Hi again.
I have been reading lots of posts about heuristics (and Avast lack of it, and its reasons), and that Avast detection is good but not yet excelent. Thats where I have a question, Avast does not have a better virus detection rate because of an “engine” problem or failure or not excelente design, or because of a “reduced” or not very complete virus signature database.
Thanks!
Klavier.
Well I have been using avast for two years and I haven’t had a single infection.
avast’s detection rate might not be the best, but is by no means bad or the worst. As has been said before detections alone aren’t proof of a great anti-virus program.
Take a look at the other avast shields, Internet Mail, Web Shield, p2p, Internet Messenger, etc. There are many AVs that don’t give this level of protection. So if they aren’t monitoring internet traffic or p2p and IM downloads, then having the best detection rate is not worth much if it isn’t scanning these methods of infection and stopping them get established on your HDD. Prevention is far better than cure.
Yes, I agree with you, but I think that if Avast cant detect a virus, it doesn´t matter if it enters thru p2p, inet traffic, etc., if the detection “rate” does not detect virus “a” (for example), that A virus will enter right in front of the antivirus…
Avast detection rate is “good enough” for me and my use, and that’s one of the reasons I use it and recommend it to others. The Webshield is one of my favourites, but I fully realize that it too depends on up-to-date signatures. (special or generic signatures.)
As I have understood it, Avast is getting more focused on generic detection than before. (The downside is of course greater chance of false positives.)
But, as I see it, if detection rate alone is the one and only criteria for an AV, Avast would not be my choice. But that is not the case for me. 
HL
If you agree with me then why the original post and the additional comments.
I think that there is little to be concerned with other than perception with many people think that every infection is a virus, including adware and spyware that may not otherwise harm your computer.
Well lets assume that both can detect it and so can the all singing all dancing AV that misses nothing but doesn’t scan p2p or IM traffic. It gets on your system so having the best detections is no protection. If it gets into the system folders that makes it more difficult to remove when the all singing all dancing AV does eventually detect it.
However we all know that no AV will detect everything but Alwil continues to improved avast’s anti-virus detections. In today’s climate it isn’t wise to trust to one solution for your protection, rather use a multi-level, multi-application approach to security. Not forgetting the human brain and common sense these two are very underestimated in you defences.
As I previously said I have used avast for over two years without infection, but during that time it has been a rare occasion when I have been alerted to a virus/malware by avast, so safe hex plays a large part in anyone’s security.
No, not again. How can this kind of topic be usefull anyway? If u don’t like avast! its ok, you can always get another AV… just please stop posting the same tiresome topic!
What surprises me is how it can go from this:
To this topic in such a short time, without your having experienced an infection problems caused by avast not detecting it since you installed it last September ? I certainly haven’t see any thing in your posts relating to a problem.
It encourages open discussion of avast’s strengths and weaknesses.
It lets the alwil team know there is continued interest in heuristics.
It addresses a member’s specific concerns.
Surely no one would like to be dismissed or told to go elsewhere for posting a question some might find disinteresting.
Klavier,
As hleckter says, its not only about detection rates (which can be misleading). For me its also the light memory demands, the ease with which avast! can be configured, the support forum where we mostly encourage conversation and hope to be of help.
And like you, I’ve made that “perfect choice” only to second guess myself down the road. Well, I’ve tried a number of AVs and, as far as I’m concerned, avast! is the one.
Regarding detection rates of Avast Home. It is true that some other AVs have a significantly greater detection rate. I say “significantly” as I consider 10% such.
I am using as my source AV Comparatives.
However, that figure does not consider other anti-malware programs, such as an AT.
In Dec, 2004 Firefighter, who frequents Wilders, ran some tests that included AVs without any help, and then combined with an anti-trojan.
Here is the thread.
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=58597
Post #1 shows his results of the AVs alone. Post #17 combines certain AVs in combination with Ewido or Asquared. It does not include Avast.
Post #19 includes Avast. I realize that since those tests improvements have been made to Avast, and other AVs.
However, Avast in combination with Ewido or ASquared offers significant improvement in detection rates.
In reviewing the latest AV Comparatives tests results it is obvious that Avast suffers in comparison with some others in the area of Trojan detection.
I am not prepared to argue the results, but I do have a reasonably high confidence in the results by both Firefighter and AV Comparatives.
My own conclusion is that Avast in combination with Ewido offers a much better detection rate, and is essentially equal to all but a very few of the top AVs such as KAV.
Some AVs including KAV did not profit significantly with the addition of Ewido, but several did. In a practicable sense, Avast Home in combination with Ewido probably offers as much protection as the best. Maybe not for high risk surfing, but for many of us who never visit porn, or other high risk sites, Avast plus Ewido offers as much protection as will ever be needed.
I would like to see a test of the latest Avast with and without Ewido. It should be interesting.
