Quickheal Antivirus Review

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by sleepwalker, Sep 15, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sleepwalker

    sleepwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2002
    Posts:
    2
    Was wondering if a quickheal antivirus review is in the works for your site? I have used it on one of my secondary systems for quite a while. Mainly because it uses very few resources. It also offers options like memory scanning, integration with outlook, eudora and office. Scanning of scrap objects. A messenger system that not only notifys you of updates but of the latest hoaxes or patches available. On startup it also monitors changes made to important system files and warns you if a file is starting up that did not start up in the previous boot. I know most of these options are found in other antiviruses as well, and from my own personal experience I dont think it is better than dr web or nod 32, but it does offer some nice features, and like i mentioned uses very few resources. Not many quality reviews have been made of this antivirus either, and I think a lot of users who have tried it are usually turned off quickly by its rather "novice" interface. If you try to test it with viruses and trojans, that are on its database, but in an archived state i dont think it will detect them. But in active state it will. In my experience it has detected a couple of viruses for me but has also generated a few false positives. Any opinions?

    On a side note, i think this forum is really great. You have answered quite a few questions already that I have been thinking about for quite awhile. Also wondering why the rating of Dr web on your site has dropped to 3.5 stars?
     
  2. Paul Wilders

    Paul Wilders Administrator

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2001
    Posts:
    12,472
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Hi sleepwalker,

    We are in the habit of only publishing reviews when a security app stands the test - there are many, many anti-viruses around; only comparatively few of them stand tests reasonably. Quickheal has been tested aprox. a year ago; missed too many in our view. Thus, no review.

    As for Dr.Web: a fluke. I've asked one of our team members to correct (might be done in the meanwhile) - apologies.

    Thanks for the compliment, btw! ;).

    regards.

    paul
     
  3. wizard

    wizard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    818
    Location:
    Europe - Germany - Duesseldorf
    QuickHeal is not a good av program. Nothing special. Poor detection rates. Waste of time to test it if you ask me. :)

    wizard
     
  4. eyespy

    eyespy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2002
    Posts:
    490
    Location:
    Oh Canada !!
    Wizard...
    Direct and right to the point !!
    I like that !! ;)

    bill :D
     
  5. sleepwalker

    sleepwalker Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2002
    Posts:
    2
    Thanks for the reply guys I really appreciate it.

    For future reference what other criteria do you look for in antiviruses to be tested? Arguably Bit Defender wasnt very good and I never liked tauscan but both were reviewed on your site, and given rather poor reviews... deservedly so :D . I even think quickheal has a larger user base than bit defender, being a very popular antivirus in india. Quickheal also passed West Coasts Labs Checkmark Test recently, and was the first the first antivirus to provide a solution for the Klez.h variant (this coming from their website). While it failed VBs test in its only showing, I thought it did pretty well for a new comer. It had a detection rate of 99-98% in all categories except for one I believe. Forgot which one that was :doubt: . So Quickheal isnt a total dunce as some of you are making it seem ;). By no means am I supporting it either. I am skeptical like a lot of you, about its detection rate as well, that is why I posted this thread. And that is why I think maybe it deserves a second look. So little has been said about it, that it is hard to tell how good or how bad it really is. Either way I think it would be beneficial. As a warning to others not to use it or maybe to let more people know it is ok.

    Wizard I was also wondering if you could provide some more info on when you tested it and why you think it did so poorly in your test. I am definitely interested in what you thought of its scanning techniques and how it compares with other antiviruses you have tried. Unlike eyespy I neeeeeed to know the details... the more the better heh. I have heard its heuristic scanning is good as well and Im sure updates have been made since last year, but like I said with so little being said about it, it is hard to back it up.

    I have also asked a moderator at another security forum to provide me with more info on quickheal as well, so i will be sure to let you know if anything new is worth mentioning. Thanks again.
     
  6. wizard

    wizard Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2002
    Posts:
    818
    Location:
    Europe - Germany - Duesseldorf
    The last time I tried it was somewhere last year (in the good old days of my student times where I had enough time ;)). I cannot remember what kind of malware I tested QuickHeal against but the result was not very impressive. If so I would rember QH much better. :) It was even that bad that I do not wanted to wasted my time to write a review for it on Rokop-Security.

    At the moment I use a mixed set of different kind of malware. For me it is not important how many is detected. I want to know what is detected and how (string, heuristics). I found this testset quite usefull because it gives a first impression what category the program is (ITW, Zoo, heuristics, trojan, etc.)

    wizard
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.