[AVU] - AVG update - 2004/02/28 - virus db : 380

  • Thread starter Thread starter Antoine
  • Start date Start date
In FYIS.org/estore posted:
In Antoine posted:

"Fail" detection rating test for Feb 2004.
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200402
Click to expand...

Nice results summary too -
Result summary: 3 passes / 20 fails
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avg.xml


DanlK, FYI Services
www.FYIS.org
Visit our Commemorative Collectible www.FYIS.org/estore!
____________________________________________
Don't forget to put this html code on your web page:
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript
src="http://www.georgewbush.com/WStuff/BPForm.aspx">
</SCRIPT>
 
FYIS.org/estore typed:
In Antoine posted:

"Fail" detection rating test for Feb 2004.
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200402
Click to expand...

November 2003: Windows 2003 Server
Status: PASS
Product name: Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus System 6.0.524 321
June 2003: Windows XP Professional
Status: PASS

I am not worrying about AVG failing on an obsolete operating system that
probably was not patched up to its latest level by the testers.
Especially when the reference is posted by someone that likes to spam this
newsgroup with their Web site and political preferences.
 
FYIS.org/estore typed:

November 2003: Windows 2003 Server
Status: PASS
Product name: Grisoft AVG Anti-Virus System 6.0.524 321 June 2003: Windows
XP Professional
Status: PASS

I am not worrying about AVG failing on an obsolete operating system that
probably was not patched up to its latest level by the testers. Especially
when the reference is posted by someone that likes to spam this newsgroup
with their Web site and political preferences.
Click to expand...

And the version that fails that particular test that FYIS posted about
isn´t the free one.
OK, so AVG isn´t the greatest virus scanner in the world. For the price
it´s damn near unbeatable. It´s light on resources and doesn´t try to
take over parts of my computer that it shouldn´t. It will detect pretty
much any *real* virus that is out there now, and is updated regular enough.
I´ve said it before and I´ll say it again, the best virus scanner is not
the one on your computer, it´s the one between your ears, and if the
scanner between your ears aint to good then maybe you should stick with
a pay for, do it all scanner, that is perfect.
AVG is good enough for me and you, maybe it´s not for FYIS. ;o)
 
And the version that fails that particular test that FYIS posted about
isn´t the free one.
OK, so AVG isn´t the greatest virus scanner in the world. For the
price it´s damn near unbeatable. It´s light on resources and doesn´t
try to take over parts of my computer that it shouldn´t. It will
detect pretty much any *real* virus that is out there now, and is
updated regular enough. <snip>
Click to expand...


AVAST seems to be slightly better in terms of detection rates in most
tests I have seen, but it's slightly "heavier".



Aaron (my email is not munged!)
 
Aaron said:
AVAST seems to be slightly better in terms of detection rates in
most tests I have seen, but it's slightly "heavier".
Click to expand...

I would be interested in such tests ; could you please provide some urls ?
 
Forget to mention AVAST has a better unpacker too. But that's next to AVG
which isn't much.
I would be interested in such tests ; could you please provide some
urls ?
Click to expand...

Besides the already mentioned VB100%

http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=59&mnu=59

http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/all/index.htm

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2004_02.php -Shows
reasonable results in Trojans.

But I seriously don't want to start a flame war over this, you can argue
over details like testing procedure, the age of the tests, point to
alternate tests where AVG did better etc. If AVG works for you, far from
it for me to stand in your way.




Aaron (my email is not munged!)
 
Aaron said:
Besides the already mentioned VB100%

http://www.virus.gr/english/fullxml/default.asp?id=59&mnu=59

http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/all/index.htm

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2004_02.php
-Shows reasonable results in Trojans.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the links Aaron.
But I seriously don't want to start a flame war over this, you can
argue over details like testing procedure, the age of the tests,
point to alternate tests where AVG did better etc.
Click to expand...

I didn't intend to start a flame war either ; what I quite
appreciate on acf where many users post regularly is that one can
relatively easily distinguish an honest and objective post from an
'interested' post, coming for example in this case from an antivirus
editor team member.

Avast seems to be the antivirus used by several people posting on
acf. I remember MLC (aka Malu) being quite satisfied with Avast and
even recommending it sometimes.
If AVG works for you, far from it for me to stand in your way.
Click to expand...

It's not easy for the user to evaluate the 'quality' of the
antivirus he uses : until a file is corrupted/erased and until the
user notices it, everything looks ok. The most common tests one can
easily make concern standard virus'like files such as eicar and
nearly all the antivirus products pass them successfully.

Concerning my own humble point of view of AVG, which can be discussed :
[+] : low ram consumption
[+] : very quick on-demand scan
[-] : not that good at Trojans' detection
 
Avast seems to be the antivirus used by several people posting on
acf. I remember MLC (aka Malu) being quite satisfied with Avast and
even recommending it sometimes.
Click to expand...

And a few others seem to have abandoned AVG because it failed to catch
something. Sadly, it's not clear if AVAST would have fared better.
It's not easy for the user to evaluate the 'quality' of the
antivirus he uses : until a file is corrupted/erased and until the
user notices it, everything looks ok. The most common tests one can
easily make concern standard virus'like files such as eicar and
nearly all the antivirus products pass them successfully.
Click to expand...
Concerning my own humble point of view of AVG, which can be discussed :
[+] : low ram consumption
[+] : very quick on-demand scan
[-] : not that good at Trojans' detection
Click to expand...

My additonal evalution of AVG

[+] Quick updates to fast spreading worms

Quotation from http://www.securitynewsportal.com/index.shtml

"AV-Test uses special scripts to check the servers at anti-virus
companies every five minutes, looking for new signature files. It then
calculates the time between each virus being first spotted somewhere in
the world by the MessageLabs consulting group and the time when each
anti-virus service has a working fix available to the public (not
counting beta versions available only to testers).

According to the organization's data, these are the average lag times, in
hours and minutes, for each program during the test period:

H:M Anti-Virus Program
06:51 Kaspersky
08:21 Bitdefender
08:45 Virusbuster
09:08 F-Secure
09:16 F-Prot
09:16 RAV
09:24 AntiVir
10:31 Quickheal
10:52 InoculateIT-CA
11:30 Ikarus
12:00 AVG
12:17 Avast
12:22 Sophos
12:31 Dr. Web
13:06 Trend Micro
13:10 Norman
13:59 Command
14:04 Panda
17:16 Esafe
24:12 A2
26:11 McAfee
27:10 Symantec
29:45 InoculateIT-VET"

Quite impressive times of AVAST and AVG compared with say
Symantec/innoculateit/Trend etc. The freeware on demand only bitdefender
is very impressive too which i can indepdently confirm.

[-] Server is always busy

Espically these days, when Mydoom, Bagle, Netsky variants are competing
to see who reaches variant z first and updates are coming quick and fast
:) . AVG is always busy for me, AVAST almost always works.

[-] Weak unpacker






Aaron (my email is not munged!)
 
Back
Top