AVAST 8 Program update! (8.0.1483)

Avast 8 is sitting in my downloads folder just crying out to be installed but which firewall to use.
I may try it with the windows firewall but i dont want something heavy.
I might try it sometime as i do like avast.

 

Can't you use Comodo firewall along side Avast!?

 

I could do that but i like to keep a tight ship so im using the full suite.

 

Same here. I'd like to try Avast! but I can't bring myself to uninstall Comodo AV.

 

My only problem is with Safe Zone. I upgraded to Avast Pro V7 just to get the Safe Zone, and when I access my bank the bank tool bar gui is screwed up where the two tool bars over lap so you can't read the one that should be on top, but is in back. I have to guess where the sign out is. It's also painfully slow. Then, if I go back to the normal desk top, and access the regular browser, it appears at about 6"x 8" in size and can't be adjusted. I have to restart the computer and drag the browser window to full size, then click the full size button to set it. Then if I try to log into my bank site, the bank doesn't recognize the computer, and asks me to e-mail the bank, where upon they send me a code which I enter into the bank site so I can logon. I was told that V8 might fix that, but it didn't, so I can't use Safe Zone. I started a thread about this at the Avast forum but it was ignored even though it was visited several times.

 

Hi twl845,
Did you end up performing a clean install using the avast uninstall utility for all previous versions? -http://www.avast.com/en-us/uninstall-utility-

 

No, I thought about doing that but since I had the problem since V7 I did the upgrade to V8 using the Avast updater. As I said, someone at the Avast forum thought that when V8 came out it would fix it. Maybe a clean install might be the ticket now though. I figured someone at the Avast forum might have suggested that if it were a good idea, but no response when I created a thread after going to V8.

 

Review of Avast 8 Free. Scores are generally good.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2416391,00.asp

 

So Avast! is still the so so antivirus it's always been. Thanks for the link.

 

its more than so-so and i would not take one persons review as the given gospel.

 

It's a very detailed review. Neil puts a lot of emphasis on security apps being able to install on infected systems and he had some trouble with Avast in that regard. That's not something I consider very important because I use other tools to clean infected systems before installing AV. He also doesn't like that the Boot scan requires user participation. That's a valid concern for average users since they may not know how to respond to the prompts. He likes AVG 2013 Free better, but I find AVG much more aggressive about "up-selling" their subscription products and I really don't like that. That said I think a subscription product is the better choice (not AVG), but for people wanting a free product Avast is a good way to go.

 

from the link:

=>
http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart1.php
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/RAP/RAP-quadrant-Aug12-Feb13-1200.jpg

 

Guys,Its a matter of opinion and likes and dislikes..

LOL PCMag you guys seriously think they are truthful in their job

Now lets not began to base conclusions on the latest avast v8 before we see the new technologies called evo-gen and similarity search and further more future technology implementation in action in AV-C and AV-tests.Dont judge the new version by old tests lets keep our hopes on the fingers and I am sure Avast has the potential with the new technologies and as previously mentioned by some other people it had been doing stellar in home grown tests and lets wait for the AV-C and AV-tests to began test rounds with avast v8

I besides Vlk already mentioned tests done by VB100 are on demand..so now you know the answer if samples are executed it will be evo-gen and filerepmalware and sandbox taking the load.

I was never excited by the tests carried out by independent organizations as we have no proof to show what has been going in the back sides of the curtains.More ever,they do NOT replicate real life usage where situations can be different for different users so please cut it off here.I have medium to high risk users using avast and they are still clean however conditions may be different with different pieces of malware and I can show X number of machines using X antivirus infected and not just avast.So please drop the personal disliking and lets focus on the basics and prespective.

In my experience,since 2011 I and my clients have had no issues with avast so I continue to recommend it because its a great free solution and if it isnt then we wont have 183 million users.C'mon its common sense even in regular changes of malware scenario happening almost every day these results never ever change and they always continue to push the big dogs its a thing to think about C'mon this must change

Each AV labs see millions and trillions of samples every year and AV-C and AV-tests perform the tests with just a few 1000's of them if you read the detailed reports properly you will notice it.Clearly,A very small sample set.

see the number of cases shown here in all 2012's reports:http://av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_prot_2012b_en.pdf
http://av-comparatives.org/images/docs/avc_prot_2012a_en.pdf

if you do the math its 2006 + 2159 = 4165 cases of malware yearly!!!

only 1000's whereas in total every AV see's millions and millions of samples everyday or every week.

