This makes me feel a little vulnerable seeing how Avast has scored much lower than than many of the other av’s. It really dropped off since the last test. 
https://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/latest_comparative/index
Avast also failed the latest test.
https://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/test?id=199
Only a 77% detection rate. Yikes!
A clear pattern is emerging of Avast doing far more poorly in tests than it did in the past. It’s becoming ever more difficult to ignore the suspicion that too much focus has shifted away from the core product and too much toward squeezing every last penny of revenue from the user base.
in my opinion VB100 does not resemble any real world situation …
example you test 1000 samples. if you get one FP you fail, if you get one undetected you fail
How to Read Antivirus Comparisons
http://blog.kaspersky.com/antivirus-comparisons/
I think the main question to ask is… Have you been infected ?
No. And I want to keep it that way. A 77% detection rate does not instill me with a lot of confidence that I would not get infected, unlike other av’s on the VB1200 list that have a 94% to 96% detection rate.
And if tested a few hours later it may have that… signature for those missed files may be released an hour later
Detection vary from day to day … see live statistic at shadowserver
A 77% detection rate does not instill me with a lot of confidence that I would not get infected, unlike other av's on the VB1200 list that have a 94% to 96% detection rate.You forget the detection rate is with their samples. Perform the same test with other samples and avast score (example) 99% while others don't even reach 50%.
The problem with this test and others is that no one trusts them, people say the testing method was flawed, that they tested a small amount of samples, that they tested with the settings incorrect, it goes on and on. Mostly comes from fans of an AV that didn’t do well. So who you going to believe? Test are tests, if an AV fairs poorly the it means that they did not do well against their competitors in an even and fair test. You could have the worst AV in the world, people use it and have never been infected, then they can say well the tests are crap, I’ve never been infected. Maybe browsing habits, other security and security knowledge may have an impact on that rather than the AV they are using? These tests are a guideline, yes they can change monthly, but they are a fair assessment of how that AV is working at a particular point in time compared to their competition, users are free to choose using these tests as a guideline or not. Do not try to discredit the tests if your favourite AV is not doing well based on the fact you’ve never been infected using it. Many people do not use an AV and gave never been infected. 31.8 % of Wilders members do not use an AV.
Well “real fanboys” can often be found to be among the most critical where their av solution of choice is concerned. The real fan boy makes his decisions on fact finding. I like to count myself into that category.
Others are just parrots - they read something unsubstantial and questionable online and then start to support such views. That is where" trolls and disinformation agents" are get their misleading convictions. Test results form a very weak base to say something about the real qualities of an av-solution.
The test theater and the real life theater may differ considerably. It is like statistics, does not say much.
I decided to test avast! qualities for detecting malware sites online and I have been doing so very, very critically over the last couple of years. In the mean time I have been dissecting code and vulnerabilities on websites through a multitude of scanners, thousands and thousands and did so very tenaciously. I might say that I kn ow what is luring from the other side of our screen and whether avast! will keep malcode at bay to protect his user community against these threats. It has a good record and where it fails I and a couple of friends (all volunteers) report to make the solution even better. So I would not like to hand in real life theater experience for any test result,
polonus
Well, Avast doesn’t look too bad for XP users in the June test: http://www.av-test.org/
Touché! I have made the same observation too lately. Different tests clearly show that avast is doing something wrong… and have been for a little time already, it’s not just the latest and new tests but a bit older too.
This is really interesting, I don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. Looking at the WinXP June test, I see that avast is 8th LAST (tied with AVG) with 4½ points for security. Over half of the AV’s tested have FULL 6 points for security. The April Win8 test has avast ranked as 6th LAST (just behind AVG) in security. These rankings correlate with other test makers charts. It really seems to be that avast has fallen into a 2nd-class AV lately. Let’s hope that avast is changing its course.
av-test.org fails to provide details in order to read/understand the results.
For instance they say avast free 9.0
But what exact version?
What vps version?
And the VB test says:
we did observe some misses in the WildList sets – apparently due to communication issues with the WildList operators. This was enough to deny Avast a VB100 award this time, despite an otherwise good showing.
Also keep in mind that paid versions often have more/other security layers than a free version.
You can’t compare them 1 on 1.
No anti-malware solution well ever be a perfect end-all solution. Avast DOES detect many forms of malware and can provide an effective balance of additional security and performance.
But…
I suggest considering it your safety net only, and institute other practices to be your primary line of defense.
Circus performers rely on their skill and good practices to keep them safe. If they fall into the safety net they consider themselves failures.
Here’s what I do… Whether you want to try to do similar things is up to you.
Use the MVPS hosts file to block the name resolution of tens of thousands of parasite web sites. This also has the welcome side effect of blocking most ads. Not even allowing most badware to get near your computer is a good first line of defense.
Another user has suggested switching to using the OpenDNS addresses for resolving hosts, which could also be effective since they sanitize the list of resolved names to exclude such things as phishing sites.
Reconfigure Internet Explorer to not run ActiveX for sites in your Internet Zone, and while allowing scripts lock down the facilities the scripts can use. Ads running their ActiveX are a big source of malware.
Go through your Internet Explorer Add-Ons and disable those you don’t know you need.
Practice good habits, including not downloading handy toolbars, cleaners, etc. that are more likely to cause problems than to help with anything.
Make sure Avast is on task and in good working order. It’s my understanding that with the Avast Shields in place (and no exclusions) people just don’t get very many infections. But note: This is a safety net, nothing more. Steps 1-5 above are the real things that will keep you safe.
This is just my recommendation. I’m sure there are others here who would recommend other approaches as well.
-Noel
Always use a limited account.
Only use a account with higher (admin) rights if it really is needed.
Security always begins with the user !
Practice those safety tips a lot here, MVPS hosts file, standard user account for main tasks, Admin for PC administration, only got 1 game excluded, or Avast blocks the game sound files and media playback info (Secondlife Firestorm viewer) OpenDNS using, so pretty safe I believe with Avast here and settings