE}

It was reviewed as a Suite, not an AV component.
Suites make sense for end-users who are looking for convenience or are non-PC savvy or both, and my guess is the "tree/forest" rule comes into play here, as it's fairly easy to dismiss a suite when you are a member at Wilders.
As for including a firewall, it helps when you have a laptop and/or travel.
That being said, I agree with you that a multi-vendor layered approach for Windows has its advantages.
It would seem that Avira turned down PC Magazine's advertising sales calls:
"Hey Neil, we don't want to jeopardize the Symantec contract (or insert advertiser), and since Avira doesn't pony up for ad space, feel free to beat 'em up a little in the review." ;)

[trjam]

Having used the AV and the suite for quite awhile, a lot of what they say is true. Especially in its lack of ability to remove all remants of infections. I agree it is not well suied for a PC that is need of clean up but more for one to keep clean free. I read the review and agreed on all points.

[MalwareDie]

They dont have an antispyware though...

[Legendkiller]

{QUOTE-> thats what i meant if it wasnt clear :thumb: <-QUOTE}
it wasn't direct to you...

[bellgamin]

I'm with Mele -- suites are not sweet. When it comes to its antivirus, Avira is non pareil. For everything else in Avira's suite, there are better stand-alone choices.

As for PCMag: I used to subscribe but got tired of issues that mainly contained articles & advertisements about TVs, cell phones, stereos, cameras, etc.

[pvsurfer]

Security suites are the trend, and imho make a lot of sense if their security components are relatively strong. The idea of a centralized mangement console is hard for me to fault (not to mention reducing the number of security icons in my tray from 3 or 4 to just 1)!

I tried Avira and didn't care for it, but from what I've heard and read, two suites that appear to qualify are KIS and ZASS - so I'll try those next.

[C.S.J]

there are many suites that qualify,

panda
norton
KIS
f-secure
avg
bitdefender

[pvsurfer]

{QUOTE-> there are many suites that qualify,

panda
norton
KIS
f-secure
avg
bitdefender <-QUOTE}
That may very well be - it's just that the two I mentioned have received excellent reviews and I've also heard good reports from friends who use them.

[trjam]

Yesterday, my computer caught something. Avira kept finding it and quarantining it. No matter what key I hit, it activated it and Avira quarantined it. So I ran a full scan and nothing. Downloaded Kaspersky and it found it and deleted it on a reboot. That kind of did it for me. Missing something is one thing, but detecting and not getting rid of it is another. So Eset 2.7 is back on.

[Londonbeat]

Most AV's have problems removing stuff that's injected in running processes, and need to be run in safe mode to remove them. Kaspersky's "Advanced disinfection routine" is good and stops you from having to scan in safemode as it automatically deletes for you on the reboot. If Antivir detected it, then it likely could have removed it if you run a scan in safemode. It would be good to see Antivir implement this feature in the future, I know the free version of AVG does a similar delete and auto-reboot if necessary, not sure how many other AV's do.

[lodore]

{QUOTE-> Most AV's have problems removing stuff that's injected in running processes, and need to be run in safe mode to remove them. Kaspersky's "Advanced disinfection routine" is good and stops you from having to scan in safemode as it automatically deletes for you on the reboot. If Antivir detected it, then it likely could have removed it if you run a scan in safemode. It would be good to see Antivir implement this feature in the future, I know the free version of AVG does a similar delete and auto-reboot if necessary, not sure how many other AV's do. <-QUOTE}
the advanced disenfection technlogy is improved in 7.0 beta.
it can clean some rookits without a reboot
lodore

[Pedro]

People, stop reading those "reviews".
I got a question for you guys: what's wrong with this?

{QUOTE-> With APS (eventually) successfully installed, I ran a complete scan on each of the infested systems. <-QUOTE}

Then you'll realize why all these "reviews" won't help anyone.

[NAMOR]

{QUOTE-> People, stop reading those "reviews".
I got a question for you guys: what's wrong with this?