 

What makes you think the people at PCMag are not truthful in their job? How can you know the motivations of any third party organization that conducts tests?

Since every person has a different computer and uses it differently how can any test replicate real life usage?

 

yes they cant but if you read my previous edited reply again you will know why the tests arent still upto the mark in my opinion

do PCMag or any other testing organizations have any proof of what they test is 100% true...and more ever I am questioning them in terms of sample set.Do they use the same samples for all AV's or not as said earlier they give no correct 100% specifications of test bed construction.And what in the cases of user dependent where it is counted by yellow but again the decision is still in users hand and different users make different decisions,right?

 

I test AV(s) myself maybe it's not like PCMAG but I prefer my own opinion I don't care about CRDF pc mag or others ....

 

Exactly!! this is no excuse...

4165 cases of malware.

only 1000's whereas in total every AV see's millions and millions of samples...there is a reason for what you should read from static tests.

 

or its a matter of money*......

Truths, lies, tests, "tests", trusted names all together mixed up and voila!
"*And the winner is......."

 

The problem some people have (and I'm not saying you're one of them) is that a security software test has "true" results if done properly. This is simplistic because all tests are limited and can only demonstrate a product's performance under those limited circumstances. Tests are useful if the methodology is logical, reasonably thorough and done without prejudice, but they are not the truth. If you read the results of multiple tests done by reputable labs you get a sense of which products do well, but that's all - no perfect tests and no perfect products. I think the PCMag test of Avast 8 Free was done quite well and I think Avast 8 Free is a good product even though it didn't perform the best on that particular test.

 

There is just very little or no info on how many samples were used in the test or how old the samples were

and I spot some flaws right away...

seriously 3 or 4 is enough as a undetected sample testing!?

ok but as he mentioned previously only 3 or 4 samples were tested that were locally missed.And still I am questioning the age of the samples used because evo-gen and new technologies detect almost anything coming in from 2013.

LOL! now here is the major flaw.No one,cares in real life if avast blocks the URL and doesnt detect the binary and it real life usage it wouldnt even land on the machine if URL is blocked and binaries are undetected.This is more like YT or home grown tests where it bares no relation to real life and I am sure that he did somewhere something wrong because if he had'nt evo-gen and filerepmalware will have knocked off the samples right away on execution as we have seen in spywar's test and in my own personal tests and tests done by some other people around here.

Personally,I would be looking somewhere else if I had to look..

OK so you are saying 1 out of your set had a low reputation.Seriously,even If I use only malc0de database right now I can trigger like 3 reputation alerts in 1 stroke of testing and AV-C had 65 user dependent samples either way questioned by filerep and sandbox.Again I am sure this test has a very small sample set.

And according to his statement about VIPRE test,he had a different pack...enough said this test is completely flawed.

If you want to test it fairly do the same sample set against all AV;s rather than different sample sets.What in the condition where the pack he tested had more of the older or more 'PUP/adware' samples whereas AV-C and other organizations use newer and 0-day malware.

 

So you're disagreeing with the methodology, and that's fine. If you want to get into it send email to Neil Rubenking and ask him directly about his choices. He has always responded to my inquires.

 

PCMAG ?

stop now .... I have done a new test (If I just give conclusion I hope my post won't be delete : 18 samples (very fresh, by very fresh I mean "first seen on VT 30 min ago, 41 min ago, or 1 h ago, 2 h ago ....)

1)These 18 were undetected by Avast!'s local DB
2)Execution one per one
3)15 got blocked (i.e by Evo-Gen/FileRepMalware/Autosandbox detection or not of the malware after dynamic analysis) BTW, there were some detections.
4)2 things passed. Now these 2 things are the same malware but different files :

~VT links removed per policy.~

I see no reason on why they have not been autosandboxed .. (not digitally signed).
5) test is uplauding (as usual on my channel)

to ronjor : Sorry I shared Youtube links (for tests) I see you have done a clean up . I'll never share YouTube links which redirect to tests so ...

 

Spywar: Did you run hmp and mbam afterwards?

 

Not on this test but be sure they don't detect anything ... Avast's sandbox don't leave malware trace like Comodo's. BTW, check out my channel I did 2 tests with MBAM quick scan (without pause ofc) on both I found 0 things.