What's up with AV-Comparatives

Discussion in 'other anti-virus software' started by acr1965, Aug 22, 2008.

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

    Ed_H Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    662
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    OK...I gotta ask about Avira's inability to clean infections. Is there some published information somewhere that states how good or bad AV's are at cleaning?
     
  2. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,251
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    Version 8 has improved heavily in this regard, you shouldn't be too worried about that apparent inability. :)
     
  3. ugly

    ugly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Posts:
    276
    Location:
    Romania
  4. Ed_H

    Ed_H Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    662
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
  5. Ed_H

    Ed_H Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    662
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    Has there been any testing of version 8's cleaning ability or just that Avira says it is improved?
     
  6. norky

    norky Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2004
    Posts:
    172
    Location:
    Lithia, FL

    That report is a year old.
     
  7. Firecat

    Firecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2005
    Posts:
    8,251
    Location:
    The land of no identity :D
    No real testing as of yet, but so far anecdotes from many of the same users who criticized Avira 7 for its poor cleaning abilities put a better impression about this version :)

    (At the very least, that is) :)
     
  8. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 17, 2008
  9. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    702
    That cleaning test is 1 year old, it does not cover AntiVir 8.
    Funny, Dr.Web (non-beta), ESET, F-Secure and others have very bad cleaning according to that test aswell. What about them?

    Avira's cleaning needs improving, it got some improvements (especially in the Q2 2008 release) and will get further improving in the Q1 2009 update.

    Avira has a GUI? Damn, I missed that! In all the years I only used the command line scanner! Why nobody told me we got a GUI? :eek:
    Fun aside, Avira's GUI is fugly to you? First, I would guess it's difficult to satisfy everyone's taste. Which GUI looks better/is more functional according to your taste?

    People should get their facts and arguments straight before starting to bash other products. Product A sucks because it does cryptor detection? Strange, product B has even more cryptor detection (but still detects less). Product A sucks because it does focus on generic detections and tries to avoid single signatures for every seperate malware? Strange, a few months ago the same people argumented that product B was superior to all other products because it has so great generic detections and does not add single detections. Product X has bad cleaning, but all tests pointing out this fact are very old and the people fail to mention that other products failed badly aswell.
    Looks like grasping at straw to me. What's next? Product Z sucks because your don't like the music taste of one of their programmer? o_O
     
  10. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Its classic case of sour grapes and in this case, Avira is bashed due to one crime it keeps committing over and over, it wins all the tests thrown at it. So some fictitious flaw has to be concocted by its detractors and then like a unsubstantiated rumor, it has to be chanted over and over again. As in the great word of Goebbels, if you lie a lie repeatedly, it becomes the truth and in this case, its exactly that. If they can't pick on Avira's detection or cleaning, they would pick on its GUI, anything to throw dung on its glory.
     
  11. Edwin024

    Edwin024 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Posts:
    1,008
    Nice to see Goebels and Avira together in one posting, and then also with the message :) Are all the test wrong? ;)
     
  12. RejZoR

    RejZoR Lurker

    Joined:
    May 31, 2004
    Posts:
    6,426
    That could be an argument in case if DrWeb or Kaspersky would end up as best solutions. But if german product scores well in russian test, well there is no patriotism in there. Unless the reviewer is german living in russia. Lolz...

    I also see nothing wrong with detection of crypters itself. Some were designed for malware specifically and anyone stupid enough to crypt their programs with it is on his own fault.
     
  13. Boost

    Boost Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Posts:
    1,294
    I find it quite hilarious all the "Avira haters" that we got on this forum. Not liking a product is one thing,but at least bring up valid points that could help the situation,instead of doin everything in your power to try to tear it down totally,just makes no sense at all.
     
  14. lodore

    lodore Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Posts:
    9,065
    f-secure cleaning improved in the 2009 line and im sure the easy clean currently in beta will help. easy clean is a bit like drweb cure it but from f-secure.
    there is nothing wrong with drweb's cleaning ability
    how many people use drweb cure it to clean there machine? when other av's fail?
    Eset cleaning ability has improved in version 3 but some improvements are needed.
    Kaspersky improved the cleaning ability in 2009 line and im sure will continue to.
    btw i have used avira when it was version 7. well my sister used it on my recommendation and used it for a year. the updater kept on breaking. quite a few fp's etc. i have also tryed in on my old test pc and in virtual machines. i go on personal or close to personal experience of a product and information i know about a product.
     
