Avast Fail a simple test review

I agree that Avast can't be judged on one test only and one carried out by an "amateur'. On the other hand this "amateur" has tested many other AVs using the same method, and getting different results. Aigle among Wilders members has a good reputation, as a good amateur tester for HIPS.

What I'm getting at is that there is nothing wrong in doing your own tests and sharing them on the internet. Avast got seriously infected in that test, the computer became a "bot", a spam machine, something that is happening to a great deal of users who won't be even aware their computer might be seriously compromised.

 

I really enjoy reading this site, but over the last 6-9 months something has happened. A large number of posters have developed the opinion that two testing sites are the only ones that matter. Any reader can probably figure out the two I am talking about. (one is for firewalls & the other is for AVs) Any other sites and opinions seems to be considered blasphemy. I don't get it. Why the strong backlash?

 

BTW - As removemalware said, he did not start this tread. Also, he posts videos of his tests, which I think is fantastic. It allows anyone to see what test are performed, and how. Most other testing site do their work in secrecy. Videos allow even one to watch and come to their own conclusions. Whether you agree with his test methods or not, I do not think he has any evil motives.

 

The missed script is probably because script blocking is included in the pro version and not the free.

http://www.avast.com/eng/avast-4-professional-antivirus-antispyware.html#8

Comparison of Pro and Free versions: http://www.avast.com/eng/avast-compare-home-professional.html

Avast is a fine work of programming. I have even installed it on my sisters computer along side of Windows Defender because I need to keep things simple on her machine. I also keep everything updated to reduce exposure to known exploits.

I also want to go on record as saying Avast is probably the most stable application I have ever ran on my machine. To me that is important as an AV, firewall AS or whatever needs to be running for it to work.

bellgamin did take the time to make a few good points and he is correct. It's impossible to judge a product by a simple test and therefore shouldn't be dismissed by anyone. I just hope people don't look over Avast because of this and similar tests. Avast makes the most complete free and stable anti-virus out today.

 

removemalware

My apologies, I mistakenly confused you with the thread starter, based partly upon your reply below bellgamins' post. Of course, you were referenced by the thread starter but were not he. I should have been more thorough.

 

Yes, I'm just an amateur. I feel that video is the most un-biased, truthful way to see if an anti-malware application will truly remove malware and/or protect you...am I wrong?

 

Thank you so much! You made my point better than I could (I suck at writing)

 

LOL this - "character assignation" of an application? made my day! ....instead of "character assassination"

 

I don't think you can based any decisions on just one test, they all will fail given the right test, so that's not proof of anything. Avast is a fine AV, ever-improving too. I'm sure someone could just as easily get NAV 2009 to fail a test also. Or any other AV. Sure, it's interesting, but I don't think conclusions can be drawn from it.

 

So Avast Home would not score as good as Avast Professional? Thank you for that information, I didn't know that the Avast Home Engine is crippled ...

 

It wasn't only the fact that it was "one test" -- the key factor was that it was one test with only 5 malware samples. A sample of 5, taken from a exponentially huge universe, has a significance of zero point zilch.

I have read, enjoyed, & respect what you & Aigle have done from time to time. In fact, they have influence my selections at times.

However, the present tester's posts and comments are quite unlike what you & Aigle have posted. This individual pontificates judgments (such as "Avast shouldn't be used in the real world") as though he actually had some factual basis for such a blanket condemnation.

There is nothing wrong with someone expressing such an opinion UNLESS that individual is posing as an objective tester who infers that he has competence concerning antivirus structures, malware detection, and testing methodology.

Why the backlash? Because there are people who pay their mortgages, put food on the table, and clothe their kids by working for anti-malware software companies. If their product is fairly & competently tested, & is truly lousy, then so be it -- people need to know. But if their product is unfairly & incompetently tested, and thereby loses market share & adversely affects people's jobs and lives, then it is bloody EVIL

There is a lot more to COMPETENTLY testing antivirus apps than simply to put up a pretty website and proudly proclaim, "Last week I couldn't spell 'antivirus tester' but now I ARE one."

Just as there are quack doctors, there are also quack testers. Testing is a profession. It requires training, experience, expertise. Of equal importance, effective testing calls for the testing organization to gather, compile, and maintain a large database of valid in-the-wild malware. It often takes antivirus companies a long time to compile such a database. It can take potential testers as long or longer to do so.

To read more about this subject, I suggest you go here, then click on "Comparatives, then scroll down to the line labelled "Anti-Virus Testing Websites" & download the pdf report therefor. You might also benefit from reading the report offered on the following line labelled "Anti-Virus Testing Tips."

Yet another report, assessing the state of antivirus testing, is contained in THIS pdf report.

 

Some great reading material there in your posts/links bellgamin.

I noticed with certification/testing, there is a strong emphasis on 'active' threats, and I understand it now. AV developers also mention this often. That is those threats that affect regular users visiting regular sites. You will always have threats on sites regular users will probably never visit, but can bring down most programs. That's just the way it goes. New malware always being developed.

I agree user testing is good for general viewing, but conclusions can't be made on one test. I read many tests, feedback across many forums, and feedback from many users/testers across many forums and test sites. Then I form an opinion.

