For instance?
What would you use side by side with avast?
You’re fully right.
+1
Don’t ask him this kind of question - I guess he likes his job…! 
asyn
You’ve got the point.
I want to know to where should avast go to… HIPS?
Well… thinking better… what if you download from P2P and avast does not detect the sample…
You get the malware binary into your machine already… There is no chain… It’s already there. Then checking with VT will shown avast is not doing the best job…
You are running away from commitment to quality.
Why avast is the only av that abuses of generic names ?
50 000 malwares per day is for all the world and not ave to one.
Why Avira is better in detection of than Avast ?
Why I trust most in a scan done by Avira ?
Why Avira is better placed in the tests of AV-Comparatives ?
I’ve attached three similar trojans (brazilian bankers) like this post that are called by Avira “TR/Crypt.CFI.Gen”.
Avast detects only two (now) as “Win32: Trojan-gen” giving a different signature to each while Avira gives the same signature to all three.
Already see that Avira detects all avast does not (waiting …).
Sirs … this gave me work.
http://rapidshare.com/files/395240464/virus.zip.html (PASSWORD: virus)
nope.
Why avast is the only av that abuses of generic names ?It's not. All avs have such signatures. I for example like Norton's "Trojan Horse".
50 000 malwares per day is for all the world and not ave to one.I don't understand.
Why Avira is better in detection of than Avast ?Avira's engine probably detects more binaries. That's true. And?
Why I trust most in a scan done by Avira ?I don't know, it's your choice.
Why Avira is better placed in the tests of AV-Comparatives ?Because they have more signatures on binaries. That's true. And?
I've attached three similar trojans (brazilian bankers) like this post that are called by Avira "TR/Crypt.CFI.Gen". Avast detects only two (now) as "Win32: Trojan-gen" giving a different signature to each while Avira gives the same signature to all three.
Crypt.CFI.gen is quite similar to our Trojan-Gen. Says nothing about similarity of the samples.
I can find you hundreds of samples XXX antivirus does not detect in matter of seconds.
kubecj, and my answers?
Why Avira’s engine probably detects more binaries ?
We need to improve !
They detect less JS and PDFs, they need to improve!
Many users of avast are having their machines infected (by trojans bankers via e-mail and pen drive) every day here in Brazil because of this deficiency in the detection of binaries.
???
Send me an IM if you don’t want to make your personal “solutions” public
Henrique, i’ll tell you something what you probably don’t want to hear - we simply can’t fully satisfy all of our users (even when we’re constantly trying to achieve that)… i’m aware of the problem with banker trojans in Brazil (sometimes i think it is the only malware type ever seen in Brazil), but - similarly to the rogue scene - there are tons of new samples every day and they’re difficult to detect proactively or even generically… same name used by Avira for your three samples does not imply they’re binary similar/equivalent (and that’s what matters when we’re talking about similarity from the detection point of view) and it even does not imply that the samples were precisely analysed and put together based on the analysis results… anyway, we would apreciate your advices (which URLs are used to collect stolen data, if you have some hints regarding this, which places on user machines are mostly occupied by the most videspread bankers etc)…
@ Maxx_original
Who said You can please some of the people some of the time all of the people some of the time some of the people all of the time but you can never please all of the people all of the time?
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_You_can_please_some_of_the_people_some_of_the_time_all_of_the_people_some_of_the_time_some_of_the_people_all_of_the_time_but_you_can_never_please_all_of_the_people_all_of_the_time
The trojans hosted on Rapidshare have the same name, same size, same icon, obtained from the same link and you say you that are not similar ?
Please review the trojans.
You need to improve the analysis made by automatic systems (sandbox ?).
I did not understand.
Proactive / retrospective test
(on-demand detection of virus / malware)
February / May 2010
ProActive detection of new malware:
- Trustport, Panda 63%
- G DATA 61%
- Kaspersky, Microsoft 59%
- AVIRA 53%
- ESET NOD32, F-Secure 52%
- BitDefender, K7, eScan 50%
- Symantec 43%
- McAfee 38%
- AVG 34%
- Sophos 32%
11. Avast 29%
http://www.av-comparatives.org/images/stories/test/ondret/avc_report26.pdf
I realize you are just trying to enforce your point, but that has been posted already
http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=60554.0
Where is the center of analysis, research and development of the Alwil ?
Avast will once again lose market share if not better.