pc magazine gives Avira Security Suite 9 a Thumbs Down Review

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by Securon, Apr 8, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    I agree Kees. If everyone can get beyond that feeling that someone just shot their favorite dog, there are some valid points. So from that perspective, I agree with it.
     
  2. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    Sure, the reviewer seems criticize pretty much everything he can, but he's actually also reasonable and got some points - one of them being what I've experienced personally; repetive prompts because of bad removal. What if you deny access to malware which tries to run time after time? Okay, maybe you shouldn't get repetitive prompts for that since it should deny access all the time, but I recall that wasn't the case for me. The prompts are one reason I've set it to automatically first try and repair the file in question (seriously, how often does that work now-a-days?) and as second action quarantine it. This with AHEAD heuristics set to med. Definitely hope it works...
     
  3. vijayind

    vijayind Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2008
    Posts:
    1,413
    From what I understand from the review there is a Avira acknoledged bug in the anti-malware module.

    So Niel is probably right in downcasting Avira. Hey, they gave a supposed biased reviewer buggy software. And now when he finds the holes, he sure is going to make noise.
     
  4. Arup

    Arup Guest

    He only highlighted the bugs, never harped on the undisputed fact and the most important facet for any AV suite that when it comes to detection, Avira is supreme. He is talking about a bug which could affect a novice user but in case of novice user, almost anything could, that would mean getting lured in a chat session to download a malware etc.

    In cons all he talks about is firewall, no mention of the AV module and thats considered a balanced test? Malware protection intrusive, complex, I see so malware protection which detects 99% is complex to him.

    Bottom Line
    Avira's suite needs a complete makeover, starting with the UI. Testing revealed a serious bug in the on-demand malware removal scanner—a bug that can leave ordinary users unprotected. The spam filter, while accurate, slowed e-mail downloading to a huge degree.

    Pros
    Firewall successfully protects against hack attacks and exploits. Good accuracy in spam filter. Small impact on system performance. Strips malware from incoming Web and e-mail streams.

    Cons
    Malware protection is intrusive, complex. Serious bug in on-demand malware scan. WebGuard failed to block phishing sites. Spam filter slows e-mail downloading to an unacceptable extent. Rudimentary backup and parental control.
     
  5. Patrician

    Patrician Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    Posts:
    132

    So nothing for a technically aware user to be worried about then?
     
  6. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    Hang on... I do agree and know that Avira IS supreme in that department, but you're saying that detection is most important? What's the reason to detect most malware if not everything can be removed effectively and seemless? As I mentioned in my previous post, that's been a BIG issue when using Avira in the past. I chose it for its detection, then switched because it was bad at removal. Great removal is one reason NAV is probably my first choice for an AV. It's been excellent at removing malware and has pretty good detection - and even if the detection infact isn't the greatest (don't worry - I've experienced that too myself), I never run any security soft. alone, and I don't see many here doing so either. Layered approach is the only way to be sure. NAV also handles removal automatically as long as the user shouldn't decide for some reason - and I don't see any reason not to. Why would anyone want malware left untouched on their PC? Compared to many others, I see the logic of Norton's automatic removal approach for malware.

    If I've misunderstood your post, let me know. :)
     
  7. Arup

    Arup Guest


    I think we are going in loops again, every tests done also show that Avira removes as well as it detects. I would tend to agree that the removal interface is daunting to a first time user but it doesn't falter when it comes to detection and removal. Would you like an infected system file be automatically removed rendering your system useless or would you rather have Avira or other AV try and clean it first before removing it?
     
  8. raven211

    raven211 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2005
    Posts:
    2,567
    With automatic malware removal, I ofc meant handling the malware in question as good as possible automatically - but maybe Norton would make my OS unusable, I've yet to know but obviously don't hope so.

    Often, for those types of malware (e.g. OS-file-replacers), the only solution is still to repair that whole installation with your CD/DVD, and still the overall solution to malware is a reformat, cause you never know. :)

    I should have been more clear; Norton doesn't auto-remove - it auto-"fixes". :D
     
  9. Arup

    Arup Guest


    I am all for the fix idea, I have seen my share of infected files, how bout when its under use and can't be autofixed, do you then want Norton to auto delete it?
     