    Last edited: Sep 18, 2008
  15. TonyW

    TonyW Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2005
    Posts:
    2,741
    Location:
    UK
    Looking at the VDF update history from the website, there does seem to be a lot of single detections with multiple variants listed for the one type. For example, TR/Agent.Delf.GY has several signatures added in today's 15.06 update:

    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.204
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.205
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.206
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.207
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.208
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.209
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.210
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.211
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.212
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.213
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.214
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.215
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.216
    TR/Agent.Delf.GY.217

    Are you saying that eventually these will be removed to be covered by generics like maybe perhaps under TR/Agent.Delf.gen?
     
  16. Banshee

    Banshee Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    550

    Not sure.It has been my experience that when other avs failed drweb was hopeless.
     
  17. Don johnson

    Don johnson Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Posts:
    77
    Well,I often see Avira detect virut,viking and fujacks depend on packer detections,how to clean them?Clean the packer code?:argh: :argh: :argh:
     
  18. Ed_H

    Ed_H Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2004
    Posts:
    662
    Location:
    Chicago, IL
    I don't get it either. In the past Avira seemed to be well respected by most on this forum and now the tide has turned 180 degrees. Oh well, I guess it is lonely at the top. :D

    Anyway, I have had very good luck with both KIS and Avira Premium. They both run well on my laptop with very little performance impact and I have yet to be infected with either one. I'll most likely keep rotating between the two every few months.
     
  19. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    702
    Yes, exactly. The static detections are only a temporal solutions. While other AV products are reaching the 2.000.000 boundary soon, I will try to get below 1m.
     
  20. subset

    subset Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
    Posts:
    825
    Location:
    Austria
    Seriously? Well, all right.
    The GUI is quite good, but the fonts are too small.

    Cheers
     
  21. ggf31416

    ggf31416 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    Posts:
    314
    Location:
    Uruguay
    People should ignore the false positives in the summary and go to the False positive section for the actual numbers.
    It goes directly from few false positives to many false positives. The limit between few and many is completely arbitrary.

    Avira with default settings actually had less FP and much higher detection rates than F-Secure, eSafe and Symantec with highest settings.
     
  22. Fajo

    Fajo Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2008
    Posts:
    1,814
    Rofl I leave for 48 hours. and I missed the chaos now on to the topic.

    Have I ever cared ? No. the plain and simple fact is it works. "You" are to stuck on technology and the hype from Dev teams, instead if that technology even works in the first place. The AV's that sit there and spend more time discrediting everything around it like test, detections or the way detections are done. then working on there own Product to me that just shows ignorance plain and simple.

    Av's can dropout from tests that's fine. its there choice. but when a AV repeatedly does bad in a test then drops out and try's to discredit testing all together is just wrong.

    Again people sit here and complain about FP's over and over again. I would want a Technology that works and is PROVEN to work. Instead of having a unproven technology with a bunch of fanboys behind it.

    Edit Reason.
    Reworded my post.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 19, 2008
  23. Arup

    Arup Guest

    Teknology............we don't need no steenking teknology........we need something that works time and again seneor and for now Avira works...........like it or not. ;)

    Over and out.
     
  24. Stefan Kurtzhals

    Stefan Kurtzhals AV Expert

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2003
    Posts:
    702
    Dr.Web's technology is actually very good! Excellent emulation, unpacking, SFX support. But it seems they don't use their own technology to the full extent. Based on the technology available, they should beat alot of other AV in all the tests easily. They don't, so something else must be going wrong.

    Damn, I wish I had such technology at my disposal. I finally could start to make some *really* nasty detections! :rolleyes: But instead, I need to perform brain surgery with a spoon. Though the results are quite ok, I think.
     
  25. risl

    risl Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    Posts:
    581
    Could it be that they only analyze samples that they receive from users and honeypots? Perhaps they think tests are flawed and they don't need to go through 100.000 samples they didn't detect in some "laboratory" testing, or just have higher priority to honeypots and email tickets. I've just never seen them add like over 10.000 samples in one definition update.

    This theory of course relies on the fact that these tests must contain samples that were also on the previous test and getting good results by analyzing the dvd's or what ever the companies receive from testers.

    (.. and I'm not defending Dr.Web here because I use it, just suggesting that this might be the "something else going wrong")
     
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2008
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.