If I’m not wrong, it should be generic signature for Trojan-like malware, I’ve noticed avast! now detects some malware samples I sent to Alwil a few weeks a go as Win32:Trojan-gen. xxx.
Some scanners probably don’t detect this sample (but don’t heavily rely on such online scanners).
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% !?
Not at all… 
I mean, look e.g. at the latest AV-comparatives.org on-demand test (since it’s so popular quoting it here) - February 2006.
The test consisted of (unique) 474,759 samples, of which avast detected 444,293.
So, even in February, avast detected at least 444,293 “viruses” - even though in reality, it is much more, actually… (IBK’s archives, while comprehensive, are by no means “complete” - they can’t really be).
Thanks
Vlk
Ok, thanks. I think I’ve got it.
If nothing else I learned to leave the malware counting to the experts.
Me too
Cheers 
Let’s hope that there are many new generic signatures for Trojan-like malware because that is really the only area in which avast! is lacking at this time. If it can improve in detecting trojans than that will be incredible.
Keep pumping 'em out (signatures that is) avast! Team. It is becoming very obvious just how much avast! has been improving it’s overall detections over the last year or so. Keep up the good work.
I’m hoping to see more signatures like Win32:Ardamax-gen, Win32:Swizzor-gen, Win32:SpyBot-gen and Win32SdBot-gen4 (and etc with numbers).
McAfee is making generic signatures for nearly every family and they’re pretty good in general because of this.
Just a curiosity, why doesn’t you count the virus like the ‘other’ antiviruses?
Won’t make the things easier and improve your marketing? :
And so… is this? When an VPS update does not show in Avast web page (happens with certain frequency) is it because of soooooo many virus detected that makes it virtually “impossible” to be written in the home page?
Well, not exactly - when the VPS update is not listed on the history page, this is because there were not new samples names(witch is the case with the last VPS update, the update contained 25000 new detections, but these detections are so-called generic detections, like the others in this topic mentioned) added or just the VPS update fixes some False positive.
Yes, this is very interesting question :
Or won’t it be better to fully remove the virus encyclopedia from the program (I know that this should be in the WishList topic, but…) - I mean when an ordinary user opens the encyclopedia and see only 56000 sample names, and after that compare avast! with other AV, in many cases the user will choose the AV with more virus signatures showed in the program. So this is a bit confusing or let it say missleading for some users, in my opinion. For example if I am not wrong for the same reason VBA32 removed their Virus list from their product.
BTW: Vlk, have you already added the missed samples from the February AV-comparatives test ? :
BTW: Vlk, have you already added the missed samples from the February AV-comparatives test ?
Not really - and the main reason is that we don’t have them…
Read: “maybe we did, but it’s hard to say since we don’t know which ones they are”
I just wanted to echo these questions from Tech again and would really look forward to hearing an answer from an Alwil Team member on this one.
Thanks,
Dave
still Avast! keep missing these i sent long time ago 
OK, thanks for the answer
How about your opinion about the Virus List? :
You really want 100 000+ records added like Win32:Trojan-000001 [Trj]? ;D
Rather than hearing from all the wannabee business managers of avast and the numbers they think avast should be advertising … not one of which will do one d*mned thing to keep my system safe tomorrow and all the tomorrows to come perhaps we can hear a bit more about Dwarden’s concern about missing information provided to avast.
How does the avast team respond to a report that it is missing infections that were reported to it some time ago?
Submissions are not forgotten.
They just aren’t in LIFO or FIFO order, contrary to most of the user’s expectations. :-\
kubecj,
I think most of us can understand that response …
However, if a user says that there are infections still undetected that were reported “a long time ago” I have to guess they are speaking of more than a few weeks.
How would you want Dwarden to deal with specific longstanding issues that have not been addressed?
Submissions should be added the next day. Anything else is just failing.