Then you'll realize why all these "reviews" are garbage, and won't help anyone. <-QUOTE}

I dunno, what's wrong with it?

[Pedro]

It's not supposed to be a riddle! He's testing a Suite by installing on a malware/ rootkit infected machine!

[C.S.J]

it shouldnt matter if its installed on an infected machine, isnt that its job?

to get installed, fix the issues and carry on its protection?

it can be done,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a myth that Dr.Web Anti-virus cannot be installed on the already infected machine.

This is a myth. This could be done earlier and can be done till today. Its high virus resistance distinguishes Dr.Web from all similar programs on the market. Besides, Dr.Web can be run without installation into the system from any movable media (for example, from compact disk or USB-stick).

http://support.drweb.com/faq/a15/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

its all starting to sound like bashing now, so im gonna leave this thread to you guys :)
keeping my nose clean.

[Pedro]

{QUOTE->
its all starting to sound like bashing now, so im gonna leave this thread to you guys :)
keeping my nose clean. <-QUOTE}
Ok, i removed what could be considered offensive. My opinion stays though.

Malware detection and removal tests with AV's should be left to those that follow methods, explain those methods, with enough samples to make it relevant.

I leave it at that. My opinion is as flawed as i am. I'm human.

[trjam]

Let me take a bold but careful shot at this. I have a computer. For 2 years I use AV X and over time find my computer has slowed and just doesnt plain work like it did when new. I decide to try a new V product, and find it starts finding all kinds of infestations. So I am pleased but over time realize it didnt clean the computer of what it detected. Yes, I would be aggravated.

Most computers do have malware on them for the average consumer and the average consumer should expect a highly rated AV to at least get if fairly cleaned up. Am I missing something here, or isnt this what most consumers expect. So even if a testing company does the same, why or how should the results be any different.

[trjam]

And I like Avira and know the product fairly well. So I am not bashing or praising it, I am just saying the review is pretty equal to my experience.

[Pedro]

And i'm picky sometimes. I'll just try to not comment these reviews, and leave you guys relaxed. ;D

[Inspector Clouseau]

Rubbish. If you read the screenshots carefully you'll notice that the samples even named ".dam" for *DAMAGED* samples.

But the part that really annoys me (and for this reason the Tester Neil Rubenking looses now all creditability -in fact he never had one from my side-) is the following:

{QUOTE-> Because APS was so successful at recognizing malware installers, I gave it a second challenge. I modified the samples, changing their names, editing some nonexecutable internal data, and appending a few null bytes to change the file size. <-QUOTE}

That is - by law - creating new malware variants out of existing main variants!
Every tester who does this deserves nothing than the greatest disrespect infront of the antivirus industry. THAT IS NO WAY TO TEST ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE. THAT'S AMATEURISH, UNPROFESSIONAL. And yes of course, he didn't dare to attend the antivirus tester workshop. Maybe he assumes he's good enough already... Such "testers" are just ridiculous and should get a offically warning for creating new malware variants.

[MalwareDie]

Yeah PCMAG has no credibility at all.

[C.S.J]

well i think its a good review, even if some people dont... i think its accurate to be labelled fair for its suite.

[Legendkiller]

exactly....there's no need to discuss whether a certain av does this does that.....the fact is that its just a review and a good one...

i know av experts don't like magazine reviews for whatever reasons....but its just an indicator for me as to what can i expect from it.

[walking paradox]

{QUOTE-> the fact is that its just a review and a good one...
i know av experts don't like magazine reviews for whatever reasons....but its just an indicator for me as to what can i expect from it. <-QUOTE}But if the review is inaccurate because it's methodologically flawed or biased in someway, then your expectations will be skewed and probably unrepresentative of reality. I'm not necessarily implying that this is entirely true of this particular review, but it is not that uncommon among them in general.