For example, a malicious site may not being detected while at time of testing, but I don't see a problem if it is added a few days/week later by the AV company. Then by the time a regular user may visit the malicious site, or find a link to the site, site is already flagged.

 

Yes but at least that would have been a fair shot lol.NAV by default protects against malicious scripts,while the FREE version of avast doesn't.I'm not trying to defend avast or something,but if you are gonna call a product 2nd or 3rd class for on demand worth only at least be kind enough to also test the trial of the pro version lol.
its like putting on a fight the light weight champion vs the heavy weight champion.

 

Unless the script blocker does heuristic detection, I doubt it will detect someting not detected by the web shield and the standard shield.

 

I wasn't trying to criticize you, as a matter of fact I have watched almost all of your tests and found them very informative. I also like your attitude because it reflects the position of a user who wants to try out programs and share the experience. I honestly don't know if you are always using the programs you test at their best (see paranoid) settings, but I'm convinced that your not biased or favoring any product.

As far as I'm concerned I'd like to watch more of your tests in the future.

 

Thanks Osaban! I know you were not criticizing me (hope I didn't come off that way ). Correct, I love testing anti-malware applications. I'm always looking for the "perfect protection" for my clients in St. Louis (that's why I started testing).

Here I the products I really believe in and use:
For Prevention - DefenseWall and DriveSentry (DefenseWall is loaded on my workstation and the wife's computer). DriveSentry is protecting my field laptops and usb sticks.

For Detection and Removal - Malwarebytes (free), SuperAntiSpyware (free) and Spyware Doctor. Sometimes I'll use Combofix if the OS sec policies have been modified.

Correct, I'm not a biased reviewer/tester. I show people what would happen if you used a particular application for prevention or removal...I don't write reports or use secretive test measures. What I see and experience so shall you.
Basically I provide NO BS reviews.

If you watch my anti-malware video reviews and you see product A block 3 out 5 threats and product B block 5 out 5 threats then I'm assuming you have enough information on those products to see which one works best at this current moment.

 

Matt, I think what people are trying to say, a sample of 5 is not conclusive and might not represent the performance of any given program, no matter which program.

For example:
Program A which blocks 3 out of 5, might get 1800/2000 in further testing.
Program B which blocks 5 out of 5, might get 1850/2000 in further testing.
Program C which blocks 5 out of 5, might get 1750/2000 in further testing.
Program D which blocks 1 out of 5, might get 1820/2000 in further testing.

 

Percentages bro...if it blocked 75% out of 5 then logic tells us it will block 75% out of 100 (maybe better maybe worse). If you would like me to test it against 100 url's then just say the word because I have them.

How much more factual could I get? It's a video that shows Avast failed to stop a trojan from loading and the host pc was turned into a bot! If an infected PC means zilch to you then have fun living in AV comparatives fantasy land.

It is my opinion that Avast should never be used in the real world as sole protection based on the fact that out of 5 malicious URL's tested it allow 2 to successfully execute and take over the host.

Then make a better product. Avast was fairly tested.

-NOD32 4.0 Beta 1 blocked all 5 urls,
-Avast 4.8 blocked 3 out of 5

Now people...which would you choose? Based on just those set's of videos?

I'm no brainiac but I'd be going with the errrmm....one that blocked more. Duh...

Of course you need to perform you own research, I'm just giving you some FACTUAL video tests that may help you decide.

Ummmm Ok. I never said I was some professional tester. I'm just a guy that cleans and protects thousands of computers every year. I'm just looking for the best possible anti-malware applications to make my job easier and make my clients happier.

I don't present my results on some graph or use secretive testing measures...you see what I see...what could be more honest or factual.

When I grow up I wanna be a professional tester...what a joke man. You don't need to be a professional tester (if there ever was such a thing) or have a massive DB of malware to see if a product is worth someones time or not.

Or you can watch some exciting real world anti-malware review videos at YouTube.com/mrizos


Yet another report, assessing the state of antivirus testing, is contained in THIS pdf report.[/QUOTE]

 

Hey matt when you tested Nod 4 beta where urls/samples, the same used on avast for testing.

 

[/QUOTE]

Thanks for your tests. I know that you don't slander AVs - you just get frustrated when they don't perform. I'm not saying that your test should change people's setups, but you are testing with multiple security products, so how they do is of value.

 

@removemalware

Did you also test Avira Free or AVG Free?

 

You are correct. I may up the URL count to 10 or 20. After testing 10-20 URLS with multiple anti-malware application you should be able to see what works and what doesn't.

 

I like your videos, i watch them occasionally. But this last post is not your best..

A sample of 5 is meaningless. You really, really should not go there.

I think you should rewrite this, it's zero'ing my interest / faith in your seriousness.
The fact that you put a link in the browser out of nowhere, and stand there waiting, already takes a leap of faith to believe how serious you are. I was taking that leap thinking "the world is complicated as it is".

You need to understand the basic nature of AVs before making these statements. Population = tons. Your sample = 0.0...1 %.
It doesn't invalidate the experience you present us in videos, your post however does.

I'm not going to quote you more, this is negative as it is. I don't like being negative.

 

I tested Avira Free. It blocked everything I threw at it. Definitely my favorite free traditional AV app.

 

Ok, thx.