About Avast home protection

You can look at the May 2009 AV report here from:

AV-comparatives testing.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/comparativesreviews/main-tests

Again some here use AV some don't use it. They opt for sandbox to isolate web browsing from the the rest of your files. I still use one along with AV, HIPs and some added levels of protection. Back in the early 90's didn't have to worry about all these av pest. Anyway check out the PDF and see which one you would like to try. AVAST Home Edition has some good protection, some on the list are better but look for the the ones with less FPS false positive hits.

 

agreed, can i ask if mse is stable? i installed on a vm but havent played about with it much.

 

Yes , facts are important , not opinions . I presented facts even though I can't prove it . When I clean a computer that is infected I need to remove the malware - not to collect information from this machine so that I can prove something to somebody I don't know in some forum(s).

When I see it running in real-time in real-world on computers (1) ,
when I install it for a test on my computer (freshly installed , tweaked and defragemented disk with Vista SP2) (2) ,
when I install it for a test on my computer (freshlu installed , tweaked and defragmented disk with XP SP3) (3) ,
when I perform full on-demand scan (4)

It is slow on scans , it slows down a computer when performing regular tasks.

When I say slow - I compare it to my feeling when :
- I run with no AV
- I run with the other antiviruses I represent/reseller (NOD32 and Norton)

Fine , our , too . My best has 2 GB RAM and 2.4 Ghz processor.

Avast may have high scores on tests you point out *BUT* as it was said people here rely too much on tests . An example - you should read carefully the whole report by the test organisations (AV-Comparatives' last report/test was gives as an example) . A simply on-demand scanning test is not what counts in real world . I can give you an example with Norton - its on-demand scanning is one thing . Its additional layers of protection - who tests them . Not AV-Comparative's test . Do they also test SafeWeb , Parental Control , PulseUpdates,Download Insight,SONAR - all proactive preventive measures . No . This happens with all programs .

This "little story" was the most recent example , my last meeting with Avast . 103 is not a number I simply decided to use . It was the real fact . Believe it ot not , it is your own choice .

I can say something bad for any antivirus . Yesterday , in Sunday , I cleaned a badly infected machines (infected by a rootkit) - it had AVIRA free . I used The Avenger and ComboFix + Autoruns . But AVIRA is way better than Avast - both your favourite tests and in real world - every IT can confirm this.

I am quite interested to see/read what my motives are ? What do I win or what I loose "bashing" an AV in a forum in a country I don't live or work in ? Stop talking nonse! And stop posting links to tests that are tests in isolated environment . You are home users , sit at home and never meet the real world , just read some tests. I am not saying they are not true but they doesn't completely represent the real world.

 

It is not only that . Generally you are right . However , the example I gave with Avast - these people were my clients in the past , stopped using NOD32 because they thought they could run with free program and burned . They are one of the biggest studios in my town for making photos and they get hundreds of removal media per week , removable media from customers , removable media that nobody knows what it has , if it is clean or not . In order to take the photos , they must plug in the memory cards , USB flash or whatever . They have to face the challenge - there is no other way . If we have to be honest , they have a few computers but only one of them is connected to the Internet . These 103 malware are not because of naughty employees , they were because of some infected flashes/cards.

 

That #103, was that 103 different types of malware or from a few infections that spread all over the registry and folders throughout the system drive. I ask that because I will watch Matt sometimes on his youtube channel http://www.youtube.com/mrizos and he will deliberately infect his vm os with a rouge or two and 6 or 7 or so of different malwares like trojans, worms, etc. Then when he starts to clean it, the logs show 50 or 60 or more infections. But not from 50 or 60 different types but from much less that spread throughout the system. From what I have seen on AV comparitives, Avast holds its own, but when I watched Matt's test it didn't have to stellar of a performance. Of course Matt's little tests are not what you would call professional.

 

no you didnt provide facts, that was just hearsay, if one tried, one could infect any computer with any AV installed if one visited the right website and plugged in memory sticks from other people regularly.

yet again this is just what one guy is saying, i have proven it uses minimal resources on a average computer. also now we know the motive, your selling other competing products.

so now youve come to realise that all AVs let some pass, so why are you picking on avast, even the mighty avira let one through then isnt that so terrible i ask you.

i think we all know your motives, you get one chance to pop at a competing product and you take it, "what do i win" oh you win by gaining sales, but someone else has realised why you are doing this and has pointed out to the readers that your little stories arent so true.

perhaps you should "stop talking nonse!"

 

Hello!

As I said I counted 103 different types/variants of malware - viruses like Pacex.gen , different variants of trojan Agent , different variants of Autorun worm . The infected files were quite a lot , I don't remember the exact number .

It doesn't matter . This thread has turned into A vs B . If you don't believe , it is up to you . I'll stop writing , it's absolutely pointless to (try to) discuss something about AVs here.

