AV Update Frequencies - Important?

There are various questions and discussions regarding the frequency of AV updates. Some update almost hourly. I notice that KAV updates several times per day. There are complaints regarding the updates of AVira.

I am using F-Secure on my laptop. So far it appears that it updates only once per day, although if there is an outbreak it will do so at that time. I admit some concern about a once per day update. I am not sure why, except if other AVs consider it necessary to update several times a day, then why do not all consider that important.

Are we just hung up on update frequency, or is it really necessary to update every few hours?

Comments or explanations?

Thanks,
Jerry

 

JerryM

F-secure will update when it is warrented.I have seen many times where they updated 3-4 times a day.
Antivir updates more than that but the free version only 'auto' updates once a day.You can manually update in between.
Frequent updates are important, just look at the problems that arise from 'Nortons' slow updating.Detects the malware after its too late.If this wasn't true, then why didn't it prevent it in the first place.

 

once a day is usually enough and if there is an outbreak they wiil all usually release an early update, I run f-prot and it updates two to five times a day just depending how important they deem an update. it varies all of the time and I still feel protected even if it only updated once a day.

 

It is really getting annoying you bashing norton in every post.

 

Thanks, tobacco. I have not used F-Secure long enough to see that frequency, and it did not update over the weekend. That was a concern, and I wondered if that is really a problem or whether we are "programmed" to want so see updates every few hours.

I still wonder why KAV found it necessary to update several times each day over the week-end and F-Secure did not. Somewhat of a puzzle for me.

Except for that concern, I like F-Secure. It is rather unobtrusive for an AV.
I like that, and it seems to get along with other anti-malware applications, except that I had to uninstall Spybot. That was not a problem for me.

I appreciate the response.

Jerry

 

BigC,

Thank you also. I was typing when you posted.

I was hoping you would respond, as you are "My resident expert regarding F-Secure." Are you humbled by such respect?

Thanks again,
Jerry

 

I have jumped ship for a while. i am running F-Prot for a bit.

 

How can the truth be called "bashing"?.The 2 biggest players in the game- Symantec & Microsoft, are consistantly behind alot of the others with their signature updates and one would think that updating on par with say KAV, would increase their protection and reduce infections.Remember bigc73542, it's a piece of 'software', not a 'human being'. Geeeeeesh!.

 

AVIRA's servers get overtaxed on those large program updates (three times so far this year) Premium subscribers are supposed to get better service, but there still seem to be logjams.

This is from the (English) Premium Section of AntiVir Forum site:

I use the 'Classic' (free) and never have any problems during normal times.

260 Update attempts since mid February and over 93% successful for me on Dial-Up service, most of the time.

I feel much safer now than I did with nine years of *Norton, that usually did not create 'logs' on UpDate success and runs an average of a day behind AVIRA in getting new threats in the VDF's.

My normal mode gives me a fresh update (check) on each dialed connection.
On WiFi or Cable/DSL you would need create a dozen "Daily" 'jobs' in your scheduler for hourly check of update (or buy Premium Service).

I would like to see it go the other way, meaning when a new UpDate is released, push it instantly to the subscriber's who are online at that moment.

What good is an Update Schedule 'on-the-hour' (good time to avoid) when a release is issued at ten past the hour?
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
*___Edit:-__________________
I don't mean to "BASH" Norton, it was tops on my list for years, until I found AntiVir.
I do recall some 'close-calls' protected by Norton though, but still love the rest of their ...SystemWorks

 

Yes it is software and there are millions of coorporate and private users that are very satisfied with Norton av. I use it every so often and have never had a problem with it over the last five years. You try to make it sound like the worst software every written and that is just not the case.

 

OK, BigC,

It is good that you use many AVs. It will help if I want to try another. Who else has used all the AVs in the world?
Jerry

 

for their peace of mind I hope not to many

 

bigc73542

That is your interpretation of what i said but to my knowledge, i don't remember saying it was a 'bad' AV.Since detection using a signature database is still the strength of AV's and further evidenced comparing the detection rates of the latest tests done by IBK, 'Signature' vs. 'Heuristics', frequent updates would better protect users versus slow updating.Norton's detection rates are very good, the problem is it's late in detecting them and you would have to think that alot of these infections could be prevented with quicker updating.There are happy F-secure users out there but there also has been alot of negative comments made in this forum about F-secure and you don't see me jumping in with 'basher'.So lighten up.

 

You might try twisting your words to make others think you are not a norton basher but you are in the truest sense in my opinion. if you want to believe you are not that is your right but I also have the right to believe what I want but I don't post some reference to it in almost every post I make. I am not going to continue this discussion here and now but I am sure it will come up again.

 

We both have our opinions and continuing this won't be fruitful, so i will apologize for upsetting you and will try to limit any further references to norton so i don't upset you again.

 

same here

 

Me.

 

Hi Don,
OK, now you are in for it!
I now have 2 "Resident Experts" for AV questions.

Jerry

 

imo daily updates + emergency updates would be enough; what is important is what and how much is included in the daily updates. 100 updates at day with each containg just 1 zoo malware signature or 1 update at day containing 200 zoo malware signatures - what is more important for the normal user? Dunno. Normal users will maybe just be online 1-2 times at day to check their emails and update the av not every hour like most of us here do because we are always connected and have good connection/bandwith. As long as updates are released immediatly when a new malware is spreading around it is ok, but in that case it would be probably better if it get catched up even before a signature is released, e.g. by heuristic. If a product has not very good heuristics, it is for that product more important to release signature updates more often.

 

Am in complete agreement there.If 'Heuristics' detection rates could come close to 'signature' rates, that would be some awesome AV.But as your latest test shows, not even in the ballpark yet.

 

Maybe you forget that also heuristics are constantly updated. What the test shows is the (pure) proactive detection that the product had, 3 months ago.

 

In corporate network, some fast spreading malware such as mass-mailing worms, some (or most) of them will be caught by disciplined content filtering at gateway before the signature is released.

 

I was under the impression they were updated periodically not constantly so i feel your test is what 'Heuristics', 'True Heuristics' should be judged on and not one that uses constant updating.

 

i do not understand what you say

 

IBK

Sorry if i confused you there.I am saying that the way you test Heuristics is the way 'Heuristics' should be.Able to detect malware on their own and not because it is constantly updated.