  10. Saraceno

    Saraceno Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Posts:
    2,405
    I agree with a number of others here, it is the reviewer's experience with the product, so if he runs into problems, detailing his experience is what he is paid to do.

    I read through his a-squared review, and others including Kaspersky, Norton, Avast, McAfee, ThreatFire, Panda, Comodo etc, and his aim seems to be to look for the most straight-forward, out-of-the-box, easy to use, problem free setup.

    So keep in mind, it's from an everyday novice user point of view, not a wilders forum reader. And it's the everyday novice user who seems to run into the most problems, and have no idea when it comes to alerts and notifications.

    About his other reviews, Kaspersky, Norton, ThreatFire, Avast, get solid points for just installing and taking care of 'business' (less user difficulty). eg quote from Kaspersky review:
    The positive part of his reviews, he takes into account a program's technical support, and provides feedback with support if he encounters any problems.

    I'm by no means saying what he says is gospel, but I've read far far worse! :)
     
  11. Sportscubs1272

    Sportscubs1272 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Posts:
    341
    I do like his reviews and he does have a valid point about the bug not being fixed promptly and the current GUI. I wish he could do a review with the premium version alone or with a third party firewall with his tests.

    I use Antivir Premium and Online Armor paid on both of my systems. I'm not really crazy with suites and I wonder if a lot of antivirus companies get bogged down with the other components. Maybe they should outsource the firewall and spam components and just concentrate on the core essentials.

    I'm curious if the keylogger test is really beneficial? Does he test only commercial ones and/or trojans with keylogging abilities?
     
  12. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    I've read the review and have only one word for it: lame.
     
  13. progress

    progress Guest

    It seems that Avira has a lot of work to do :rolleyes:
     
  14. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    In a sense, that's how product reviews should work - to benefit the type of users who read them. I honestly doubt many here who criticize Rubenking actually need him and his reviews to find out which product works for them.

    There are people who read PC Magazine to find out about products, and then there are people who already know all about those products and merely want reviews to vindicate their own choices. Rubenking apparently decides it's more important to cater to the former group. Smart decision.

    Personally, I know what it's like to be asked for software/hardware recommendations, it happens to me all the time. Simply foisting what you yourself want onto other people, although perfectly justified (since they're asking you for your opinion!), rarely produces good results, and is actually not what people really mean when they ask you that. What they really mean is: "What's suitable for me?" I encourage my friends to try Linux, OpenOffice, Opera etc all the time, but what some of them think about these software would send the fanboys frothing at their mouths. It's hard enough to give unofficial recommendations to personal friends, I wouldn't want to be a professional writer for a tech mag who's expected to do it well for millions of strangers.
     
  15. Saraceno

    Saraceno Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2008
    Posts:
    2,405
    Agree with every word Eice. He's writing for those who have probably just bought a PC/laptop. Or those who don't care for AVs, but might change because they had AVG installed when they first got their computer, and other people seem to have other products.

    And I know what you're saying when someone asks for a recommendation. I often give others my recommendations (you got to try Z+Y+X! Not one, but all!), when really, not only are they shaking their head at my 'nonsense', something simple would do (X).

    Slightly off-topic: only recently I setup 'Opera' on a work computer for a user. Explained how easy it is to use. Walked past a week later and saw them back using IE6. Said later to me tabs were too confusing. They liked the 'one window'.
     
  16. Leo2005

    Leo2005 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Posts:
    179
    Location:
    Braunschweig (Germany)
    well some points are really strange in the test, some even not correct and in other points he shows that he did not go through the whole cofiguration, cause features he asks for does exist.
    for example the antispam, where he is telling that it is disabled by default. this isn't correct.
    but concerning the download speed of mails he is absolutely right. this is a really slow. to speed this up he only needs to disabled the realtime blacklist or set the timeout to 1 second.

    concerning automatically deleting malware found by antivir is possible, for guard and for the scanner by simply setting it to automatically. but to have this by default will a risk.
    he does not mention in one word the new summarize at the end of the scan, which appears by default. so he changed this setting for his scans.
    with the default settings the bug, which seems to be the most important point for him in this test, wouldn't appear.

    but he is right in the points that changing the start mode of the guard is missing, the firewall shouldn't allow all aplications in priviliged mode (can be changed in the configuration) and that features like the webfilter are hided so one cannot find them easily. this are things that need to be changed like other things.
     
