Avira Scan Speed........

[Arup]

http://www.clubic.com/afficher-en-plein-ecran-1679498.html


Looks like Avira not only excels in detection and removal, it also excels in scan speed.

[QBgreen]

-{ Quote: "http://www.clubic.com/afficher-en-plein-ecran-1679498.html


Looks like Avira not only excels in detection and removal, it also excels in scan speed." }-

You betcha! (Pardon the Palinesque exclamation!) Read this: http://www.avira.com/en/company_news/avira_speeds_up_its_virus_scanner.html

[Sputnik]

-{ Quote: "You betcha!" }-
Calling some help here, someone's suffering the deadly Palin fever... ;)


Anyway, click here (http://www.clubic.com/article-77079-1-guide-comparatif-meilleur-antivirus.html) for the full article.

[RejZoR]

I see the irony with NOD32...

[chris_us]

-{ Quote: "http://www.clubic.com/afficher-en-plein-ecran-1679498.html


Looks like Avira not only excels in detection and removal, it also excels in scan speed." }-

go away for this result:thumbd: look here http://www.av-comparatives.org avira is the king:argh:

~Link to the AV-Comparative site only, not the test results. - Ron~

[rogervernon]

Oy - Sarah is my pin-up!
:thumb:

[tmaertin]

I switched from NOD32 2.7 to Avira after my license expired and I tested Avira for a month. I also tested KAV 2009, Norton AV 2009, Bitdefender 2008, and NOD32 3.0.

I have to say that Avira blew me away as far as scan speed even before the latest update. My system feels almost as light as it did on NOD. I would recommend anyone on the fence to give it shot for 30 days - you wont be disappointed.

[Espresso]

OT: What Opera skin are you using?

[Medank]

Well done Avira.
With the latest Update the scan is so fast, very good improvements, i just hope they keep the god job up even in other improvements;)

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "OT: What Opera skin are you using?" }-


http://my.opera.com/community/customize/skins/info/?id=7308

[pykko]

They say: High memory consumption for Avira 8. I don't think so...
And they're mixing detection rates for Avira free (no spyware\adware) with competition having these options.

Regarding speed, that is indeed a fast AV.

[halcyon]

-{ Quote: "I switched from NOD32 2.7 to Avira after my license expired
...
I have to say that Avira blew me away as far as scan speed even before the latest update.
" }-

x 2.

NOD32 hosed my Winsock and Outlook 2007 upon uninstall, but now with a bit of manual fiddling I'm running Avira and what a nice experience it is. More like NOD32 used to be back in the day. Highly recommended.

[bonedriven]

Avira scans so fast that I really doubt if it scans thoroughly.I hope it doesn't cheat on me.:doubt:

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "Avira scans so fast that I really doubt if it scans thoroughly.I hope it doesn't cheat on me.:doubt:" }-

It scans fast because of its efficient engine and if it didn't scan thoroughly, doubt it would consistently make it to the top of detection charts.

[MR X]

-{ Quote: "go away for this result:thumbd: look here http://www.av-comparatives.org avira is the king:argh:

~Link to the AV-Comparative site only, not the test results. - Ron~" }-
that's not what these peeps say. they give avira a big FAIL:o
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/2008/10

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "that's not what these peeps say. they give avira a big FAIL" }-

Helps to investigate the reasons (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=221794)... ::) IOW, these test results (oh noes, big FAIL!111!) without context give uninformed people a totally wrong impression of the products. :thumbd:

[Arup]

LOL! Big fail for FPs, well tell you what, would rather live with FPs and best detection than take a so called AV with fewer detection.

[bonedriven]

-{ Quote: "LOL! Big fail for FPs, well tell you what, would rather live with FPs and best detection than take a so called AV with fewer detection." }-
It seems to me Avira doesn't have FPs as many as reported,while avast has many in my experience.

[rdsu]

-{ Quote: "LOL! Big fail for FPs, well tell you what, would rather live with FPs and best detection than take a so called AV with fewer detection." }-
None of them are good.

A FP can also be very dangerous.

Hopefully AntiVir developers will reduce its FP's...

[WigglyTheGreat]

Avira is indeed very fast at scanning. I trialed Avira premium av for a month on 3 different computers and liked it well enough to buy a year for 3 computers. On only one computer I had 2 false positives with heuristics on high, but that is far from making it a deal breaker as I have had false positives with other av's also. Yesterday Avira had an update problem with their servers being overwhelmed, but I have experienced this to with other av's so I won't worry too much.

[emperordarius]

Now avira will scan even faster thanks to the new database cleanup http://www.avira.com/en/company_news/avira_clears_out_recognition_files.html

They converted more and more specific signatures to generic ones, resulting in a ~700,000 signature count decreasing.:thumb: :thumb:

[Arup]

-{ Quote: "None of them are good.

A FP can also be very dangerous.

Hopefully AntiVir developers will reduce its FP's..." }-


An FP is less dangerous than not detecting and getting infected.

