I only want to mention, that AVAST 4 (4.1) Pro/Home was tested in the new c’t, which is well known as “computer bible” here in Germany
The results don’t look so bad at all, but in the ITW-Test AVAST failed in some (1 ?) Case and therefor it got “not recommended” for the whole product.
Other free scanners like AVG or ANTIVIR didn’t fail in this test and got a better overall-mark (“better to have these scanners installed than no scanner” :D)
Conclusion of this (in my opinion very good) test: The free scanners are worse than it’s comercial competitors (Kaspersky, Bitdefender).
Another note:
Norton Antivirus 2005 didn’t get the best marks:
ITW: ++ (OK - almost all scanners got this mark)
Trojans, Backdoor / Heuristics: O / -
Signature Updates: –
Features/Rescue-Media: O / –
User-Friedlyness: O
Greetings
Timo
p.s. I will stay with AVAST coz when adding all points (plz. refer to c’t :D) it still beats AVG and ANTIVIR and it is not so ressource hungry like Norton and even Kaspersky…
If the file can be obtained in some way (email,P2P,WWW,CD) thats ITW for me and i don't care what experts say/rate that file.
Plus vlk’s reply on why avast! failed ITW test (also Wilders Security):
avast of course DID detect all ItW samples in the test.
What it didn't was to detect them on-access because Andreas Marx (the lead tester) was not willing to set up avast to scan files on-copy (which was the way the on-access scanner test was done).
And avast 4.1 (unlike 4.5) was not scanning files on-copy by default…
I don’t see the point of buying a copy (even if available in the UK) to get an out of date review of avast 4.1 ;D I doubt that there was any mention of the latest version 4.5 being released.
Yeah,i’m wondering how old is that test. avast! 4.5 was introduced on November 13, 2004. Thats almost 2 months ago. Do they make one AV test for two months? Nah…
The problem with Virus Bulletin is that unless you pay for an (expensive) subscription, you will only know passed/failed, not why (if it missed one sample or hundreds of them, of if the staff simply wasn’t able to install the program).
so,…if the “standard” settings of Avast aren’t as good as the “high” settings,…wouldn’t it be good idea to remove the standard settings from the program and simply enable the high settings automatically after a clean install of the program?
In that case, users shouldn’t worry about the settings anymore,… I know, this seems silly cause it doesn’t take much time to set the program to "high"setting,… you can always disable a few features afterwards,…
I am a bit surprised about the people from virusbtn, being unable to setup the program.
by the way, what is the main difference between the standard (default) setting and the high setting?
That’s questionable, of course.
The main difference between the “normal” and “high” setting was whether the created/modified files were scanned.
I believe the main thing is that the virus is not activated. Of course, any avast! setting doesn’t allow you to start a virus - so, you should always be safe.
If the created/modified files are not scanned, you are allowed to write a virus to your disk - but again, you won’t be able to start it, so it’s not dangerous. If the created/modified files are scanned, even writing a virus on your disk will be reported - but of course, it comes at a price: every write operation has to be monitored, so it will slow down your system more than the “normal” setting.
Grunger, that’s exactly what we did in v4.5. Changed what used to be High to be Normal, and called High something even more thorough.
Not really that we’d believe that this will considerably improve the security of avast users though. Most importantly, because of tests like this one - it was simply shame to see avast failing just because the tester(s) didn’t understand why (well this is not the case with Andreas Marx - we TOLD him multiple times that on-copy scanning must be enabled manually - but he insisted to test the program ONLY with default settings :-\ :-X).
Yeah,but many users moved the slider to High just because Higher usually means better protection. I doubt that anyone is using antivirus perfectly out-of-the box without changing at least one setting. So comparing AVs on default settings is stupid.
That should be mentioned in test if the tester insists on such testing philosophy.
Well, on my machine it updates at least 2 times a week,…miminum,…
I do not check it that much,…cause when I am at work I use MacOS X Panther,…so no compatible Avast soft for this OS.
I might agree with you Mantra if you say that other AV’s add new virusses every day,…
NOD32 seems to update very fast daily,…
Maybe indeed there should be more frequent updates,…daily,…if possible!
However I do not know how the updates are scheduled at Alwil.
As for me Avast! caught all the virusses I received by email and I haven’t got any single virus yet!
I admit,…I have scanned my PC with trials of other AV’s to test if Avast is doing its job! ;D (no offence Alwil,…but this is just to find any leaks) and things seem virus-free,…so,…
If you have the pro,…you have the so called “push updates” (if I remember correctly),…faster updates,…
However one tiny question towards the programmers perhaps:
→ What is meant by: “Standard update”? Are it just trojans and little viruses who are not that dangerous?
Cause when newer virusses like Zafi-D are added, it is mentioned in the emails I receive from Alwil.
and it is not so ressource hungry like Norton and even Kaspersky…