See the results of the July/August AV-test attached.
When will avast! be back to score the full eighteen points again?
polonus
I am not a big fan of these types of tests. But avast’s performance in both av-comparitives and AV-Test
is quite disconcerting to say the least. Detection and repair/removal must be improved or users will seek
an antivirus alternative. If avast can’t improve and soon, avast will need to look up just to see the bottom.
Those tests are used as selling points by developers and reviews for potential buyers. They really need to step it up.
My good avast! friends,
I think too much attention went out to marketing the additionals
and less energy went to the core functionality of the av-solution ;D
That is why we have these test results now i.m.h.o.
What do you all think?
polonus
I saw this over in MajorGeeks yesterday.
Yeah, very worrisome … and disappointing, disillusioning.
Sure, I like to think that my good / safe computer habits and browsing habits keep me safe. But, still, it’s not good to see that avast is now at the bottom of the pack. A lot of times it is argued / spin-doctored that these tests don’t really mean much. Nnnnggg, I don’t buy that. IMO, on some level there has to be some significance to them. The low scores can’t keep being explained away with the ole — ‘wait until the new version that’s coming up.’ Cuz then the new version gets here and it’s the same results.
avast used to regularly hang out at the top of the totem pole. Now with the higher technology and supposed more revolutionary ideas, it’s been hanging out towards the bottom more often.
I’m to the point that I at least feel at ease and safe because SAS and MBAM verify / confirm that my system is clean. avast is now more like my 3rd layer of defense instead of the 1st one. Well, I mean, it IS the only Real Time layer that I have, but it is the 3rd option as to what I check to see the status of my system.
Well, it really depends. If you use Hardened Mode (Aggressive) it will blow any competition out of the water. And to be frank, if you’re not a heavy user who tests bunch of weird and rare stuff (apps and games) daily, it will work without any interuptions. I have it set this way on sisters laptop ever since it was introduced (which is quite a while now), she only browses the web, uses Photoshop/Lightroom, rarely installs certain apps and she never complained to me about being unable to install something. And i have it locked down to Hardened Mode and password protected so there is no way going around it. I’m using the same on my laptop as well where i installs tuff a bit more often but nothing exotic. And also on Windows 8.1 tablet. Main PC is not using Hardened Mode because i’m working for a gaming company and i regularly run internal binaries which would constantly fire up avast! Hardened Mode warnings.
So, Hardened Mode is clearly ready to be used and from my experience, Aggressive is actually less intrusive than Moderate mode, because it relies heavily on the whitelist and cloud where Moderate doesn’t as much.
As for raw detection, i have mixed experience. In tests it seems rather poor indeed, but in realworld it seems to hold up pretty well. So i’m not exactly sure what’s going on there, maybe testing environments don’t exactly work as they do for realworld users. It certainly is more aggressive on the cloud side than both AVG or AVIRA. We’ll see how NG powered DeepScreen will work and of course, still waiting for Dyna-Gen. Evo-Gen certainly proved it makes a huge difference, so machine generated behavior signatures should also make a huge difference, mostly because it’s harder to fool.
Hi RejZoR,
Off course not questioning your words, my good friend. Very welcome advice from one in the know. Let avast “blow them out of the water” ;D One issue I could establish myself by constant checking and re-checkingand that is the absolute superb quality of avast! shield detection. As you see I am constantly analyzing website domains and URLs(uris) for malicious/suspicious threats and the shield detection always has amazed me as being very accurate :). Has some blind spots like all tools and the average FP when a benign site is being hosted in a malign IP- and/or hosting environment, this being the prevailing cause of almost all website false positives, but nevertheless no scanner can compete here. Even DrWeb’s URL checker is lacking the in-depth-scanning and accuracy of avast’s webshield scans. Sometimes their malicious sites listing (comparable to avast shields URL:Mal detections is complementary, while Bitdefender TrafficLight may bark too loud up too many website-trees 
(loads of flags there in search results, but then not always being quite actual).
So this part of the avast! product is top of the bill. I can personally guarantee that to the readers here.
polonus (voluntary third party website analyst)