Avast Fail a simple test review

5 is still meaningless, because the population is huge. I can get 5 links that bypass Avira probably. What does that prove? That Avira can be bypassed, as any other AV.
To really compare them, i need big numbers.

BTW i was not missing the point, but you seemed to miss mine: i have to believe you're honest. I take a leap by accepting those links from nowhere. While not a AV comparatives fan, i regard them as professional and sound. When you mention "AV comparatives fantasy land", i get a red flag - as in, i just saw exactly that, a fantasy video.

 

no one can claim to have 'the' answer to think so would be foolish IMHO, to each his own from what little I've seen of your presentation they have been very informative but I still won't change to what your using as I don't believe in your formuative aproach to security. From what I understand you recommend PcTools stuff and I don't think they do such a good job, just my 2 cents...

 

I like your testing matt,I think your motives are good.You stated your opinion and show actual facts at the moment of testing with the urls at Hand.Its unbiased as far as I am concerned.Your doing your best.

 

Thanks man! You are correct, I'm just testing the URL's at hand. I'm giving my opinion on an application based on how well it protected me against those 5 URL's. I suppose I'll increase my URL base to 10.

 

Yeah, big numbers are for a group like Av Comparitives (they have the time). I'm just grabbing this weeks threats and testing against them. I hope you continue to watch the reviews (even if it's just for entertainment value ).

 

Yes, that would be my only suggestion - to increase the URLs. Then there wouldn't be so many complaints. Keep up the good work.

 

Thanks man! I'll bring them up to 10. Let's see how MBAM Pro deals with them tonight.

 

Nothing wrong with anecdotal testing. We all do it to some extent when we try out programs, and often report the results here and elsewhere. And I think Matt's videos are very interesting and informative. But as many have pointed out, extrapolating a few samples to the whole population is just not realistic. The real value is in exposing the vulnerabilities that can then be categorized and countered, just as is done in the Matousec testing for firewalls. Not in the numbers. So I hope the vendors are looking at the small sample testers like Matt and using the tests to improve their product where appropriate. And that the testers are making that data available freely. But they are not the gauge to compare products.

 

Hello, First of all I would like to introduce myself, I have been reading posts on Wilders Security Forum for a few months now and have been watching Matt's reviews on Remove-Malware.com but I figured I would register and put in my two cents on this subject because Avast! is my favorite AV (I will offer a Un-biased opinion)

Honestly? I would pick Avast 4.8, for a signature based AV the product is simply Amazing Dont get me wrong NOD32 4.0 beta 1 may be a great AV but is it free? Avast! may have missed 2 of those malicious URLs but with the sheer number of threats out there today and that are being made everyday? that's really not that bad In My Opinion. Plus Avast! makes up for its shortcomings in the number of Providers (shields) that it has running if your looking for a free security setup I would Have to say Avast! (free with great detection rates plus the number of shields) mixed with SAS and MBAM and for a firewall Comodo firewall without D+ and if you want to take it a step further you could even add on DriveSentry (I saw your review on youtube about it last night and it did really well as far as I could tell) Honestly I like the Reviews you do Matt what I don't like though is the negative attention it seems Avast! has gotten in light of the review you did for a AV that has survived as long as Avast! has as a signature based AV with a aggressive Generic detection module it deserves a lot more respect. But that's just My Opinion.

 

Yes, very true. I suppose to completely gauge a product you need to test it against vast samples. My prevention video tests will use 10 malicious URL's and you can make your own opinions after that. Thanks for the complements btw!

 

Thanks man, I respect you opinion. True, Avast is free and offers a lot for being free. Believe me, I'm not here to "rag" on anyones antivirus. I just like to document my own personal tests and then share them with everyone.

One thing I am passionate about is trying to find an application that provides the most protection possible...by itself.

I realize Avast would be a great solution with MBAM and SAS, but we're talking about introducing so much more software into our operating environment...sometimes too much security is worse than malware (speaking on slowness here).

 

@removemalware
Matt, first of all I'd like to thank you for your effort you put in testing anti-malware programs. Though I had to scratch my head when I see the prevention tests, your testbed is way to small and since the av's are all tested on separate dates they don't prove anything.

