PCMAG Review:Avira AntiVir Premium Security Suite

I dunno, what's wrong with it?

 

It's not supposed to be a riddle! He's testing a Suite by installing on a malware/ rootkit infected machine!

 

it shouldnt matter if its installed on an infected machine, isnt that its job?

to get installed, fix the issues and carry on its protection?

it can be done,

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a myth that Dr.Web Anti-virus cannot be installed on the already infected machine.

This is a myth. This could be done earlier and can be done till today. Its high virus resistance distinguishes Dr.Web from all similar programs on the market. Besides, Dr.Web can be run without installation into the system from any movable media (for example, from compact disk or USB-stick).

http://support.drweb.com/faq/a15/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

its all starting to sound like bashing now, so im gonna leave this thread to you guys
keeping my nose clean.

 

Ok, i removed what could be considered offensive. My opinion stays though.

Malware detection and removal tests with AV's should be left to those that follow methods, explain those methods, with enough samples to make it relevant.

I leave it at that. My opinion is as flawed as i am. I'm human.

 

Let me take a bold but careful shot at this. I have a computer. For 2 years I use AV X and over time find my computer has slowed and just doesnt plain work like it did when new. I decide to try a new V product, and find it starts finding all kinds of infestations. So I am pleased but over time realize it didnt clean the computer of what it detected. Yes, I would be aggravated.

Most computers do have malware on them for the average consumer and the average consumer should expect a highly rated AV to at least get if fairly cleaned up. Am I missing something here, or isnt this what most consumers expect. So even if a testing company does the same, why or how should the results be any different.

 

And I like Avira and know the product fairly well. So I am not bashing or praising it, I am just saying the review is pretty equal to my experience.

 

And i'm picky sometimes. I'll just try to not comment these reviews, and leave you guys relaxed.

 

Rubbish. If you read the screenshots carefully you'll notice that the samples even named ".dam" for *DAMAGED* samples.

But the part that really annoys me (and for this reason the Tester Neil Rubenking looses now all creditability -in fact he never had one from my side-) is the following:

That is - by law - creating new malware variants out of existing main variants!
Every tester who does this deserves nothing than the greatest disrespect infront of the antivirus industry. THAT IS NO WAY TO TEST ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE. THAT'S AMATEURISH, UNPROFESSIONAL. And yes of course, he didn't dare to attend the antivirus tester workshop. Maybe he assumes he's good enough already... Such "testers" are just ridiculous and should get a offically warning for creating new malware variants.

 

Yeah PCMAG has no credibility at all.

 

well i think its a good review, even if some people dont... i think its accurate to be labelled fair for its suite.

 

exactly....there's no need to discuss whether a certain av does this does that.....the fact is that its just a review and a good one...

i know av experts don't like magazine reviews for whatever reasons....but its just an indicator for me as to what can i expect from it.

 

But if the review is inaccurate because it's methodologically flawed or biased in someway, then your expectations will be skewed and probably unrepresentative of reality. I'm not necessarily implying that this is entirely true of this particular review, but it is not that uncommon among them in general.

 

I agree with you fully on this matter, however, convincing potential "hobby testers" about it is next to impossible (for me anyway). I've seen some places where people say its perfectly normal to modify existing viruses to test the proactive protection/heuristics of the AV program. Their reasoning is that many of the malware released today are anyway newer variants of existing malware and that by doing this they can get a gauge of how well an AV protects against such newer threats. Apparently they do not want to test how strong a signature is but rather how strong the heuristic is by using such methods, since some AVs can flag such modified samples as "modification of (malware name)"

 

trjam, Your AntiVirus switching and swapping is All over the Place like a Gypsy Caravan not Constantly stationary and fixed, Its a wonder your wheels havent dropped off

 

I know, I apologize. But my Avatar is one I have used for quite awhile to. I promise to do better.

 

Many/most of you here have "forgotten more than I'll ever know" about this subject.
However, it makes no sense to say "Ignore the reviews." If I even had the ability to test the various security applications I would not take the time. Accordingly, I depend upon the reviews to provide information regarding security. I admit that one must be discerning regarding which reviews one accepts as valid and well done. My own view is that AVC is the the single best test organization.

When tests/reviews are done, I observe the comments by those I consider knowledgeable in the area, and then make my own decisions.

With my lack of expertise I consider the ones with the higher detection rates, and after trials settle on what I will use. In all cases those have been paid versions, with the exception of Avast Home as an interim solution. I would not even consider an AV that does not rate at least Advanced. I prefer Advanced+ if one runs well on my systems. My signature shows my current preferences. I will again try KAV when Avira expires.

Just an opinion of an average user who will never test the detection rates of any AV. The only test I run is how well it runs on my system.

Regards,
Jerry

 

I dont use Avira, but tell me this ain't true. If can't remove malware thats already running.. your kidding

 

Antivir,s remaval of active malware is poor in my experience. I made a thread about it here and even on their forums.

 

That is what I have found to.

 

I agree with both points. As for PC Mag, I just look for the free offers that are sometimes posted on the slickdeals.net forums.

Back in the late eighties/early nineties, PC Mag was like the bible of computing.
Now, there is little in the way of good program advice, and where most advanced users are exploring freeware and interesting websites, PC Magazine continues to waste time reviewing the most expensive of computers and software. You can't blame them since the the bulk of their ad revenue comes from the software vendors, but it makes for a very dull periodical.

I would rather see a magazine chock full of software reviews with tips on how to get the most out of it.