Today I read in the newspapers that the dutch consumer organisation ´(de consumentenbond) has tested several antivirus programmes… (Yes they tested AVAST also)
Their comment to Avast was that it is possible to open infected files… (like word documents) even when a virus has been found, it still can be opened… or downloaded ´home users´ may not know how to handle infected files.
i Know that users can test files before opening, but there is no ´block´on opening infected files… maybe the programmers can change this in a new release ??
What I would like to se is that whenever a virus is found, the programme says… Hold it, this one is infected, you cannot open it… it has been places in quarentine
(advanced users can then go and find the file and clean it, home users… just got the message: Your file is infected and connot be opened
The link is only a very short article, saying absolutely nothing about the test. Besides, we cannot speak Dutch - what is the exact translation?
I can see the word “download” there… if they tried to download the file (and store to disk only), then avast! may really not given the warning - it’s based on the “Scan created/modified files” setting. But - if they tried to open/run the file subsequently, it must have been detected and the access permitted. There’s no way to make avast! start an infected file - unless you stop avast first.
…and to scan files immediately when downloaded, all you have to basically do is change the on-access scanner sensitivity from Normal to High (just click the avast tray icon, and move the slider to High).
That will cause the Scan Created/Modified Files option Igor was talking about to be activated (among other things).
I set the on-access scanner to High when I first installed Avast. Is customising settings even better at detection?
Well better… it depends what that word means for you. Customizing the settings will let you set a lot of other options, an yes, to make the scanning even more intensive (you can ultimately set the on-access scanner to test every file on both open and close) but that doesn’t really mean that you should do that as there is probably no chance that this will pick virii that wouldn’t be picked anyhow, and it would certainly have negative impact on overall system performance…
So as always, it’s a matter of finding a balance between performance and functionality, and we believe our preset values for the Normal and High levels do pretty good job at this…
I have read some reactions on www.fok.nl (a dutch newssite, where registred visitors can add comments)
Seems to me 95% off the replying AV-users prefer a system that is low on resources. They figure you don’t buy a computer each year,…generally speaking. Someone even claimed that Norton has the idea that a 2-year old computer is a dead machine. It has been known that Norton takes a lot off recourses.
Strange,…the test itself claimed that AVG was the worst AV ever. But many replies show that most people are quiet happy with a free edition like AVG and Avast! Mainly because they update much faster then the BIG AV’s like Norton and Mcafee + better support.
Seems to me, this test is some sort off marketing-thing instead off a a real test. Cause it has been proven by the uses that the BIG AV’s make mistakes and the more unknown software-appz take care off it.
Security is a good thing,…we should all be aware off it,…but in my opinon your shouldn’t spend money to buy 512 MB of ram just to run your AV-app only.
Relatively speaking, an anti-virus program is a simple matter of user choice.
Amongst the freeware, AVG is one of the most popular due to simplicity of installation and the updating feature.
Avast, however, is rapidly taking the lead in both freeware and payware (the Pro version). Avast is constantly in development. Its’ auto update feature for BOTH database and program probably now top the list of great features!
I would be wary of any vendor proclaiming 100% detection in all cases at all times, but you need to look at how viri are detected, and what detection system is used.
Avast does an outstanding job of detection for known virus types, while keeping system resources reasonable (maybe not as low as some would like, but certainly well within acceptable limits)
To be fair, I use both AVG in one of my systems, Avast Home in another, and Pro in a third. I do this mainly because one system uses AOL for an ISP which cannot be protected by Avast On Access Mail scanner since it does not use POP3 or SMTP Protocols. I have yet to be “stung” by a virus with AVG in place.
As I said earlier, it is up to the user to dertermine what they expect and how they use their system. I like AVG, have used Norton (bah!), Innoculate, and others, but I LOVE AVAST!!!
My preinstalled antivirus(PC-cillin) ran out recently, they only accept credit card payments. I don’t use/own credit cards. So, I went on a mission to find myself a new antivirus program…and I tested ALOTof them.
Price was not factored in, real time scanning of downloads was(while downloading, not after). Here I am.
I recommend avast! to everyone, as soon as I am back on my feet I will be getting the Pro version. Last time I checked, avast!/ALWIL accepts any type of payment…good business practices!
i have used mcafee and norton a long time ago. i used avg and f-prot too. now i’m testing avast. mr. techie101, you have five starts and seems to know a lot of av ;D
I’m also Dutch and read that article from ‘De Consumentenbond’. As it happened before, that organisation make a lot of mistakes when it comes to computers and related topics. They don’t have the knowledge to say anything about computer(related) issues. And trust me, I can know. Working with comps almost 23 years and running two computer repair stores. Also a voice (and soon operator) on IRC (#windows95, on DalNet) I would say disrecard the opnion of ‘De Consumentenbond’