 

You are absolutely right, I never understand why people are always fighting over a AV Software. There are so many around that you can choose from...

 

Hi ASpace,

Quote
These 103 malware are not because of naughty employees , they were because of some infected flashes/cards. End Quote

I do not doubt what you say, and these are arguments that I do not have the expertise to pursue. However, one would have to admit that this is not the average use of the average person. I won’t argue whether or not another AV (evidently they had been using another in the past) would prevent infections. I really doubt that it would as AV Comparatives shows that Avast has one of the 3 or 4 highest detection rates, in the on demand tests, and scored well in the Retrospective tests.

Accordingly, I must conclude that it is an excellent AV, and will protect the average user as well as any other. If one downloads infected files then I am not convinced any AV can prevent infection.

Again, I say that for someone’s grand parents or a casual user who does not visit known problem sites Avast Home will provide excellent protection. I have some knowledge of that fact from the machines I have installed it on for friends and family, plus having used it myself off and on for maybe 6-7 years.
Have a good day.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I checked out a friend's system tonight, and he's only using Avast. Plays a few online games (registered paid user). I asked him, you need anything else running, I mean, what sort of sites you visit/downloads you save. Mentioned a few well known sites, said he never saved any files except for a few PDFs from the work website. Basically, from what I can gather, he's never had a problem in the past five years, and I don't think he will.

Now just for an analogy. Say you come across a person's system with program A installed and you find 50 trojans. Lets say program B cleans it. You're praising program B.

However, if that person was instead using program B the whole time (say over 12 months), program B might have let 30 trojans through that program A could have gathered. But if you kept program A, you'd have the previous scenario. Who do you praise? Answer is none, they both got done.

All luck of the draw. Anyone can get hammered, you don't need 10 or 100 files, just one bad file will do.

 

.
This is the first time that specific malware have been mentioned. It seems to me this entire thread is just speculation without a list of the 103 infections you referred to. You have to create a valid context before you can come to any conclusions about Avast's performance.

 

Does a firewall intercede if an infected thumb drive or CD is inserted?

I would add that if one only uses an AV a decent firewall is necessary and it would not hurt to have some program such a SAS running real time. However, the three times I have had an attempted penetration in over 10 years it was the AV that caught it and not the additional protection like the AT.

Regards,
Jerry

 

Yeah , right !
I'll be cleaning a machine and will have nothing else to do instead of writing down the names and locations , and keep them in a very safe place , so next time someone in a forum doesn't believe , I'll give him/her that information . Additionally , I could make photos or ask a notary to be next to me so that he also sees what I am doing . The notary could also sign the evidence so that is is more official than ever . Hmmmmmmmmm

Would you like me to do it ? Next time I clean an infected machine - it will be this week for sure , I can do it . Take photos , count down the infections ... Should I also call for a notary ?

 

Whats ironic here is the fact that avast! DID detect all that stuff. So, question is, was avast! even properly updated? Where were detected files located? I was testing malware a lot back in XP days and System Restore copied all the malware to its backup database even though it was never even executed.
Also, i can find you 86 samples that AVIRA cannot detect or AVG or NOD32 or Symantec or anything else. So basing a recommendation on something someone else told you from someone elses exprience is not a good example at all.

 

.
I understand that at the time it wasn't a priority to document the list of infections, but without that list your statement is vague and can't be evaluated. This is why we looked to "tests" performed in controlled environments that can duplicated and produce objective results.

 

I think the moral of the story is, if your gonna bash some software, please give a bit more info on the baddies that gave you such a negative outlook. As mentioned earlier in this thread, all AV's have their pros and cons.

Ice

 

It sounded to me like Avast didn't detect the stuff; that he put something else on that did. I don't mind seeing personal experiences as long as it's not a big contest between AVs here.

 

My experience with avast suggests that its a good all rounder.
Ive run avast on a w98se pc with a 19 gig hard drive and 128meg of ram and found it faster than most other avs i have tried which are very many .I just wonder instead of disabling avast and installing another av and then cleaning in safe mode,whether you actually tried a boot time scan with avast?.
ellison

 

I have heard plenty of positive experiences, too. After going over what I have read/heard, I would be comfortable changing to Avast when version 5 comes out.

 

It's better to look at the AV test reports I had posted in prior post in this thread. Although a lot of good info here too from members who use AVAST now.

 

Less than two hours later...

Are you asking yourself why this happens, ASpace?

 

No <<<

Instead , I am enjoying this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uQSikMS8Kw

 

I think it says it all.

 

Maybe he'll explain; it could have meant he fixed a computer that had a fully updated Avast when he came to work on it.

 

Avast was installed on the computer that was in need of service. At the time,when he went into the residence, It was fully updated. He doesnt know of course what all has happened obviously,his job is to clean or restore the customer's computer to a workable state. Thats all I can tell you. He used other "tools" to clean the infected computer.