system
14
Yes, I’m aware that such situation would make version 5/6 have better detections.
So, saying that "avast! detects the file, thus the virus lab must have seen it" - is basically never true.
Now, I didn’t say that. I wondered myself why avast!5 would be detecting that sample and avast! 4 wouldn’t. At the time, I didn’t even notice about the definitions not being up-to-date. But, besides that, and considering I had previously seen avast! name certain malware samples with additional wording gen, I thought that the malware sample in question was given a name based on a “strict” signature, as you put it; which is why I mentioned that if such malware detection was based on a “strict” signature, then for sure avast had to be in possession of such sample. I just couldn’t find the right words before, which I apologize for.