PCmag review of avast! Free 6.0: Good, but not Great

General Topics
1

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2381364,00.asp

Bottom Line

Avast! Free has some dandy new features, and it’s a great-looking program. However, the new features didn’t shine in my testing. It needs to do a better job cleaning up the threats it detects. Since it’s free, you can give it a try and make your own decision.

http://common.ziffdavisinternet.com/util_get_image/25/0,1425,sz=1&i=250545,00.jpg

2

It will always depend on the set of the malware.
Does the test mention false positives? :wink:
Besides, PC Mag is NOT independent.

3

Something about these results are just a little bit suspicious. :o

4

What exactly did you find?

5

Just looking at some of the ones that are rated higher.

6

Yeah, like AdAware scoring highest. :o ???

7

Well, AdAware scoring highest is kind of strange. But I think some of the other comments fit in with postings from Vlk and others from Avast that the new features are works in progress in terms of collecting and analyzing the databases that drive them. Certainly the WebRep is barely getting started collecting, validating, and figuring out how to incorporate the user data, and the Virus Lab data isn’t in the mix at all yet. And the automatic sandbox is also in a transition phase in terms of figuring out what goes in and why. And behavior shield is still evolving. The tools seem to be there, but making them all work together is going to be an evolving effort. I think Vlk said the plan was for 30-60 days to get phase I really working; and beyond that ??? The one that is of some concern is reports (and experience) with things jumping out of the manual sandbox, but I’m sure Avast! is rapidly evaluating that data. And 3.5 bullets is not a bad phase zero; mostly indicates Avast! at least didn’t compromise what they already had and that the tools are usable. :slight_smile:

8

Well a lot also depends on what these tests were, if they were basically on-demand scans that would make quite a difference. As if they just used the pre-defined scans, Quick or Full they don’t even look for PUPs and keyloggers fall into this category also.

On-demand scans for the most part are going to be scanning inert or dormant files, whereas the resident shield (FSS) scans for Viruses, PUPs and Suspicious files that are executed.

So if these files were dormant they wouldn’t be detected but if run that would be a different ball game.

9

AdAware Internet Security uses the GData engine if I remember correctly… So that might be why it scored the highest. There are some obvious faults in this review such as the sandbox being expected to stop a keylogger from recording keystrokes (that’s SafeZone’s job; the sandbox should only virtualize).

Tech, where did you hear/how do you know that PCMag isn’t independant?

10

These results smell like crap to me and it very hard if these results are telling the truth, it saw does smell like crap results just trying to impress somebody who scored the best results and trying to scared users by telling they are not doing a great job at all like saying it BULLSH >:( T!

11

AdAware uses the IKARUS antivirus engine.

12
  1. From my readings.
  2. From the common point of view that it is a magazine with business interests.
  3. The partial and biased info they publish, like http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2381362,00.asp
  4. Because the independent testers and certificators are: AV-Test.org, ICSA Labs, Virus Bulletin’s VB100, AV-Comparatives.org and some few others (maybe).