Hi everybody,
The Retrospective/Proactive Comparative test May 2010 is on line.
http://www.av-comparatives.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=144&Itemid=152
I think Avast should significantly improve its heuristic and behaviour detecton…
Why avast free %29 ???
avast always does very bad in proactive detection 
I do now believe that MSE is getting better and better.
I think MSE will surpass all AV’s in the future.
Very asshamed for AVAST that i rely on Pro Active Defence. Very BAD!!!
Most pros advice MSE, ESET, Avira and Norton.
I think MSE will win because its free and good result.
They test avira premium which is paid.
I think avira free lack of pro active protection.
So ill vote for MSE.
I hoped that avast 5, with its new behaviour shield and heuristic, would have done better, but
looks like that behaviour shield is pretty useless in the current state 
I think this test is NOT related to behavior shield… because this test was carried out WITHOUT executing malwares: tested only heurisic/generic detection, not behavioral detection.
BTW, I hope avast improve heuristic/generic ability.
no surprise - the tested version was one of the first stable v5 and it did not contain much more heur/gen detections than v4 yet…
btw: no antivirus performed very well, considering the scores near 80% in previous tests and ~60% now…
There will be always an excuse :
When we pass it good. We’re the best!
When we fail. The test is not so good ;D
Keep improving.
+1
I agree 100%. It is easier to make excuses than to improve.
Avast 5 is an excellent AV overall, but it does need improvement in this area.
Regards,
Jerry
I think Avast focusing on Program Version which fixing plenty of bugs and adding languages which they forgot to focus on Very basic function of AV’s? Detecting, Removing and Blocking.
Im very sad to see the result.
Avast beaten by AVG which is crap!!!
The ugliest result ive ever seen!
False, Avira Free has the same scan engines then paid versions.
And with your statement, you don’t think AVAST Software don’t want to improve their software? 8) Of course they will improve the software, and for me, Maxx_originals post was not an excuse, but it was just facts
Were talking here on Pro-active Protection
Please read this
http://www.free-av.de/en/products/1/avira_antivir_personal__free_antivirus.html
Bluesman: exactly… not an excuse, just some facts about the testing… we’re aware of the room for improvements and some steps have already been done (SuspBehav detections - ~3 weeks ago - they were not included in the tested version, dynamic translation used to detect new Sality - ~ a week ago, new winexec unpacker - ~2 weeks ago), more steps will follow… btw: as kubecj already wrote - when someone detects 40% of new daily feed from virustotal e.g. then he’s a “master of the clan”, that’s a reality… Clementi’s set must be somehow filtered, otherwise it would be impossible to achieve a detection of 60%, 80% etc…
I’m sure Avast is improving, but you must admit that some other products have already achieved a detection close to 60% (with few false positives). So it’s not an impossible goal to reach.
“AntiVirProActiv detects unknown viruses by behavior” Behavior and heuristics are 2 different thing. Free and paid versions have the same detection rates.
Where is the center of analysis, research and development of the Alwil ?
Avast will once again lose market share if not better.
I am very sure that Avast does desire to improve. However, in many cases companies find reasons why the tests are flawed instead of their product. While I have not noticed it in this thread, I use what I think gives the best security, and will change to a better one if I decide to.
Avast has performed well in the other AVC tests, but it failed this one, as far as I am concerned, and when I can get an AV that is tops in all areas that is what I seek to do.
I am not a fan boy of any AV, and am interested in results that indicate top protection and not reasons why the test is flawed or an AV did not get a fair test. Again I have not seen this from Avast, but I don’t want to either. Accept that it was a poor showing and improve it. I am surprised that MSE, a freebie, did so well.
Regards,
Jerry
remember that a common scenario is to have an up-to-date antivirus… i absolutely don’t know why we should lose market share in relation to these test results… it only showed that the very early version 5 provided no significant (detection) addition to v4, that’s all… and yes, we could find some flaws there (e.g. the low number of script/pdf/flash malware in the set even when a majority of infections comes from web)