VPS: 0624-0 211kb
what was it?
About 25,000 new detections added, that’s all…
not listed in history?
- The web servers are just being synchronized
- Please realize that (as always) that the history page only lists new virus NAMES. Avast often finds a LOT viruses using the same name. So you can’t really judge the size of the VPS update according to the number of names added…
I thought after reading many reply to my posts where I asked for better protection of avast, that Avast didn´t need more virii signatures…
I don´t understand why many ppl flamed me for saying that it would be nice that avast detection rate get better.
Im happy that avast signatures are getting better, maybe I´ll use it again if it continue this way.
Greetings.
K.
OK
That’s all, you say…
Holy S**t. That is excellent.
Hi Klavier,
I think this means that avast is getting better. Haven’t you noticed lately that it is leaner (it does not weigh that heavy on the cycles anymore), it is meaner (detects more).
Always remember that you do multi-scanning, an extra non-resident scanner like ClamWin (frequently updated with slightly different virus base), use online scanners of another product that do not conflict with avast (full scan bi-weekly) that could be Bitdefender online, use DrWeb hyperlink pre-scanner plug-in inside your browser to pre-scan all your links (very frequently updated, only second after KAV’s). This way I am not saying you scan covers all, but you are very well protected, and avast is the basis for all this security.
I think it is a good product.
polonus
This reminds me now…
How do you get an accurate number of signatures that avast! has in it’s database?
I know that if you put an asterisk in the Virus Database… section it gives you the number of 55,899 as of today. But I have read here in this forum before that the number is not accurate for several reasons, like generic detections or one signature covering several viruses and such.
I personally think that having a total, shown in the way that many other antiviruses do would be something that would be good for avast! to display in the main program. It’s kind of the “I have a bigger **** then you” of antiviruses, you know. Sure, it might not mean a whole lot, but many people do go by those numbers.
Hi polonus. I also think that Avast is good, and I am happy that it improves. The reason that I now am using BD on my desktop, is because I felt that Avast could improve some more, I think it still has a lot of potential to develop, and when I can see in some tests, like av.comparatives that Avast is in the same league (sorry for my spell… don´t know how to write that) that Kaspersky, NOD or BD, Ill use it again and for good.
As I said before, Im happy that avast improves, and with my previuos posts, I don´t want to criticize avast, I wanted that avast improve.
K.
I agree.
How do you count potential viruses in the generic detections for new variants, answer you can’t so it really can’t be measured. Even if it were estimated people would complain about using this method of counting, there is no way to make a direct comparison between AVs as there is no standard in either virus/malware naming or counting. Not to mention some are trying to detect different things.
As men say it’s not the size, it’s what you do with it ;D yes it is initially an attraction having a big one, but if you can’t use it efficiently the attraction will ware off. They say Norton has a big one (virus database) but that only rates a Standard rating at av-comparatives.org when avast rates Advanced with a smaller one ;D
So numbers/size isn’t everything ;D
David,
I can’t tell if you your bragging or making excuses ;D ;D
@Klavier
But many agreed, or made the point that there are other things to consider too. We can’t guarantee anything but open discussion here.
The real point is that one av will be best in some ways this month, another next month and so on. It makes a lot of sense choose the one that does the job you expect over the long run and stick with it through the fluctuations.
There’s something a bit ridiculous about the number…
According to the latest on-demand scanning test conducted by AV-Comparatives.org
- avast! has approximate 55,000 malware records in its database, F-Prot has 232,823 malware records but avast! got “ADVANCED” level while F-Prot got “STANDARD”
- avast! has approximate 55,000 malware records in its database, BitDefender has 269,149 malware records but both avast! and BitDefender got the same level “ADVANCED”
I have no intention to discredit some AV but I think F-Prot has too exaggerated about its malware records. In my humble opinion, I think the current version of F-Prot is just a mediocre scanner, I think it’s not better than eTrust or AVG if you care about the number and F-Prot’s proactive detection is also not good. :
Isn’t it all in the way they are counted? Avast! counts families of malware as a detection while others count each member of the family.
But that brings up a question. If 25,000 new detections were just added and we now have a total of 55,899 did we really just increase are detections by almost 70% !?
Yes, I know but it’s so sceptical why they do that way, I think it’s probably all about “marketing gimmick”, IMHO.
:o
I’m sure that’s it.
But… if avast with its 55000+ sig. records detects like between 90 or 93 % of av-comparatives and maybe others test… with 25.000 (more than 50% new signatures)… Avast should detect like 130 or 140%!!! that sounds odd.
It would be nice more info. from avast about that update of 25.000
it almost duplicates avast detection? Considering that avast detects families as 1 virii name…, in practice, 25.000 would be like 200.000 new viruses?
Regards,
K.
I don’t know, but I think these 25,000 new detection signatures are so-called generic signature or generic detection for Trojan-like malware.
See this thread: http://forum.avast.com/index.php?topic=14273.0
That gives more light on the detections added, nice for alwill!