c't magazine 1/2005 AV test

Omg,where did a said this!? I checked this entire topic and didn't found anything like it. You probably messed me up with someone else hehe

 

LOL!I must say that you showed great self-control in this topic and avoided any direct confrontation with AVG.

I was refering to this:
"Conclusion: Not recommended: Avast (both versions) and ViRobot as these scanners did not detect all ITW-samples. McAfee and NAV provided updates too late -> not recommended, too. Fast On-Access-Scanners: AVG, NOD32, PC-Cillin. Good overal protection: Bitdefender Prof., F-Secure."

If a person with no particular interest for avs reads this part of the magazine,he will understand:

-i must avoid Avast and ViRobot.They are baaaaad.
-NAV and McAfee,better be avoided
-Better buy BitDef or F-Secure
-If i want a good and fast i d better get AVG,NOD32 and PcCillin.

It's just that i can't digest this easily. I mean,McAfee detection wise is among the first ones.NAV is above average too.AVG is for low risk people that are conscious of what the capabilities of AVG are.Avast isn't certainly to avoid.

 

An interesting discussion on the c't article and on this board in general.

I'd just like to post my experiences with some of the software tested by c't.

I haven't used Avast software for almost 12 months after disasterous results with the Home/Pro/Enterprise versions. Initially I was very interested in testing their software, the main drawback (at that time) was that they didn't have a single manual ready for the end user to work out how to configure the software. Admittedly the Enterprise version has a "wizard" to take you through the initial configuration, but after that you're on your own. The configuration options are in many ways self-explanatory, if sometimes seemingly contradictaory, but who's to know if you understand the blurb for a certain check-box when there's next-to-nothing in the way of documentation, apart from the online help, which doesn't explain much about these options.

The disasterous results came after the installation of Avast on a SBS 2003 Server, which Avast specifially covers in their licensing scheme. Incoming mails were regularly not scanned correctly and the viruses were picked up at the client end by various scanners (OEM SAV, Avast Pro Trial).

As a long-time Dr Solomon's/NAI/McAfee advocate, this sorry state of affairs was replaced by a McAfee Active Virus Defense SMB. VirusScan (without GroupShield) can still pick up the mail-bound viruses since the POP3 collector in SBS 2003 drops the mails in file-format onto the hard drive before routing them to the (local) SMTP server.

To recap, Avast offers an interesting software, currently (then) with a crappy interface, no sign of a manual, and lousy detection.

 

Re: c\'t magazine 1/2005 AV test

I agree.

In my mind, Avast is mediocre AV when it comes to quatily, Avast lacks heuristics, generic detection or other good proactive protections, Avast soley depends on its mediocre database and average-speed updating so you\\\\\\\'re at high risk when it comes to fast spreading threats.

One of the worse thing about Avast is that it probably gives the stupid name \\\\\\\"Trojan-Gen [xxx]\\\\\\\" to all found trojans, seems like the developer lazy to working and you\\\\\\\'ll never know their exact name and their details so you\\\\\\\'re alone in the dark to curing the infected system. Avast also lacks manual, document and information about virus on its official web site and when you look at the latest threats on its web site it is still Win32:Zafi-D this looks like they never update their web site very long time so I can\\\\\\\'t believe it!

I can\\\\\\\'t recommend Avast. If you want free AV so AntiVir is the best or get eTrust 12 months for free. If you want to pay so NOD32 or KAV are the best.

 

Re: c\'t magazine 1/2005 AV test

Anti Vir is junk, the heuristics generate more false alarms than anything, has no web scanning or mail scanning, worse, no file repair or boot time scan for system files, when your system files get infected, they tell you to try out another AV, same goes for AVG, worse, Anti Vir updates are bloat and take forever to download with their crappy servers.

Been running Avast for almost two years after some real bad experience with Anti Vir and then AVG, the mail scanner in AVG gave me fits with MS Outlook.

I regularly scan my system with so called highly rated KAV, BD and also regulars like Ewido and a2, nothing has got past Avast so they detect no Trojans.

Day before yesterday, I tried to check out Error Nuker, turns out, the installation file which is downloaded by that program contains a worm and thanks to Avast's real time web scanning with webshield, I was alerted and protected, same goes for my mail, Avast mail scanner protects me frequently from worms like Netsky etc. from time to time.

I know this is a passionate subject, but to each his or her own I say, what works nicely on one's system may not fulfil the requirements of others, having said that, I have made many casual PC users who were earlier on Norton or AVG into die hard Avast users and they are no experts, just want a hassle free PC, thats all.

 

Ok,some have really "interesting" arguments about avast!,but i simply can't argue with anyone,not anymore. Waste of time.
It's like reading user comments on ZDnet. You can't belive how stupid things people write,especially about things they have no clue.
This will be the last one and i hope it gets stickied toi the top of this forum

Thuis especially goes to "Former User" post.

Mediocre quality AV. WTF should that mean when we talk about avast! !?
Yeah i agree that it lacks heuristics in Standard Shield,but provides far superior unpacking engine (certanly the best of free antiviruses). And avast! DOES use generic engine. Not at such high degree as KAV or McAfee,but it does. Proactive protection is used in Internet mail since 90% of all threats come through email. New proactive blocker for Standard Shield is under developement. Few days ago there were 5! updates in a single day! Slow on outbreaks? 5 updates are certanly not slow response.
If you compare AVs based only on database number size (the one read from avast!'s virus database) you're very wrong. Numbers don't mean anything.

I don't know about lazyness of Alwil analysts,but tell me,how much the name really helps you? You can have Win32:Trojan-Gen on your PC or one named Win32:Trojan.Downloader.568334578. Any difference? BitDefender uses names like Win32:SdBot.6378964783. Are they lazy because they provide no info for Sdbot by using "real" names? Yeah it's SdBot,but we don't know anything about that very specific number. And you won't belive it,Trojan-Gen detections usually provide best detection boosts when they release them.

You have full detailed manual,readme,FAQ,basic web help,official forums and tech support mail. What do you want more?

One thing that i agree with you is the latest threats charts. I'll try to sort that out.

AntiVir the best? Very basic AV with not that great unpacking engine(very basic),updates are huge,slow servers,no auto updater,no POP3 scanner,it has very limited tech support. Their help file is also very very basic.
I don't want to waste words for eTrust. I'd put this stuff to AntiVir level. I was never impressed with it in any way.