Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by FOXP2, Jun 3, 2014.
Is there any offline setup file?
It takes too much time to install engines(antimaleare,antiphishing,antispam,etc)....why?
Update: I found this one:
more than 500MB?!!!!!
I dont suppose most of that 500mb would account for the Bitdefender sigs??
Me either....I downloaded the file(online installe)r and after about an hour for the installation,it wanted to download about 200MB for definitions....I simply uninstalled it .
besides,They ve had update issues :
So does this use the current BitDefender engine?
I don't think it's the problem, because it got similar barely-passable results like other bad BD knockoffs with the latest engine such as G-Data on recent AVC tests.
BD Core version is 184.108.40.206 which showed up mid-May (if I recall correctly) in v11.1, and in EEK & EAM, about the same time BD released it.
My install took about seven minutes including the def update.
BTW, no reboot needed.
I was surprised by the Lavasoft Free result in the last two AVC RWPT charts. The 7.7% and 7.9% compromise metrics are unacceptable these days. IMHO, I tend to attribute that to Free's dependence on the Lavasoft Toolbar browser extension (an opt-in during install).
I run Ad-Aware Personal Security which implements additional BD cores (anti-malware/phishing) and the Nimbus client.
Ad-Aware is a dual engine solution and in all versions the AdAware libraries received new code in v11.2 (AdAwareAntiMalwareEngine.dll, AdAwareRealTimeProtection.dll, AdAwareWebProtection.dll, etc.).
That might result in the next AVC chart showing less of the disproportionally emphasized red, that having hopefully been a wake-up call over there at Lavasoft. I don't have any way of checking on it, but maybe they turned some attention to improving the Toolbar, too.
Ad-Aware is right up there on top in detections FWIW which should snag anything executing as well as other bad BD knockoffs...
Maybe my problems are because of my internet connection....or My IP,( I m from Iran)
The following chart shows average scores achieved in the last four comparative reviews:
Ad-Aware Free Antivirus 11.2 learns to plays nice with other antivirus tools, improves malware engine
How is the free version?
System impact, registration nag popups?
Thanks in advance!
Is it still necessary to register the "free" version?
Yes it is
Well i've been using the latest free version about 2 weeks on second computer. SpyShelter Firewall, Ad-Aware free, SAS Pro and Emet 5.0 are all ''realtime'' apps running. Seems to be quite nice speed wise. Memory footprint is bit larger but with BitDefender engine comes the bloat
After install you get the ''nag'' to register, after that no more nags or other averts If you don't register then you can't use the realtime detection, updates etc. So you should register Seem's to update faster than Avetiv AV for instance so it's a bonus. The negative is the lack of more advanced settings, or well that's my opinion Feel free to try it, i do like it! Ad-aware on one pc and Avetix on the other BitDefender knockoff's for the win!
Not sure what criteria you're using for "faster" but Ad-Aware's default is once every hour. I keep a close eye on the update.txt file in the plugins folder vs the BD published
and there's a rare worst case now and then when it's behind by two versions (resolved at the next hourly update) but it's mostly spot on. And often ahead by one or two. Given the global nature of these things, it's possible the version numbers lead or lag due to timing and resources. However, for all intents and purposes, Ad-Aware BD defs are in strict alignment with BD itself.
Perhaps you could post up your observations of Avetix/BD update.txt data to report on something a bit more precise than "seem's to."
FYI: Last month I disabled the resident updater in the GUI and set up a Scheduled Task for the command line updater to run every thirty minutes. Works well.
It was my intention to take picture was just doing other things and forgot it. Thank you for in-depth explanation Oh scheduled task, well the automatic updater is enough for me Well seems i'm not so pro that i can add pic here directly so link will have to do
And here ''seem's'' to be the picture
Good job on the screen shot. That shows the Avetix local defs lag by three versions, a bit too much IMHO. I have never seen Ad-Aware lag by more than two and rarely at that. In fact, lately my local defs have been ahead of BD's version postings more often than not.
In these "signature-centric" BD licensed apps, the timely update of defs is zero-day critical. While BD and other licensees (read: paid) augment with cloud and heuristic/behavior/HIPS components and/or secondary engines, BD's definitions and their fast response to threats via updates has always been The Hammer in the detection Leaderboard. And at this point in history, BD is for the most part unchallenged in that quality.
Naturally, a BD licensed app is only as good as its update interval and what's available on the developers servers among the usual network/Internet considerations.
•May I suggest you contribute to the Avetix thread as you have a stable and functional installation?
For the next two weeks, whenever you can, compare the Avetix update.txt to the BD Web posting and write up a brief report on your findings as to how well the Avetix updates match that of BD. You don't need a screen shot of each one.
In case you might want to monitor your Ad-Aware updates, you will need to examine the update.txt files in two Plugins folders - one each in two folders named loc1 and loc2. Each of those folders has its own BD core library and definitions; this redundancy was introduced in v11.2. At any given time, either Plugins loc1 or loc2 alternately or both simultaneously will contain the defs with Ad-Aware, of course, knowing which one (if not both) is the most current.
As I have already documented Ad-Aware's superb update performance, any comparison you might want to post up is at your discretion. That said, in my local (southwest USA), my Ad-Aware installation hits up Lavasoft servers in Canada.
I was searching for the offline installer as well, the latest version has 595 MB!!
350-400MB is the Bitdefender defs. Any app using the BD engine will have the same. The online installer will download the latest defs during the install, which will take time depending on bandwidth. (It took 42 days on my 9600 baud dialup.) That said, once completed, the offline install will need an immediate defs update. Oh, the inhumanity!
Does it still autoquarantine without any warning? The last time I tried it some downloads fail and I didn't know why. After searching for the files I found them in Ad-Aware quarantine. Does it support program upgrades now?
"Autoquarantine" - Not in my experience. I always get a popup but maybe that doesn't happen if disinfect (default) and not quarantine is set for the action. I set for quarantine.
Updates - Yes. Manually for the full product in v11 always via the AdAware Updater in the Start Menu. The UI updater is defs, components (libraries, drivers, patches, etc.) and full product.
FYI: Roboscan 2.5...
lavasoft dot com
Version 11.3.6321 changes:
- Bug and Stability fixes
- New Antispam SDK
- Active Virus Control (AVC) – Monitors processes’ behaviour, identifies all malware activities and stops all their negative effect on your PC.
- New Security Pin Code (Protecting AA settings from beingchanged by anyone other than the main user.
- Improved detection of .pst and .ost files during scan in the email protection feature
- New and enhanced notification system and delivery method
- Localization review
- New language supported: Thai
The Bitdefender Active Virus Control, avcbd64.dll is version 3.10.7820.4452.
Can anyone running Bitdefender 2015 check their version for comparison and post up?
And also for...
Bitdefender AntiSpam Core, ascore.dll - 220.127.116.117
Bitdefender Online Threats, OnelineThreats.dll - 18.104.22.168558
As far as I know, other components remain current:
Bitdefender Core, bdcore.dll - 22.214.171.124 (it's in Emsisoft right now, too).
BD Firewall Core, bdfwcore.dll - 126.96.36.199.
Separate names with a comma.