[Firecat]

{QUOTE->
That is - by law - creating new malware variants out of existing main variants!
Every tester who does this deserves nothing than the greatest disrespect infront of the antivirus industry. THAT IS NO WAY TO TEST ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE. THAT'S AMATEURISH, UNPROFESSIONAL. And yes of course, he didn't dare to attend the antivirus tester workshop. Maybe he assumes he's good enough already... Such "testers" are just ridiculous and should get a offically warning for creating new malware variants. <-QUOTE}

I agree with you fully on this matter, however, convincing potential "hobby testers" about it is next to impossible (for me anyway). I've seen some places where people say its perfectly normal to modify existing viruses to test the proactive protection/heuristics of the AV program. Their reasoning is that many of the malware released today are anyway newer variants of existing malware and that by doing this they can get a gauge of how well an AV protects against such newer threats. Apparently they do not want to test how strong a signature is but rather how strong the heuristic is by using such methods, since some AVs can flag such modified samples as "modification of (malware name)" :(

[DVD+R]

{QUOTE-> Yesterday, my computer caught something. Avira kept finding it and quarantining it. No matter what key I hit, it activated it and Avira quarantined it. So I ran a full scan and nothing. Downloaded Kaspersky and it found it and deleted it on a reboot. That kind of did it for me. Missing something is one thing, but detecting and not getting rid of it is another. So Eset 2.7 is back on. <-QUOTE}


trjam, Your AntiVirus switching and swapping is All over the Place like a Gypsy Caravan :dry: not Constantly stationary and fixed, Its a wonder your wheels havent dropped off :D

[trjam]

{QUOTE-> trjam, Your AntiVirus switching and swapping is All over the Place like a Gypsy Caravan :dry: not Constantly stationary and fixed, Its a wonder your wheels havent dropped off :D <-QUOTE}
I know, I apologize. But my Avatar is one I have used for quite awhile to. I promise to do better.

[JerryM]

Many/most of you here have "forgotten more than I'll ever know" about this subject.
However, it makes no sense to say "Ignore the reviews." If I even had the ability to test the various security applications I would not take the time. Accordingly, I depend upon the reviews to provide information regarding security. I admit that one must be discerning regarding which reviews one accepts as valid and well done. My own view is that AVC is the the single best test organization.

When tests/reviews are done, I observe the comments by those I consider knowledgeable in the area, and then make my own decisions.

With my lack of expertise I consider the ones with the higher detection rates, and after trials settle on what I will use. In all cases those have been paid versions, with the exception of Avast Home as an interim solution. I would not even consider an AV that does not rate at least Advanced. I prefer Advanced+ if one runs well on my systems. My signature shows my current preferences. I will again try KAV when Avira expires.

Just an opinion of an average user who will never test the detection rates of any AV. The only test I run is how well it runs on my system.

Regards,
Jerry

[Zombini]

{QUOTE-> Because the process or service is active, our on-access scanner can't just delete it <-QUOTE}

I dont use Avira, but tell me this ain't true. If can't remove malware thats already running.. your kidding :thumbd:

[aigle]

Antivir,s remaval of active malware is poor in my experience. I made a thread about it here and even on their forums.

[trjam]

{QUOTE-> Antivir remaval of active malware is poor in my experience. I made a thread about it here and even on their forums. <-QUOTE}
That is what I have found to.

[quadrophonic]

{QUOTE-> I'm with Mele -- suites are not sweet. When it comes to its antivirus, Avira is non pareil. For everything else in Avira's suite, there are better stand-alone choices.

As for PCMag: I used to subscribe but got tired of issues that mainly contained articles & advertisements about TVs, cell phones, stereos, cameras, etc. <-QUOTE}

I agree with both points. As for PC Mag, I just look for the free offers that are sometimes posted on the slickdeals.net forums.

Back in the late eighties/early nineties, PC Mag was like the bible of computing.
Now, there is little in the way of good program advice, and where most advanced users are exploring freeware and interesting websites, PC Magazine continues to waste time reviewing the most expensive of computers and software. You can't blame them since the the bulk of their ad revenue comes from the software vendors, but it makes for a very dull periodical.

I would rather see a magazine chock full of software reviews with tips on how to get the most out of it.