avast! 4 Review (German)

Rokop-Security reviewed avast! You can find the review in German language under:

http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=499&mode=thread&order=0

I translated the main parts out of this review:

Malwaredetection

Also in terms of malware detection the new version is more advanced but the detection of packed or crypted malware is still not optimal. Here is the summary of the test results:

Worms - 221 out of 250
Trojans - 113 out of 120
Macroviruses - 91 out of 96
packed Malware - 11 out of 100

Conclusion

Even with the new redesign of the software avast! is still not achieving the results or the userfriendlyness a top score. Avast! 4 partly reaches the level of commercial products but it has to kept in mind that every missed virus is one too much. So if you want to be well protected you still have to spend money for antivirus software.


wizard

 

Hi,

and now in english language too : http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=501&mode=thread&order=0

Thanks Wizard !

 

Rokop (and Wizard),
thanks. As for the test results -- what was the test set? I mean, is it "itw"? Is it available for download so that we can have a look at it?

I believe that to make the test (and its results) more usable, you have to precisely specify what input data was used - information like "Macro viruses - 91 out of 96, packed Malware - 11 out of 100" is hard to interpret and way too vague...

Thanks
Vlk

 

The Rokop Policy is clearly: Every vendor which product is reviewed can request the test set. I think this is a fair deal. Just drop an email to kontakt@rokop-security.de with maybe some details where to upload the malware (as emails can become quiet big).

wizard

 

To everyone from Firefighter!

We must remember that Avast 4 is a free program.

Still it was as good (vs. Rokop April 2002) against macroviruses as BitDefender 6.4.1 or Pc-Cillin 7.51 and better than AntiVir PE 6.13.

Against trojans Avast 4 was better than NOD32, DrWeb 4.27a, Norton 2002 Pro, Pc-Cillin 7.51, BitDefender Pro 6.4.1, F-Prot Win 5.12 or Panda Titanium 2.02.

Against worms Avast 4 was better than Ikarus 5.01 and F-Prot Win 5.12. About worms the Avast 4 test was made with 250 worms when the others were made with 140 worms.

At last it was as good (vs. Rokop January 2003) unpacker as AntiVir PE 6 and better than AVG 6, F-Prot 5.12, Norton 2003, NOD32, Norman AV 5.4 or Pc-Cillin 9!

”The truth is out there, but it hurts!”

Best Regards,
Firefighter!

 

"We must remember that Avast 4 is a free program."

From Rokop's link:

"For some time now a new version of avast! is offered by Czech antivirus software vendor ALWIL Software. The software is still freeware in the English version but you have to register or update from a avast! 3 version. The German version of avast! 4 stays as well commercial as the Professional version."

It is evidently not free for everyone, just as for a long time AVG's freeware version was not available for Europeans. The German version of Avast (which is the one reviewed evidently) apparently is commercial as is the Pro version, if I read that correctly.

Just a general observation (not specific to this test or AV) since I see people so frequently explain away performance concerns based on the cost of the product.

I sincerely applaud developers for providing free AV solutions for people. I really do. But, as these developers also have versions available for purchase, detection issues should not be discounted simply because a freeware version is available.

Frequently as in the case of AVG for example, the detection performance concerns are also evident in the Pro or commercial version. Since performance of the freeware inevitably impacts how the quality of the brand name and the commercial versions are perceived by the consumer, it is in the best interest of the vendors to improve detection performance of all versions.

The short version: IMO, that a security product is available as freeware is not really an excuse for not so good performance. Either it's good enough to provide adequate protection or it isn't, regardless of the price of the app. And this is especially so when there are commercial versions of the same product that often are not qualitatively different from the freeware version.

No offense intended to Avast at all and I'm sure the developer is interested in providing a good product, both free and for pay. I am sure it is not an easy thing to do. I'm not familiar with Avast or the specifics of this particular test.

I'm just addressing the AV performance vs cost issue in general because some people frequently dismiss performance concerns based on the cost of the product, when the performance often has nothing to do with the cost. As with AVG, for example, there is a pay version of the AV that has the same detection performance as the freeware. If an AV does not provide adequate protection and damage is done, the cost of the product (free or not) is too high.

 

sig,

I absolutely agree. For the avast! case, however, the scan engines for both the Home (free) and the Pro version are identical, i.e., the detection rate should be exactly the same. And,

Whatever the review says, avast! 4 Home is free software (for personal, non-commercial use), and that's true worldwide. Period.

Vlk

 

Ah, thank you for clarifying that the basic avast is freeware worldwide and confirming that the engine is the same as the Pro version.