not happy

[system]

you guys cause gdata fall it now 96.3% im not happy about this

http://chart.av-comparatives.org/chart2.php

as your av fall to 93.7%

mind give me a answer of this avast team

[bob3160]

Bull. ;D

[system]

its on that link you know

[system]

@bob3160 post:2

Bull. ;D

its the truth my friend

[bob3160]

I saw the link and also noticed that 3.1% of possible misses have to do with user settings.

[system]

@bob3160 post:5

I saw the link and also noticed that 3.1% of possible misses have to do with user settings.

but ether way it affected gdata

[bob3160]

@nsm0220 post:6

@bob3160 post:5

I saw the link and also noticed that 3.1% of possible misses have to do with user settings.

but ether way it affected gdata

Isn’t Gdata the one that decides which AV’s to use in it’s program ???

[system]

@bob3160 post:7

@nsm0220 post:6

@bob3160 post:5

I saw the link and also noticed that 3.1% of possible misses have to do with user settings.

but ether way it affected gdata

Isn’t Gdata the one that decides which AV’s to use in it’s program ???

yes but however avast can’t not play games with gdata because they will cut them out gdata don’t know the report i think.i think are upset at avast for this i have feeling about this

[DavidR]

You have to look at GData as to how it implements both engines as collectively, it has a worse detection (compromised) rate than either avast or bitdefender on their own. So theoretically in combination the detection (compromised) rate should be better not worse.

This is again something you need to take up with GData as you have been told many, many times.

[system]

@DavidR post:9

You have to look at GData as to how it implements both engines as collectively, it has a worse detection (compromised) rate than either avast or bitdefender on their own. So theoretically in combination the detection (compromised) rate should be better not worse.

This is again something you need to take up with GData as you have been told many, many times.

actually bitdefender have better detection rate than avast

[Pondus]

actually bitdefender have better detection rate than avast

and GData is using Bitdefender as engine A.....so why is GData having lower detection rate then Bitdefender ?

and as been said many times…you have to talk with GData

[system]

@Pondus post:11

actually bitdefender have better detection rate than avast

and GData is using Bitdefender as engine A.....so why is GData having lower detection rate then Bitdefender ?

and as been said many times…you have to talk with GData

yes because of avast you see the 2 engine rule applies here if one engine have a high detection and if the other engine have low detection rate then it will affect whole av in a not good way in this case

[Pondus]

nope…if the Bitefender engine in Gdata does not detect the same as Bitefender it is not a avast! problem…how could it be ???

again you should ask Gdata about that result…

i have a feeling that this topic will be locked soon

[Lisandro]

Indeed, it’s surprising the decrease of avast detection.
Even K7 is higher!

Don’t we deserve some words about it? Any virus analyst to post?

[Lisandro]

By the way, you can test how the detection rate decreased from January up to now…
Something is wrong…

[DavidR]

@nsm0220 post:10

@DavidR post:9

You have to look at GData as to how it implements both engines as collectively, it has a worse detection (compromised) rate than either avast or bitdefender on their own. So theoretically in combination the detection (compromised) rate should be better not worse.

This is again something you need to take up with GData as you have been told many, many times.

actually bitdefender have better detection rate than avast

Not when you are looking at the crucial compromised value and that as I’m certain (as I mentioned it) you are aware of. When neither avast or bit defender compromises rating aren’t as high as GData and that is something that GData have to answer.

So again I suggest you direct your questions there.

[system]

@Pondus post:13

nope…if the Bitefender engine in Gdata does not detect the same as Bitefender it is not a avast! problem…how could it be ???

again you should ask Gdata about that result…

i have a feeling that this topic will be locked soon

its actually easy math add how many that engine a find + add engine b (not the same malware it detect but with engine a that miss) then add the two up and than make a fraction like this 2000000/2600000 this is a example btw and that you get percent

[system]

@Tech post:14

Indeed, it’s surprising the decrease of avast detection.
Even K7 is higher!

Don’t we deserve some words about it? Any virus analyst to post?

maybe because you bad zero day malware detection because you rely too heavily on signatures

[system]

Look, you have come here with this attitude before. It got you nowhere. Yet you try it again and again. So you get a “D” for Dedicated, but that is about it.

Avast!-Owes-Gdata-Nothing. Whatever business arrangement the two have regarding Gdata using Avast!'s engine, how would any Avast! detection score amount to any bellyaching from Gdata? If they don’t like it (or is it only you who doesn’t like it?), why don’t they lease some other vendors engine? That what you get when you can’t/don’t make your own engine, you live with the effects of depending on someone else’s.

[Para-Noid]

Can you say…troll? ;D