Alwil is updating the vps about twice a week. This is the standard update and does contain ‘minor’ malware.
If there is a outbreak from something that is a real huge threat to systems, a ‘emergency’ update will be released, normally with a few minutes after detection.
When you receive the ‘emergency’ update depends on several things. Lets say you are connected to the net permantly or are busy and spend a couple of hours on the net without disconnecting. With the standard settings in Avast, Avast is checking every 4 hours for updates. So if Avast checks for an update and one minute after that a ‘emergency’ update is released, it can take 3H 59m before you recieve it.
When a real threat is detected, this (normally) will be on (most?) website of av vendors within minutes after detection as well as on many news sites. So if you want to receive the update a.s.a.p., you can always run a manual update for the vps.
I think the best test for me is that i’ve never had any virus since using avast (one year) with sygate .And following advices of the OLD users on this forum (excuse for the "“olds”).
Many people aroud me with Greats av ,alaways spreak about their last virus…but are too snobs for using a free av…
I’m happy that, for the first time, I blamed here against this tests and I have the support of the others… I mean, the tester must know the program it’s managing… Ok, if he wants to see what the ‘first’ look of the program is, ok, now avast will let it see 8)
Thanks Vlk… You allowed our ‘fanatism’ at least once 8)
If you test multiple virus scanners the only option is to install them and let them run in their standard out-of-the-box config because this is the only way to get comparable results.
Another point is, that a lot of users will never change the config of the program, maybe because they are simply not interested, don’t want to break anything or don’t know how, what and why to change anything. Hell, a lot of (most?) users wouldn’t even update virus defintions if the program wouldn’t do it automatically. Why? They don’t know they have to, they don’t know how, forget it or whatever. Fact is: they wouldn’t do it.
So therefore the correct way of testing is: unpack the software, install it and test it. If there are weak points in that configuration, the software needs to be improved, not the user needs to tweak the software.
No, I’m not working for c’t magazine, nor is the tester a friend or relative of me. ;D
I too found it strange, that the test was done with an outdated version of the scanner when the most up-to-date version is available for download.
Don’t get me wrong: I’m using avast 4.5 Home and I’m highly satisfied with it but that had to be said.
In this case - when you really want to simulate the user’s environment - you should RUN the viruses and see what happens and not just COPY them.
I know, taking the number of viruses and number of products, this is the task which can’t be probably done in reasonable time, but only in a such test are your arguments fully valid
try to copy a virus via defferent means to a machine and see what happens
First test is important to see what scanners do when a machine is infected prior to the install.
Second test shows the ability of the scanner to protect a virus from entering the PC. What I think is important. I wouldn’t want a virus to sit on my machine even if it is detected when it is started. I’d prefer the virus to be smashed on entering.
These tests would have to be performed with viruses that are on the wildlist that is valid at the time of the test.
That could explain the huge time gap between ordering the software and publishing the results of the test. Hmmm… Install and image a PC, install scanner, run test 1 (run virus), apply image, install scanner, run test 2 (copy virus), apply image repeat as necessary
I’m new to avast! but I have to admit I’m surprised at how good this thing actually looks and feels! ;D
Unfortunately a few things confuse me: In the c’t 01/05 avast! failed the on-access ITW-test although “all tested scan-engines were configured for maximum scanning depth”. [“Die Scanner konfigurierten wir stets auf die maximale Suchtiefe.”]
Another thing that irritates me is the fact that in the ICSA Labs AV Laboratory Testing Report for October and November 2004 (http://www.icsalabs.com/) avast! doesn’t show up in the list of programs that passed the ITW-test. (Please correct me if I’m wrong!) :-\ (btw these are the latest tests i know (14.01.2005))
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to fuel any fire here. I just thought some of you might be intersted in this. I hope future tests will prove the true quality of avast! Nonetheless I will continue to use avast! and support it’s effort’s from time to time with the bitdefender free edition 7.2.
Ok… a very old-discussed topic: the effectiveness of the virus tests…
I won’t start it again… You can browse the board.
Last time, Vlk gave me the reason that some tests are useless because the tester does not know how to configure and run a test that really compares the antivirus programs.
If I were you, I’ll be self confident about your protection… Anyway, it’s up to you: you must trust your security company 8)
To Mantra; I do not know what the updates from NOD32 contain exactly. At work we have our server protected with NOD32, all PC’s are running Panda Titanium 2004 and all macs are having Norton AV for mac.
I guess NOD32 only updates its virusdatabase,…but the program itself doesn’t seem to evolve,…
the build dates from 2003 if I remember correctly,…
I don’t know,… I discovered and started using Avast at the end of 2003 since my subscription to Norton Interet Security expired,…and I do not think I will switch to another AV,…
You know, many people will think Avast is a “silly program” because it uses skins,… : and,…so what?
I must admit,…I am not a skin fanatic myself,…but in the case with Avast I can live with that! ;D
In my eyes Avast is a wonderfull product that is evolving every day with the suggestions and support of their customers. And like Technical says in his reply: you have to thrust your security company,…
And if you have doubts about certain things,…ask them
Well WinAMP was also just a silly audio player with skin support,but look it now!?
It’s used worldwide by milions of users. Not to mention how many skins you can use.
avast! is indeed an antivirus,but who forces you to use skins anyway? Pro version has a normal interface which is very nice in v4.5 (main icons)
Silly? WinAMP was the first usable MP3 player every done, IMHO (in the times when most of the players weren’t even able to seek the songs, took too much CPU, etc.).
Btw, anybody remembers any older program (than WinAMP) using skins? Or was it the first one?
