AV-Test Nov-Dec Results

sorry mate, we were hearing it from other folks and probably you(deepscreen, dyna-gen etc) and more than 3 months ago I flagged this falling avast detection problem. I'm very glad I jumped avast ship. All those flashy word detection things were supposed to give a boost, not a contrary effect for detection. Seems you are too emotionally attached to avast - get easy, it's not divorcing a wife, just business

 

We can see exactly what is/is not detected in our backend (because all files are scanned with the cloud, we see what files are eventually determined or left undetermined and how long they're undetermined for when they are found to be malicious/how many users were impacted by them). Other vendors don't have this level of granularity and it isn't "third party", even though it is precisely what happens across our users, so it can't be used for a third party test despite being extremely valuable for our internal testing.

 

Yes I acknowledge that...but as vlk mentioned earlier deepscreen and dyna-gen are independent of the release cycle it didnt mean to be there with the release and plus they arent flashy words on the other hand you can check the AV-C summary report of 2013 and you see avast has improved a lot.I dont understand why some people cant see current or upcoming bright sides of a program.This result might just be a consequence as avast has been doing well in AV-test since long time.

I wasnt even supporting avast there.Was justing taking about the future.

And secondly,I dont see what you so call a detection fall anyway atleast from what AV-C report shows.I am just a guy who loves free antivirus programs bet its Qihoo,comodo or avast...they are my favourites.Check my previous replies and there are times when I even complained about avast negative areas when they were really falling.I think that was 1-2 months ago.

But we will see when things come to life and then this flashy words that you call will not remain that way....only time is the deciding factor.But again if you fail to see bright areas then this argument is pointless.

Thanks!

 

well said. less bragging about new shiny technologies and more facts from avast.

 

A shame, I actually found Avast 8 very solid at the time, but the recent couple of tests haven't been promising. Just because they're adding new detection technologies even when they're working doesn't mean the "conventional" detection can't fall behind, taking away all the benefits of the former.

 

You cannot predict a detection just because a AV didnt do well in just 1 test and then there are many more previous tests from the same or different organizations which say a different story.

AV-C for example and plus avast has been doing well in AV tests previously except this one so I dont know....Every AV goes up and comes down so I dont know what;s so much sucky or argumental about it.

Just my opinion though.You can call this reply whatever but the fact is a fact 1 test shows nothing.

And second point here,what;s the point when you cant get your eyes and head off one bad test result and look at the other tests

As I said earlier,any tests these days is practically useless as opposite to real life story which is completely different and every AV even Kaspersky or any AV gets bypassed by Zaccess almost every alternate day.

Not that they are bad AV programs just a fact of social engeneering attacks that tests dont show anyways.If on my radar any client hits Zaccess less with 1 AV then its good.

Harsh fact but yes malware boys are ahead and leading!!

 

Good to see Bitdefender getting top marks

 

Thanks for your concerns guys. I agree that Avast's performance this time was quite weak. It was mainly connected to some backend outages we experienced in that time period (for some time, FileRep was down and as some of the other technologies like DeepScreen are connected to it, it did have negative consequences in terms of detection; also, unrelated to this, the Evo-Gen backend was experiencing some stability issues).

Now of course, I'm not saying this as an excuse: it's clearly something that shouldn't have happened, and is bad. All I trying to do is expressing a hope that it's not a "trend", but instead, it's hopefully a one-time fail only.

BTW let's not turn this thread into an Avast thread - or someone from the mods will lock it soon.

Thanks,
Vlk

 

Thanks! Great to see some factual input from the source. A great value added of the Wilders forum and its contributors. Of course, it will not avoid the venting exercise by the audience here but at least who wants to understand will understand

 

Thank you vlk for your explantion. We rarely hear frank answers from developers. I hope that your product's results improve during next tests.

Regards, hqsec

 

Comodo Internet Security did very well in detection. I wonder how they tested it, as it has a HIPS module if I remember correctly. With Panda Security they are the 2 free options that produced excellent results.

 

HIPS is off by default with V6.

 

... with Qihoo: 360 Internet Security
(Protection Score:5.5/6.0 - Performance Score:5.5/6.0 - Usability Score:5.5/6.0)
they are the 3 free options that produced excellent results.

 

Are your results posted somewhere so we can take a look at them?

 

Yeah, I din't realize Qihoo is free...

 

Exactly , c`mon publish and be damned.

 

From just scan results over at MalwareTips, depending on the packet, Webroot detects between 5% to 60%---not so hot. And, that's over several hundred tests with thousands of malware samples.

 

There is no use becoming nervous over a pathetic excuse of a test like AV-Test's one.