Small Test of 'Freebies'!.

Just saw this posted on another site and would like your thoughts on it.Since i know little of proper testing procedures, are there flaws in her testing to explain the poor results from all except 'Active Virus Shield'?.

http://www.dozleng.com/updates/index.php?showtopic=10979&hl=

 

Many (if not most) infected files are not viruses/trojans/worms but adware (according to the AVS detections screenshot). IIRC only the paid version of Antivir search spyware/adware. I don't know about Avast. Active Virus Shield (based on kaspersky) tries to detect all types of malware. This is a screenshot of the AVS settings in my computer:

 

Active Virus Shield uses the Kaspersky engine and thats why it does so well. heres the current thread: AOL Active virus Shield(KAV 6.0) FREE!!!!!

AVG did very badly tho. my personal preference for avast and antivir is only further strengthened.

 

Makes me wonder what kind of settings were used for AntiVir (especially heuristics part). If anyone can ask that guy about this of coure...

Still i was kinda surprised about avast! regardless of amateur nature of this test. Plus thats why i ask about AntiVir becaue that can make one hell of a difference...

 

Such tests need to be validated with other tests from other sources.

 

I was really 'Shocked' when i saw the result from 'AVG' and that's why i wanted your input on it.

 

Well AVG is pretty weak, at least the free version. I've used it, and it does do okay in removing what it finds, but there's the fact that it doesn't find anywhere close to a sufficient amount.

Avast is pretty good, and they do have a fairly good rate of adware/spyware detection and removal. Antivir has mostly just virus removal, perhaps the best of the freebies besides the ActiveShield, but then again, Antivir does have more false positives. You've just gotta decide which one fits you best. For me, usually I'm most consistently comfy with Avast lately, as Antivir has been unreliable for me.

 

You're totally right! That's why Avira performed not so good. Their free version has no support for Ad/Spy.

 

I get thie message.

 

Sorry to say, but this is a pretty lousy test. Donna claims that the number of malware files in the set is irrelevant for its quality, which is a pretty sad joke. With 170 files I can make any AV look good or bad, especially if I mix in ADSPY/Riskware software, don't specify complete configuration/detection settings etc.
And what the hell are "infection risks" supposed to be? The testset is so obviously lacking, even without a detailed description of its contents and modus operandi, that noone with even a tiny spark of a clue can take it seriously.

The best thing about this test is that she links to other, more professional tests.

 

I've replied already here in this thread:

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,16762081

 

Okay. So the general concensus seems to be to this test. So can AVG's poor showing be forgiven then?.

 

AVG free doesnt have adware spyware detection.The shell extension test can be set to scan archives,whereas the default for the basic scanner test is to scan extension list (probably why she was so confused in her testing).The real time protection is different from the on demand scanning.I think everybody knows that AVG is lower in detection than the other avs mentioned ,but that test is ridiculous imo.
ellison

 

Does this mean I would be better protected if I used AVS instead of AntiVir PE Classic? And does AVS have real time protection as good as AntiVir? Sorry for the stupid questions...

 

What's AVS stand for?

But no matter what you're comparing it to, Antivir is pretty darn good for free....96% detection rates. Avast is also nice, and I use it because Antivir died out on my computer and wouldn't work right, no matter how many times I tried again, unfortunately. Avast or Antivir is definetly better then AVG, although not as monumentally so as this test suggests.

In fact, on AV-Comparatives May 2006 test, AVG in total scores 1% higher then Avast. Just a thought.

 

AOL Active Virus Shield

Active Virus Shield (based on Kaspersky) has better signatures while AntiVir has better heuristics.
I think that the detection ratio of AVS is better but you must give an e-mail address and agree to receive "periodic notices about Active Virus Shield and other services that may be of interest to you" (so far, 0 spam messages sent to the address that I used). Also the program includes an optional "security toolbar" that I didn't install for obvious reasons...

 

you mean February 2006.

 

Anyway to speed up AntiVir update times? They are pretty dang sluggish! And does AVS have slow updates too? If it oes I'll jsut stick to AntiVir

 

>> AVG Free detected 8 out of 170 infections/risks. No False positive detections. <<


I think this is pretty accurate.