[mevcit]

Hi!

I agree with you, the engine of Avira is fast. But why is it fast? Because it doesn't scan files(particularly .exe files) entirely. Avira scans a few files(or 1 file) in an .exe file, but Avast(for instance) scans more more files than Avira does.

Besides, Avira doesn't scan the whole parts of a file(especially MP3 and video files). It scans these very quickly. MP3 and video files generally don't contain malicious codes, but they may contain. :) So, it is important to be scanned the whole parts of the file. For example, Avast scans the whole parts(when the scan type is thorough scan).

I gave you examples from Avast, because I'm an Avast user. But I will switch to GDATA soon. :)

As a result I can say that Avira should put more options about the scan types. There should be an option such as thorough scan at least. Now it has no option about that, therefore I don't consider using Avira at all. It isn't a good thing that an AV engine is fast due to these reasons which I mentioned above.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Hi!

I agree with you, the engine of Avira is fast. But why is it fast? Because it doesn't scan files(particularly .exe files) entirely. Avira scans a few files(or 1 file) in an .exe file, but Avast(for instance) scans more more files than Avira does.

Besides, Avira doesn't scan the whole parts of a file(especially MP3 and video files). It scans these very quickly. MP3 and video files generally don't contain malicious codes, but they may contain. :) So, it is important to be scanned the whole parts of the file. For example, Avast scans the whole parts(when the scan type is thorough scan).

I gave you examples from Avast, because I'm an Avast user. But I will switch to GDATA soon. :)

As a result I can say that Avira should put more options about the scan types. There should be an option such as thorough scan at least. Now it has no option about that, therefore I don't consider using Avira at all. It isn't a good thing that an AV engine is fast due to these reasons which I mentioned above." }-

Scanning only infectable parts is much better than scanning a whole file, and doesn't produce any decrease in detection.

[mevcit]

-{ Quote: "Scanning only infectable parts is much better than scanning a whole file, and doesn't produce any decrease in detection." }-

Yes, generally that's true. But there should be an option about that. So users can decide it.

What about the other subject? Avira doesn't check the all files in .exe files. This a very big problem. Because of this problem, Avira may not detect a virus or viruses in an .exe file. There exist some examples of this situation on other security forums, and I also have some. Avira scans a few files or only one file(as I said before) in an .exe file, even the file includes lots of files in it.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "Yes, generally that's true. But there should be an option about that. So users can decide it.

What about the other subject? Avira doesn't check the all files in .exe files. This a very big problem. Because of this problem, Avira may not detect a virus or viruses in an .exe file. There exist some examples of this situation on other security forums, and I also have some. Avira scans a few files or only one file(as I said before) in an .exe file, even the file includes lots of files in it." }-

What do you mean by saying that avira does not scan all .exe files in an exe file? Are you talking about installers? Even if it was so, if the malicious file was executed, Avira would detect it.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "So, it is important to be scanned the whole parts of the file. For example, Avast scans the whole parts(when the scan type is thorough scan).
" }-

Right; scanning couple gigs of an AVI file because some clueless moron likes to click yes on whatever "codec" prompt they get is a wonderful idea. BTW, the scanning is completely useless since the whole AVI but the executable part at the beginning of it is encrypted, so if you don't catch the executable part in your signature, you are just wasting huge amounts of your time pretending to do something "useful".

[mevcit]

-{ Quote: "What do you mean by saying that avira does not scan all .exe files in an exe file? Are you talking about installers? Even if it was so, if the malicious file was executed, Avira would detect it." }-
I'm talking about installers by saying .exe files. But, "avira does not scan all .exe files in an exe file" this isn't what I mean. I said "Avira doesn't check the all files in .exe files". It's clear. You can try to scan an .exe file to see the difference. You can use the FrostWire setup file, Avast scan 10380 files in it, Avira scans only one. If you scan your whole computer with Avira and Avast(I know well Avast and Antivir, so I compare them to show what I mean), you'll see the difference one more time. Maybe you don't want to scan your computer by thorough scan, but I want to scan my machine with that way. So there should be some options.

Avira normally detects when I run them, but it isn't logical to keep a malicious file(if it's an archive file, it may be logical) until I run them. And aren't there any risks? Can we say that each time Avira absolutely prevents it when I run that? Nothing is %100 in the security world.

-{ Quote: "Right; scanning couple gigs of an AVI file because some clueless moron likes to click yes on whatever "codec" prompt they get is a wonderful idea. BTW, the scanning is completely useless since the whole AVI but the executable part at the beginning of it is encrypted, so if you don't catch the executable part in your signature, you are just wasting huge amounts of your time pretending to do something "useful"." }-
I explained it before. If you want, you can do so. However everyone doesn't think in the same way with you. It's true that mostly the executable part may contain malicious things. However, I give a possibility to be still a malicious code in that file maybe. So this is a subjective decision to choose the type of scan. I assume that this is a little problem. But the issue I mentioned above is really important. As a result what I'm trying to say is that users should decide on scanner settings.

