Heuristics in action

i have to agree with u ther, i use some "strange" programs but although i no longer use Avira i never had an unreasonable amount of FP's back when i did use it (wen v9 was first released), maybe a handful out of the entire time i used it, never soooo many that it became ridiculous.

 

well confrontational or not, if im working on a product that i put my time into that seems to be getting bashed by someone with no proof or reasoning id probly say something as well in defence.

 

Sorry, I get grumpy when I don't at least kill 10k signatures a day with generics.

Besides, I am not involved in AV10 at all. The scan engine is developed independent from the normal release cycle.

 

In that case, take some time off old chap. Go skiing in the Alps, or visit Hawaii & do a bit of surfing.

 

Stop being a fanboy. Avira does detect most malware by far. That's a fact. Not that I use it, but that's because there's other "almost" as good AVs out there that are cheaper. Detection is not everything.

 

@bellgamin

Hope you mean SAFE surfing, with max heuristics

 

no its not,

avira have been relying on the fake results of AVC's static tests, people need to really forget about past results, i thought the latest report from the wildlist blog showed just how COMPLETELY meaningless were all these results from AVC that people (many on here) have been relying on to purchase their product.

Marx at AV-Test.org are the biggest of the testers, and they gave Avira around 87%. (this is the most likely result of their actual detection!, and many of the 'poor AVs' that some people on here label, beat this in the same test.)

even Dennis Labs, Avira scored around 60%.

so, Dont be fooled!

Ive tested it too over the years, and the label that wilders-people seem to give Avira (based on AVC results) as the best detector is totally BS!

even the average-joes who test in VM against the latest threats, shows Avira has not being that strong compared to some of the others.

 

Nice you troll more than anyone in this thread. Im not the fan boy. I dislike Avira and prefer products that detect malware not FP's. Now if detection isnt everything then I guess that blows Aviras main argument out of the water. It means nothing that it detects anything now. Great argument.

@Stefan its not just me, its also the company your relying on for your stats that also says the FP's are through the roof. Open your eyes.

 

So you don't like Avira, and you, in your opinion and your opinion alone think AV-C is "fake", despite years of a professional reputation and being the company just about everyone looks to for AV results...fine, but don't derail the topic again with all this. By the way, if there's too much of anything going on and being relied upon, it's the average joe tests, imho.

 

Rofl. If you are looking at Avira free, yea it's not going to be that great. The premium version of Avira is extremely strong protection. Nice to see you quote Dennis Labs. Not like their tests are completely biased or anything. AV-C is not the only place that confirms Avira's detection rates. Just about any company that does *real* detection rates will show avira on top. Look at SSupdater or even Shadowserver. Avira tops on both of those websites. The only downside about Avira is that their prevention capabilities are not as great as their detection abilities.

 

Which company I rely on to get my stats? Again it seems you know better how people at Avira work than the people themselves?

I get all customer fp submissions on my desk, if the their are PE-EXE heuristic/generic related. I make my own stats. I make the detections, I fix the false positives. What are you talking about?

So if you don't want to submit files, at least name the programs which you observed false positives on. How about providing verifiable facts?

 

So far he's accomplished nothing other then slander Avira and until he can provide anything to support his claims,he's talking to the wind IMO.

 

Are people just ignoring the marx test, 87% or so avira scored, beaten by lots of avs labelled as poor here on wilders.

Their test is 6 times larger than AVC, more resources, more respect.

 

Ah, now true colors and motive are shown. Stefan, dont waste good air even responding to this crap.

 

I'm not even going to dignify the bad mouthing towards AV-C with an answer.

 

So as long as it detects something, but its prevention sucks and you get infected anyways what good is it? That doesnt offer a single ounce of security. All it says is hey your infected, I cant do anything about it, go install another software that can.

Stefan your consistently relying on AVC to prove your points yet their results are skewed because they dont state the facts. Youve done it more than once.

I love all the Avira fanbois here its quite hilarious.

 

No we are not fanbois. We just use what keeps us clean. 4 years and no viruses or spyware or anything. That is a fact! Bottom line is in the end we all use the AV that works right?

 

If you use what keeps you clean then why are Avira users themselves saying that Avira will detect, but cant prevent?

 

NIS, KIS and PIS performed better than Avira in AV-Test dynamic test.lol

http://blogs.pcmag.com/securitywatch/2009/12/av-testorg_releases_real-world.php

The glory of Avira is over, the truth has been reveled!
It may be excellent in static tests but the KING in real life tests is surely not Avira.

 

Put your flame suit on here come the fanbois. Im just going to chalk this thread up to ignorant trolls who dont want to take any proof. They are just like MAC users. They have Napoleon syndrome.

 

But a new version of Avira will soon be out. With its new proactive module combined with its good heuristics perhaps it will perform better in dynamic tests this time.

AV-C should really publish the number of clean files it uses to test for false positive, otherwise it will not be possible to draw meaningful conclusions from its tests.

 

Despite some posts i am still quite new on this forum, but if i see some topics it really makes me laughing, all the fanboy replies.
Some points I would like to make:

1. there are a lot of good antivirus programs (no perfect one ofcourse) and you can't say one is better than another one. You can only place programs in categories based on the test results (there are like 3 reliable tests) of like the last 5 years.
Actually Av-comparatives does this, a good thing.

2. people only trust on tests which proofs they made the right choice buying a certain program. Something called Cognitive Dissonance.

3. next to that the people here should realise they are not very likely to get infected, since they know the dangers of viruses, and what are the ways you get infected.
I mean: no one here will click on a link stating they are the 100th visitor and win money.
So many here (including me) are malware-free because of using their brains and not using a certain program.

I also think that some people are using way too many security programs, like running 3 in realtime and using all available on-demand scanners. (What is your security setup topic). In my eyes a total misunderstanding of "layered setup"
In my eyes a layered setup means:
- using a operating system and in the OS included security options (and keeping the OS updated)
- using reliable software and keep it updated
- using ONE firewall (Windows firewall is a great option )
- using ONE realtime program
- using max TWO on-demand programs.

Or you can ofcourse use a setup with sandbox/Host-based Intrusion Prevention System. People using this kind of programs will never get infected because they know what viruses are, no matter what software they use, like i said under point 3.

So what I would like to say: don't feel personally attacked if people say something bad about your antivirus, use your brains and keep it simple =)

 

so who are these mysterious avira users who say things are being detected and then not prevented? i dont even use Avira anymore but i never had one of these issues u seem to be pointing out over the year or so that i was using it.

 

Obviously, you're a fanboy considering you're using ESET's product and at the same time claiming it to be the best. Troll.

 

Was not really my intention to justify it or anything, but you are right.
I should have disabled my signature, would have been way better for the credibility.
Made some edits to the post. Better now?