  17. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    while i dont like avira some of those comments are not true.
    it is not complex to understand.
    since when was backup part of a internet security suite?
    it shouldnt even be there.
    that seruios flaw needs to be fixed asap.
    not being able to remove detected malware is useles.
    i also agree that the firewall shouldnt give full access to all applications as default.

    Pc mag dont know how to reivew programs.
    they always give norton and mcafee's bloated versions a decent review everytime.
    i would put a security suite down for having file backup definatly not up.
     
    Last edited: Apr 9, 2009
  18. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,614
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    This isn't about explaining Einstein Relativity theory to idiots and addressing a bunch of physics enthusiasts. It is about saying what needs to be said: He relies on sources that are themselves unreliable in terms of how to categorize results. If you are a novice, you want to have a product that excels in detections, period. One can go on forever having smalltalk about what's what in terms of marketing. There is only one real hard fact in this business: either you get infected or not, and Avira so far has shown with real numbers to be on top. "Smart decision"? For whom? For his sake, for sure, for people finding out about products certainly misleading.

    Am I writing all this to vindicate my choice? You really think I choose an AV application as I'd choose a particular car or house? Everything is abstract with code, just binaries, a name and results: we all want our system with the best protection available.
     
  19. Arup

    Arup Guest

    I wonder what Consumer Reports will say when and if they test AV?
     
  20. trjam

    trjam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2006
    Posts:
    9,102
    Location:
    North Carolina USA
    One review, that just happens to be a tad negative about Avira and the whole world blows up. Before this, many reviews of Avira being good and life move cheerfully along.

    See this is what ~Snip~ my ass off. We cant stand to have anything but ~Snip~ in our glass. I have seen so many other loyal users to products do the same exact thing. Brand loyality, geez.:rolleyes:

    At least be honest and allow folks to openly debate the good and bad without getting offended. Let me show you how.

    Avira has one of the best AVs on the market. Their firewall totally sucks. Antispam is very good, IMO. There, that is my review, some good, some bad, so attack away now.:cautious:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 9, 2009
  21. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Which was very correctly mentioned in the review. Avira's detections earned accolades from Rubenking. I see no injustice being done here.

    As for what novices want, period... you'll really have to pardon me, but I just don't recall you being elected as their representative spokesperson.

    Indeed. It's just one of the greatest mysteries of the world why Avira doesn't have 100% share of the antivirus market.
     
  22. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,294

    I like Ford!

    You couldnt pay me enough to drive a GM :D

    Each automaker has their good and bad vehicles,it's all in what you prefer in the end and what you want parked in the garage.

    Honda's last forever,but I dont own one.

    Choices in life,how awsome it can be!
     
  23. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,614
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    I really don't think people really read all the posts in a given thread. Neil Rubenking gave Norton Internet Security 2004 the editors choice award back in 2004. Even people who are prepared to trust Norton again, would admit that their 2004-2005 versions were the worst industry could supply in a long history of controversy. I was a beginner then trusting journalists like Rubenking...

    To give a simple answer to your mysteries of the world, it is thanking these people (do you know how to say thank you to a magazine, without pronouncing those words?) that big players, we don't want to name anybody do we, managed to have almost the complete monopoly of the market.
     
  24. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Well, he doesn't seem to have changed his ways five years later either, rating such a fine product like Avira as beneath Symantec! ;)

    Rest assured that many of us here are free from "propaganda" and have heard about Avira and how great it is. The fact that we don't all use Avira pokes quite a few holes in your theory, don't you think?
     
  25. Osaban

    Osaban Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Posts:
    5,614
    Location:
    Milan and Seoul
    Let me just reiterate, there is no theory, but numbers. These numbers coming from the very sources that we know, are open to interpretation, yours, mine, and Rubenkings's, so you are probably right everyone should make up their mind accordingly. Avira has been improving through the years and the results show a very dynamic company deserving some attention based not on loyalties but field results. If you don't use Avira, it doesn't mean you are not well protected, GDATA as an example has better detection percentages, and other players are worthy one's consideration. The point is reporting misleading information.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.