In our labs we started experimenting with prevention tests in summer 2007, using frozen testbeds on frozen av databases using at least a couple hundred 0day threats.

 

Matt, I said from the outset that I enjoy your videos. I especially like the fact that you plan to make trial-runs of not-often-tested apps such as Drive Sentry.

Because of your small sample size, it is not fair and objective to conclude that the product subjected to your trial runs <IS> or <IS NOT> good at what it is designed to do.

It IS fair & objective to conclude something along the following lines (hypothetical example): "Product X identified 3 of the 5 malwares. The 2 misses resulted in (infection or bot status or whatever)."

Now, as to your statement as follows...

Of course you are equally as entitled as any other poster to have opinions concerning the quality of any given security app or category of apps. In my OPINION, however, it greatly detracts from your objectivity if you make these kinds of comments in the context of a forum thread which is mainly concerned with one of your online YouTube trial-run demonstrations.

I suggest you search through Wilders so as to read some of the posts by IBK, for example. In "general discussion" threads, IBK sometimes shares his own opinions & experiences BUT in threads about AV-Comp & its tests, he is all business, fully objective, and strictly to-the-point of test structure, database, methods, etc.

Matt, I do wish you every success and will continue to view your videos with great interest.

 

Yeah, prevention is a new thing for me since "a million" people kept asking to do some prevention videos. I usually just do detection and removal reviews.

Frozen test beds would be the way to go for sure. ....However, I'm constantly looking for what is going to get me in and out of an appointment (awesome removal and detection) while providing the client with long lasting effective protection (prevention). So, I don't think I can freeze my test beds.

I'll still be making prevention videos using 10 URL's just to give me an idea of what works best for me. If anyone wants to come along an watch then that's cool!

Hundreds of 0Day threats! Are you guys collecting from a Honey Trap/Pot?

 

Thanks Bellgamin! Hope ya like DriveSentry, I love this little app (the version for USB sticks is just awesome too!).

Anyway, I you guys are right. My sample DB is too small to be considered "professional", however I'll be testing with it (for my own purposes) and sharing the results with everyone on youtube.

*Everyone* going forward my prevention videos are just my personal experience and opinions with a small set of malicious URL's. If you want to see more URL's (above 10) in a test bed then there should be some other org's that have that data. I'm trying to keep my videos in 30 minute lengths

 

I understand you and I do appreciate what you do. Looking at your approach frozen testbeds might not be the solution indeed.

We've got "harvesting-machines" all over Russia.

 

Thanks Sputnik. Seems like Russia is the king of the bots these days.

 

and china

 

china seems to send out all those pesky trojans that steal my game id's

 

matt did you ever tested COMODO D+?the D+ is a killer man

 

China is the biggest country of threat origins in your analysis. Same on ThreatExpert, although the other results listed on ThreatExpert are different then ours.

 

Not enough URL's to make a difinative test. The videos are good to watch to see how different scanners handle what they do find, however.

 

most of the av's do fairly well on preventive but to clean very infected systems is hard for sure specially with rootkits in

 

If you think about someone who has an infected machine, but isn't the most computer savy...they'll go into their local store or download Anti-malware free/paid, believing they'll clean their machine. Your average novice sees the words 'Removes Spyware and Viruses' on the Box then believes that this software will solve their Infection problems. These people usually don't have the first clue about the software's effectiveness, hence why Norton ended up on many machines in it's bad bloated days. Those videos are showing what these people who fit the above description, could expect if they installed certain Ant-malware software on their PC. No anti-virus has 100% detection and it's reasonable to expect this, but some of the AV's tested in those videos were inadequate like F-secure and Mcafee in particular.

I don't understand why some people get frustrated with Matt, because their Favourite Anti-virus didn't perform as they would of wanted. It's not a reviewers fault if something fails a test. I think it's good to actually see how well an anti-malware performs, rather than rely on figures published in a magazine or website.

Great Video's Matt, keep up the good work

 

agreed 100%well done said