I think that avast! updates its database, too little, I mean that for example, AVIRA, nod32, AVG, kaspersky updates its database about 5 times a day with a long list of malware to detect, avast! is updated only 1 or 2 times a day, and there are times that every 2 days, I find it inadequate, should implement more updates, find out more about viruses and update the database about 2 or 3 times a day at least
Thanks for answering, on the other hand, avast! I think a good antivirus product
There is no specific schedule and they are added as required, the most I have had in a day was 4-5 if I remember rightly.
The frequency of updates is not an indication of detection rate as you don’t know what is released, when you compare what each AV update contains. I guess avast could release 2 or 3 new signatures every hour or so rather than release 20-30 or so in one update, that would look good but would be no different.
avast will check for updates when you first connect to the internet and you get an incremental update of any updates available, if you remain on-line it will check every 4 hours (you just don’t see that it is in the background) and if there is something available it will be downloaded.
Also keep in mind that “new” def updates, from anyone, will typically include at least some corrections to false positives. That’s another reason you can’t really judge by the number or frequency of them.
I don’t know if it is just FUD, but I’ve read that, sometimes, some AV just realease placebo updates… that seems to keep users calm…
I wouldn’t think they would need to resort to those tactics, just release one or two new signatures every hour, it looks like you’re really on the ball banging out updates. Rather than one or two updates a day, 24 looks much more impressive, but no real way to compare, so the high number of updates gives a false sense of a better update process/implied detection rate.
Well, thats not entirely true. You could release teh update the very same moment you finish analysis of one sample or you can wait for next 20 samples to be analysed and then release the update. If there is lets say 6 hour difference for a mass mailer, well then you have a problem there. Not that these are problem today but thats just an example…
I just ask for some responsibility… does not release updates too quick to increase the number of false positives due to lack of testing.
Who says that they have to increase false positives if they release updates more often? You can always optimize checking instead trading it off for updates release speed.
The practical experience of testing against a partial or reduced set of files…
But, of course, they could release less signatures each time and do it more frequently.
Then again you can better optimize scanning for false positives without decreasing the number of files to scan…
Yes, you can. The problem maybe will be the bandwidth used to release these updates…