Does Avira do anything badly?

The statement as written is indeed an oxymoron. Good at detecting, crappy at protecting? There are no lines to read between.

 

This is the typical hit and run from somebody who doesn't want to be informative, and who seems to enjoy bashing a product with no proof or facts or even clearly stating what is the problem they are talking about. Very disappointing.

 

who are you calling a ox and a moron.

I agree, great detection, somewhat shabby cleaning.

Hows that Teach?

 

I guess some English (or Greek) lesson is required here...

 

OK when people talk about good detection and bad cleaning can I clarify:

Do you mean if a system is already infected it is good at detecting the infection but bad at cleaning it?

or

Do you mean if a system is clean and someone visits a web-site with a drive-by or runs something etc. it's great at detecting it but still lets the program do some or all of the damage?

For example one of the problems I find with Trend (which is what we use now) is that it often seems "unsure" whether it's successfully dealt with problems - we get ambiguous alerts like "virus/spyware detected, quarantine failed", which is one of the reasons for considering something else.

 

both are correct

 

Whatever they do..........Avira whups ass in every tests and there is always excuses for the loser as usual and of course, useless vitriolic. The updater has never broken for me, neither have I had FPs and I have all settings on High and Extended Thread categories all checked. In case of others, sour grapes, specially the bloated OS hosers, you know who I am talking about, instead of hosing virus, hosing OS and wiping out MBR is their speciality.

 

Hello Osaban,
first off dont just say kaspersky just because i use it and its my avatar.
the avira updator did break on my sister's laptop alot.
i think the updator breaking alot is enough to not use the product. fyi the updator in nis2009 acually works well.
the product that is used now the updator has never broken.
i wont say much else because i dont want to go off topic.

 

this is one of those "no-where" threads.

Bottom line is Avira is good and like all has some issues sometimes.

 

This comment I am interested in - do you have any reference to back this up please?

I ask as a few people have hinted at it but I'm struggling to find much in the way of hard tests such as "We did A, B and C and Avira did X, Y and Z and the infection remained".

 

Generally, cleaning problems mean that it detects but can't remove, or misses some key parts of the infection.

Detection i guess could include detecting the infection, but in tests usually it means detecting before infection (detection of the .exe that once executed will infect your pc).
And that is tied to protection, since if you can detect before infection, you are protecting. Excluding bugs etc.

 

Well, I did have FPs in the past, but lately they have been greatly reduced on my machine at least. They seem to be adjusting the heuristics often. There's a difference of opinion over the cleaning, but personally I think it's trustworthy there.

A couple things I'd like to see improved: Webguard and it's effect on browsing speed, and a way for Avira to check for updates right after boot along with its regular update intervals.

 

Avira sis not clean a worm coming from the flash into my computer but it surely found it my machine . Avg could not clean it neither Avira did but it put it to the quarantine . That was the third case within a month . Avast found and cleaned the worm easily. Trend Micro did the same thing found but not cleaned.
the second issue is the interface is not very friendly lets say as Norton or Trend micro or even AVG have but this is a secondary thing prior to usefulness .
I would agree with CSJ at some point about Avira


Ps;the downloading speed of updates is a little better but it still gets stuck for overload reasons of the free version

 

I love threads like this. Avira has proven to do the trick. It doesnt take me to say it does or does not, nor anyone here. It stands on its on merits. As far as cleaning, Stefan has said when it comes to cleaning, it better clean it right, or it can cause more problems then not. Anyway, there will be a update in the first quarter on next year that will bring a few enhancements.

But as far as protection, it stands alone.

 

If your system is already clean, then its great all i ever get it deny acess? so i gather it didn't even get onto the machine. Avg all that i guess it got on then they cleaned it up.

 

Point is, once you are infected, its better to format and re-install, you never know what damage has really been done. As far as keeping the nasties away from your door, Avira with its best detection will do that for you like no other.

 

Not necessary when your using virtual software like Returnil

Once Avira detects the bad guy,simple reboot,your good as new again

 

In my only attempt to run a resident AV before it was Avira, and it didn't take much of an issue to panic my trust in it, but that is been a few years ago.

Now i exclusively like Avira and it's been excellent as reported by many, so unless it one day has some serious irrepairable unrecoverable breakdown that can't be fixed, Avira is now an AV i can truly admit with confiddence can be depended on as well as very stable.

My 3 cents opinion. LoL

EASTER

 

C.S.J. has 4000+ posts. He could very well be an experienced geek with some interesting information. I would be interested in at least a link to the data just to learn a little.

Avira, or any AV engine, can and do fail. All depends on who you talk to I suppose and more than likely thier state of geekness. Pick your poison, and you will find some who have ill effects and others who claim miracles.

For a free scanner/guard, who can complain? And who puts all thier eggs in one basket anyway? If Avira was all you used, you are screwed.. eventually.

Sul.

 

True, unfortunately I see everything in x64 perspective and there is no returnil for x64 yet.

 

Cleaning is overrated, protection and detection counts.
Let's say I have a system file messed with a malware. I think cleaning means your AV tries to fix the file to the original condition. I wouldn't trust any program to do that. Better to get the original file somewhere else.

 

I use the pro version and I have no complaints.

I believe the free version can be slow at updating, but this is not so with the pro.

Nice clear user interface, its light, has fantastic detection.

I believe it needs to boot in to safe mode to remove some infections - but cant see that this is an issue.

MZ

 

Better but not always that easy.

 

i've used symantec corporate 10.1, nod32 2.7, avast 4.x and avira premium 8. also trialed KAV 7, bitdefender 10, and NAV 2008.

no AV is perfect, but I would take avira's issues over some of the other AV's. Norton slowed down my system in general. Kaspersky cut my connection down to almost half speed on its highest settings, and also slowed down file access on my system (i also had an issue with chkdisk that is well documented by other on this site). i had problems after installing nod32 3.0 and was not happy with the responses from ESET. i've used avira for 4 months (including 1 month trial) and IMHO:

1) sometimes updates can be slow - i've only experienced this twice
2) had one false positive - submitted it and avira had it corrected in the next days update
3) based on what i have read, avira is top notch at protecting a system but luke filewalker (the on demand scan) still needs a little tweaking

i liked avira best out of any of the products i used/trialed - very easy to configure and barely know it there even on its highest settings. i cannot say the same for norton or kaspersky. actually avira reminds me in some ways of symantec corp edition. its not quite as light as NOD32 2.7, but according to av-test and av-comparatives it also has better detection on a consistent basis.