Well, in the past ( still going ) I have heard a lot of good things about avast free antivirus and even the whole company.
However, recently a website that I came across is begining to make me change my views about avast. Is it really competent?
I began to doubt that.
In the antivirus test, avast did so badly.
I have no idea why is that? Is avast really that bad?
matousec is not an antivirus test ;D it’s a proactive security challenge…
as an AV avast v5 can be trusted. It’s a pretty good av (certainly not the best , sorry fanboys…) But good enough for a “normal” computer activity (I mean not too risky…)
i don’t say matousec is wrong : i just say that SW posted about Avast Antivirus and quoted Matousec that tested avast Security suite… wich is not the same… Matousec mostly tests FW leaks and Hips… not AV.
please do not get me wrong, I was just worried about avast and my online security. And at the same time wondering why those how the security suites from comodo and kaspersky managed to do so well.
AV suites did not fare well, except for Kaspersky and maybe one other, in the Matousec tests. Evidently this is due to the test being designed to test HIPS. I have no idea why one suite uses HIPS in the firewall and most do not.
However, I continue to trust suites, and AV Comparatives whole product (Dynamic?) test is the most real world test. I have used Avast Pro along with Online Armor free firewall, I think that probably gives about as much security as reasonably possible.