Avast 5 RELEASED

Effectiveness of Behavior shield . Just 1 sample is enough.
If 1 sample can break its BS then many samples can break that.

That video includes only 1 sample. But i tested it with more samples yesterday.
But that time i tried avast IS with gr8 joy. "AVAST RELEASED ". And i tried to test it with trojandowloaders i have. FAILED

Today i created a video. To show that .

 

Bah, I usually test AVs against 20-30 fresh samples (rogues most of them) and I can tell you that I haven't found a single antivirus that blocked more than 70 -80% of the malware. I can easily find a piece of malware that circumvents a specific AV any day. The question is: given that no antivirus will give you total protection, are you willing to sacrifice SOME of your PC horsepower for SOME protection?

 

Hi guys;

Would like to ask if Avast 5 has capability for manual updates the last version I used did not allow manual updates and got only updates when you are connected to the internet.

Is this possible for this new version?

Or is there a work around for downloading updates and installing them manually...

Just asking.

 

Give me more facts - what did your test include? Where can I find details?

 

The behavior shield looks for suspicious files which it flags and then notifies the user that he can submit those files to Avast to be analyzed if the user doesn't trust the files. Its not a typical behavior shield of say Mamutu. Of course I have to agree it missed one sample the test clearly illustrates that Avast is 100% ineffective. Like was said above, another useless youtube video

 

In the free version yes:

http://i50.tinypic.com/97ioo1.png

More screenshots:

http://i46.tinypic.com/315icdg.png
http://i45.tinypic.com/2crww7b.png
http://i45.tinypic.com/2ed5usl.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/97ioo1.jpg
http://i46.tinypic.com/2iaptdz.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/2ij1e1j.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/2u4snx3.png
http://i47.tinypic.com/2jg5kjk.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/ka23bt.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/ka23bt.jpg
http://i45.tinypic.com/ixegyv.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/ftfupk.png
http://i45.tinypic.com/2m5nwg8.png
http://i50.tinypic.com/nz0v8.png
http://i46.tinypic.com/21ecnyr.png
http://i48.tinypic.com/i4ocok.png
http://i49.tinypic.com/2z40knp.png

 

what gets me is this is a thread about a new product being released. A positive thing and thread. Thus it should remain so. When it comes to all the other stuff, create another thread. Dont ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ someone elses postings.

 

Like that's ever stopped anyone here from turning a thread around. And I most certainly will " ~ Snipped as per TOS ~ someone elses posting" when it comes to misleading and flat out incorrect posts. Have we not forgotten Wilders is here for people NEW to security and not just where the "in the know" hang out? What if someone comes in and sees all these "Well it didn't pass my test so it fails" posts...and there are TONS of those here.

Any actual information gets buried under the idiotic ramblings and "home basement test" posts. Yes, I am VERY well aware my comments and even this post add to that issue, which is why I'm done with it now. I just wish people would learn to freakin read.

 

Forgot that I still had the VM open that I used to test with last night for the sandbox video.

So leaving all the stuff MBAM found I rescanned the system with superantispyware.

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/6442/capturexgq.jpg

 

i posted my experiences when i used Avast 5.

 

So then these things did slip through Avast, and these are different samples? Well, hopefully Avast gets that fixed up. I still think it's the best free AV out there feature-wise and, at least going by the most recent tests, effective enough to be trusted.

Edit: Nevermind, hell I need to learn to read myself. These are two different samples. I still have to hold on to my opinion that it isn't enough to judge the effectiveness though. There's just so, so many variations out there of literally millions of malware, that's why I can't let myself go by a few samples, especially the newest samples. Maybe I have too much faith, lol.

 

I'll agree that there are millions of different pieces of malware, but a true sandbox should be able to stop 99% of them. It has to be some pretty crafted malware to be able to be sandbox aware. Unless the "sandbox" they are in isn't very good. I guess I'm just use to using sandboxie. I could throw the kitchen sink at that sandbox and nothing ever got through.

 

This is major release indeed. Just trash the irrelevant posts if needed.
This is Wilders.

 

I doubt Sandboxie stopped 99% of everything when it first arrived Is this not Avasts' first attempt at sandboxing? Maybe I'm wrong on that. As with anything, the new Avast is going to need to be truly put through its paces and "torture-tested" by the AV-Comparative/VB people. This is early, if they look down on it and Avast doesn't step up to the plate to rectify any negatives, then we can truly judge it.

@Technic: No worries, I trashed my own irrelevant posts

 

I really like these youtube videos.
To me if a product cannot protect against 10 urls then it is a poor product, as simple as that.(No need for you guys to reply)

Here is another one from Matt:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EILqXx1RWMY&feature=youtu.be&a
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6eqqHL51q0&feature=youtu.be&a

The truth cannot be hidden any more, hopefully the avast team will improve their product.

 

Hey I was just kidding about the 10 urls thing. Mack Jones explained it to me in another thread:

Originally Posted by smage
"Hi thanks for the explanation.
But if a product has good proactive protection, should it not be able to protect agains these samples? If a user got redirected to any of these sites, he would expect his AV to protect him."

Originally Posted by Mack Jones
"No. It's a matter of statistics.
Say A detects 70% of infected links and B 50%.
If you choose 10 links, that does mean A would stop 7 and B 5. Here is the margin of error I spoke earlier.

Let's take a example:
Ten infected links:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A detects 1 from 7 and B 6 to 10 (remember 70% and 50%).
If you choose links 1 3 6 7 and 10, product A detects now 3 of 10 samples and product B 3 too. Both products detects 50% of infected URLs.
If you choose now links 2 6 8 9 10, A detects only 2 sample and B 4.
What's wrong ?

Your sample size is too short.
In fact, you could not be sure to be protected more by product A if you try with few samples. In some cases, that'll be true, in some others, false.

-> Statiscally, product A will be better is you reduce the margin error, the sample size in fact.
-> Statistically, Peghorse's results may be inverse with the next 15 infected links he could try.

Never forget AV science is also statistical science...but not only "

https://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=262997

Thanks

 

That test looked pretty good in Avasts favor if you ask me. There was, of course something obviously wrong with Avast during that test with the scanner (I'm not saying that makes the test bogus, simply that something was messed up with Avast). Out of the actual live samples, imho, it did pretty decent.

 

I have to say, I think the new avast! logo looks a little like seagull poop.
Splat!!

 

Maybe they should call it heuristic cloud shield or something like that

 

You know what i'm not liking about avast 5 free.....Its automatically blocking some of my keygen's. Its not even giving me the option to deny or even ignore them. How rude! Also working with OA premium, it seems like the web shield is slowing down my internet. ANyone else noticing that or just me?

 

Not sure about the keygens,but OA has a webscanner too and i guess running two, takes twice as long?
ellison

 

That is 2 in a week posts that have made my day. Didnt see it till you said that and now I pull myself off the floor to gain composure.

 

why? nothing is scanned in the cloud and nothing is automated with the cloud, every AV asks for virus submission in some way or other, i dont see it as a cloud in anyway.

 

Avast 5 Free is pretty good. I'm impressed I'll keep this.

Tested with lots of zero-days you can find in Malwarebytes forum, it detected about 50-60% of them, which for a free AV is pretty good IMO.

+ There is no slow down of PC or connection.