These are my opinions, you can consider in different ways naturally.

[emperordarius]

-{ Quote: "I'm talking about installers by saying .exe files. But, "avira does not scan all .exe files in an exe file" this isn't what I mean. I said "Avira doesn't check the all files in .exe files". It's clear. You can try to scan an .exe file to see the difference. You can use the FrostWire setup file, Avast scan 10380 files in it, Avira scans only one. If you scan your whole computer with Avira and Avast(I know well Avast and Antivir, so I compare them to show what I mean), you'll see the difference one more time. Maybe you don't want to scan your computer by thorough scan, but I want to scan my machine with that way. So there should be some options.
These are my opinions, you can consider in different ways naturally." }-

Do you have references for this? I mean, couldn't avira just consider an installer as a single exe file?

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "It's true that mostly the executable part may contain malicious things. However, I give a possibility to be still a malicious code in that file maybe." }-

Right; and how's that part going to be executed (or scanned for that matter) without decrypting it? ::)

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "Do you have references for this? I mean, couldn't avira just consider an installer as a single exe file?" }-

Eh, it already scans SFX archives... If it doesn't for the the guy who complains here, then his install is broken.

[mevcit]

-{ Quote: "Do you have references for this? I mean, couldn't avira just consider an installer as a single exe file?" }-
If you want, you can try with a Service Pack file of Windows. It has lots lots of files in it than FrostWire setup file has, but Avira scans one file, and the scan time is 1-2 second(s). So is it possible? :)

-{ Quote: "Right; and how's that part going to be executed (or scanned for that matter) without decrypting it? ::)" }-
As far as I see, you mean that if it's cryptic? If so, there's nothing to do and those parts of that file have nothing to do, too. :) If it isn't cryptic, it can be scanned normally, so there won't be a problem. And also I think when we run the file, the malicious code can be active even it isn't in mostly executable parts.

-{ Quote: "Eh, it already scans SFX archives... If it doesn't for the the guy who complains here, then his install is broken." }-
And also you should try what I said to @emperordarius. :) I didn't say that Avira doesn't scan anything in .exe files. But it doesn't scan most files which are in .exe files. If you try what I said, you will see the difference, too. ;)

You're both fast on replying. :) But I have no more time since I have an essay due tomorrow. :D So I must log out soon. One more thing I want to say is that English isn't my native language. Therefore I may have done some language mistakes. :) Anyway...

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "
As far as I see, you mean that if it's cryptic? If so, there's nothing to do and those parts of that file have nothing to do, too. :) If it isn't cryptic, it can be scanned normally, so there won't be a problem.
" }-

There will be a huge problem because you spend time in a totally useless way on scanning something that can never get executed until decrypted. Scanning random encrypted stuff doesn't reveal any useful malware signs, so your AV would rather spend its effort on more useful things than scanning entire video files to find... eh, nothing.

[mevcit]

-{ Quote: "There will be a huge problem because you spend time in a totally useless way on scanning something that can never get executed until decrypted. Scanning random encrypted stuff doesn't reveal any useful malware signs, so your AV would rather spend its effort on more useful things than scanning entire video files to find... eh, nothing." }-
But this is an on-demand scanning. So my AV should spend its effort more when I start scanning. You think so, and I think in a different way. So I emphasize the settings options, there should me more options like Avast.

Besides, does Avira also scan the most executable parts of the other types of files? I wonder that. Because if it scans these files with this way, it may scan the other types of files with that way, too. But I'm not sure.

[yankinNcrankin]

Simple practice, assuming system is clean to start, anything that gets download or that ends up on my HD gets scanned regardless so in that regards no time is really wasted if scanning new stuff thats being added to the HD.


Whatever slips by that hopefully the HIPS and the behavior blockers catch the baddie.

[doktornotor]

-{ Quote: "But this is an on-demand scanning. So my AV should spend its effort more when I start scanning" }-

What I'm telling you is that you won't get any useful result by scanning huge random (encrypted) mess. It doesn't exactly matter whether it's on access or on demand. Completely waste of time in either case.

[mevcit]

@yankinNcrankin, sometimes AV programs may not detect viruses by active protection. Because they don't scan the files entirely not to slow down the PC. But this is enough for active protection, because the things that didn't detected by active protection are mostly passive things. But people should have chance to choose more options for the on-demand scanner to catch even those passive things. That's what I'm trying to say. :)

But the other issue which is about .exe files is really a problem.

@doktornotor, I've already got what you're telling.
You said "random encrypted". So if the file isn't entirely encrypted, there can still be a risk. And I think Avira doesn't scan entirely the parts but encrypted, too. Besides, I said that Avira could scan the other types of files like this situation. I know these risks are low, however I stated what the scanner settings should have more. That's all. :)

Actually, the main issue isn't this. The problem about ".exe" files is a big problem, I say again this.

I have nothing to say about this topic anymore. Thanks for your responses. Have a nice day.

Greetings from Turkey! :)