AVG may pick up some steam with the addition of Ewido. I do not know how they will play that addition to Grisoft.
I am not very knowledgeable in this area, or computers in general, but these are my observations and conclusions.
Have a good day,
Jerry
Just my opinion: they don’t need to be encouraged. They need to be alerted of specific problems and weakness, ask for new features, etc.
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=21098.msg176818#msg176818
Combination is not the same of ‘greater detection rate’ of the same product.
avast is only an antivirus and not antitrojan and antispyware. Ok, I agree and asked a lot of times, I think more antimalware detection won’t hurt…
In fact, Grisoft bought Ewido and they’re saying they’ll keep two different applications… I really doubt that they will keep this promisse forever… :
Hi Tech,
[Combination is not the same of ‘greater detection rate’ of the same product.
avast is only an antivirus and not antitrojan and antispyware. Ok, I agree and asked a lot of times, I think more antimalware detection won’t hurt…]
That is no doubt correct, but when using a layered approach the overall protection of the system is increased.
Avast runs very smoothly on my laptop. On my desktop I have KAV6, and plan to keep it. I think that the policy of Kaspersky will be to permit use on two personal computers.
But, assuming that is true, I might still leave Avast on my laptop even though its detection rates are not equal to KAV. But with the combination of Avast and Ewido, which I have, I do not have any worry that I am well protected.
When it comes down to it, is it not the overall protection in which we are interested? If I did not have or want an anti-trojan then I would always go for the best detection rates if the particular AV ran well on my system. Of course if I wanted a free AV, then considering its protection of email Avast is the best. In this case I would trade the lesser detection rates when compared with Avira for the additional protection of email scanning. At least I don’t think Avira scans email real time.
But if I buy one, and two run equally well on my system it does not cost anything to get the better detection rate. For those of us who are not especially knowledgeable it makes sense to get more protection for the money.
I guess no one at this time knows how the purchase of Ewido by Grisoft will “flesh out.”
Thanks for the reply.
Jerry
Hi, thanks for those reply´s.
As I said before in others posts, I like very much Avast, but I would be very happy if someday Avast gets better and better. Thats why I asked what I did, because I´d love to see Avast protection be better in the future.
I understand that Avast having like 10% less detection rate (like someone said) means little… but I would like to be less that difference.
To like Avast doesn´t mean to be 100% happy with ALL of its features… I love it, and that´s why I wish that it gets better over time.
Bye.
Hi all…
In my opinion, it’s quite useful for the reasons mauserme listed and for the fact it gives every reason to Alwil’s staff not to rest on any laurels
Best Regards…
I agree. I don’t want a bloatware… but, in this particular case, call any infection a malware, an adware, a spyware, a virus, a trojan… The user [b]doesn’t[b] mind, he wants the computer clean!
Sure.
Hi Tech,
What I meant is open discussion between avast! users. I think you and I are agreeing but using different words.
M
Then if the engine is the problem perhaps it should have a second one like kaspery .
MounierNetwork
I am happy with Avast. I uninstall my Symantec corp 8 to install Avast cause Avast outperform in terms of trojan detect
Even Symantec is focusing on spywares , Why isn’t avast ??
I mean if Symantec Can do it so can Avast and also it would bring Avast up .
Great Detection + the already super shields = Best Antivirus
This year Avast won the SC awards but Symantec is kicking in to get it next year so they might had a few feature which could make them win.(and that would be a real shame)
But also for the engine problem that was talked about earlier my suggestion is using an other engine,KAV is doing it right now !!
MounierNetwork
Not to mention those once per week updates the last time I used Symantec Corporate Edition. Just never seemed often enough for my taste.
I’m sure avast! can, but if its at the expense of becoming a memory hog I would rather they leave the spyware to Spybot et al. I mean, I’m all in favor of improving the program and more detections are a part of this, but one of the things I like about avast! its is low memory usage.
I see it this way - there are AVs like Norton and McAfee that fill a consumer niche. These are for computer users who don’t want to be involved in the process. They just want to surf the net and get their email and expect the computer to do these things when they turn it on. Norton and McAfee allow this to happen in relative safety but are pretty memory heavy. This isn’t meant as a criticism - just a recognition of one group of users and the AVs they use.
Avast!, on the other hand, fills a need for those of us who want to be more involved and enjoy a deeper understanding of computer security. Speaking for myself, I like the layered approach to security and feel it gives a level of safety not available when relying on a single product. I enjoy testing other antimalware products and, like many of the forum members, I have any number of them installed at any given time.
Yes, avast! does have room for improvement but hopefully it will always stay within its current niche.
BTW, you seem to feel strongly about Kaspersky. I wonder if its possible to have KAV as a secondary, on demand scanner. I’ve never used KAV but I do use other secondary AVs. Just a thought…