Virus Database... only 27274 virus?

Hi all,

Why the database of the avast! 4.1 (Home Edition) have only 27.274 virus?? ::slight_smile:
VPS 0426-0 (22/06/04)

I used the Kaspersky 4.5 and the even had a database with more of 90.000 virus! To big majority of the anti-virus they detect at least 50.000 virus.

That want say that the avast! detects only 27.000 virus? :cry:

Discussed many times hereā€¦ Please see e.g. http://forum.avast.com/index.php?board=2;action=display;threadid=200

Wellcome to avast forumsā€¦
jcpaf, this was discussed a lot in this forums.
You can search the board by ā€˜number of virusesā€™ for instance.
The way of counting varies from company to company: variants, polymorphic, families, etc.

Donā€™t worry. Youā€™re protected and, like us, must trust in the security company that you choose. 8)

Thanks for the support and excuse me for I to have opened a topic whose matter already was discussed. I it arrive utilize the SEARCH, but did not I utilize the correct words and did not I find will want what.

's

So youā€™d rather have a definition list of thousands upon thousands of extinct dos viruses to give you a sense of security? Heheā€¦ Cause thats whats in a goodly many of the databases in some of these companiesā€¦

Now with that being said, does Avast need improving? I personally feel it needs a lot of improving. It does miss things, its database needs definitions fast for some real threats out there. Iā€™m not happy with the speed they update their database from submissions - but thats the way it works. I like Avast, but iā€™m waiting to see what 4.5 offers before I climb onboard with it, or send them my credit card number. Iā€™d like to send in more samples of what it misses, but based on the ones iā€™ve already sent not being added, I gather they are considerably behind, so iā€™ll give it a few weeks and re-evaluate then. :-\

PS: I think the future isnā€™t in defintions anyway, its in things like Code Emulation, Heuristics, Artificial Intelligence, and smart detections. Theres only a couple products out there now to even come close to offering this, and they can run with hardly any definitions, and detect a godly amount of threats. Iā€™m running one right now as a matter of fact, and its quite impressive to see it in action.

Definitions are great, but I think they need to be best used to back up heuristics or code emulation detections. McAfee has made some nice strides in behaviorial detection with their Enterprise 8.0i beta, which is probably why Microsoft seems to be buying McAfee. Looks like their Microsoft-AV will be RAV+McAfee, revamped. So they will have a huge database of threats, and some behavior based detections.

So who knows, maybe in a year from now, weā€™ll all be running Microsoft-AV, and the point will be moot?

Not me, my choice of AV will remain the same unless something MAJOR happens.

Avast (real time scanning)
F-Secure (backupā€“on demand only)
Command (backupā€“on demand only)

jc,

I will give you a simple explanation. Manner other anti virus companies add the entire virus ā€œstructureā€ or name to their files. Avast uses a scan engine that detects the virus by comparison to a shorter virus ā€œsignatureā€. It is not necessary to have the longer virus name included in the database, and therefore, Avast can have less ā€œnumbersā€ but be just as effective.

Besides, it also has a ā€œheuristicā€ capability that fills in the ā€œholesā€.

You have excellent security with Avast.
More is not always better!

Techie :smiley: