Bad new for AVAST - why I just uninstalled it.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike Henley
  • Start date Start date
M

Mike Henley

It failed the June 2004 Virus Bulletin test :-o

"The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:

* Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and
on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
* Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files."

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406


Upsets me a little; I've used some time now.
 
Mike Henley said:
It failed the June 2004 Virus Bulletin test :-o

"The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:

* Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and
on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
* Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files."

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406


Upsets me a little; I've used some time now.
Click to expand...

AVG passed.
 
Mike said:
It failed the June 2004 Virus Bulletin test :-o

"The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:

* Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and
on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
* Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files."

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406


Upsets me a little; I've used some time now.
Click to expand...

I read that also. But I've had more consistent results identifying
problems with avast then with other virus software I've used so I'm
keeping it. I do a monthly online scan at trend housecall as well but
avast so far has detected and removed every problem.
 
It failed the June 2004 Virus Bulletin test :-o

"The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:

* Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and
on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
* Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files."

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406


Upsets me a little; I've used some time now.
Click to expand...



AVG let a virus slip through on me and couldn't "heal" it. I switched to
Avast and it hasnt't let me down. I'm keeping it.
 
It failed the June 2004 Virus Bulletin test :-o

"The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:

* Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and
on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
* Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean
files."

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406


Upsets me a little; I've used some time now.
Click to expand...

Imho, every antivirus is likely to not pass this test : there are
new viruses everyday and I guess it is utopic to think that an
antivirus can counter 100.00% of the malware. What is secure, imho,
is to have an antivirus :
- that counters all major (in terms of risk and spread) viruses
- with up to date virus definitions
 
_Martin R. Howell_, sabato 04/set/2004:
AVG let a virus slip through on me and couldn't "heal" it. I switched to
Avast and it hasnt't let me down. I'm keeping it.
Click to expand...

Exactly the same happened to me.
I'm very satisfied with Avast.
 
I dont know what to think abot this--Avast has a bunch of "fails"
recorded in is Virus Bullitin history, but so does AVG also. Most of
them do.
 
Exactly the same happened to me.
I'm very satisfied with Avast.
Click to expand...

Me too: before I used AVG and gave me some trouble and not every virus
identified; now Avast works like a charm: frequent and fast auto-update,
has found several virus in these months, no errors, no evidence of
survived virus (I often control by another antivirus).

Simon

_______________________________________________________
"Try not! Do, or do not. There is no try."
by Yoda, Jedi Master (from anonymous poster)
( remove/togli 'FalselinK' to reply/per rispondere )
 
Mike said:
It failed the June 2004 Virus Bulletin test :-o

"The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:

* Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and
on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
* Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files."

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406


Upsets me a little; I've used some time now.
Click to expand...
Sir, you're an idiot. THey all fail at least once.
 
It failed the June 2004 Virus Bulletin test :-o

"The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:

* Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and
on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
* Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files."

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406


Upsets me a little; I've used some time now.
Click to expand...

Make sure that you actually go to & view the full results for each AV - some fail on certain
versions of Windows while passing on others. The other thing is that the test involves both
free & paid AV's, so you have to check whether it was the free or paid for version that was
tested.
 
Martin said:
AVG let a virus slip through on me and couldn't "heal" it. I
switched to Avast and it hasnt't let me down. I'm keeping it.
Click to expand...

Hi Martin,

What is important in a test such as the VB one?

1. Which version did they use?
2. What was their last update?
3. Against which viruses did they test?

I myself use AVG, and update every day (if an update is present I mean
by that), I use (because of using a non-'standard' eMail client) AVG's
Personal Mail Proxy and so far it caught everything that came in (which
is quite a lot, here). The same program installed on a friend's
computer who didn't update in the same frequency however got a dormant
virus infection (there was a virus, but not active... yet) between two
updates.

Now... is AVG bad? I don't think so... but the user of the program
should have the discipline to update it very frequently (and a setting
of 0 or 1 days should be set in the update manager). I think the same
goes for AVAST!; since every AV-program relies heavily on the frequency
in which the detection strings and/or the program are/is updated. IMO
you should stick to the program if you were pleased with the way it
worked so far, keeping an eye on whether it is updated on a regular
basis though!

Just my 2ec
Dick
 
Mike said:
It failed the June 2004 Virus Bulletin test :-o

"The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:

* Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and
on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
* Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files."

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406


Upsets me a little; I've used some time now.
Click to expand...


My wife burned dinner last night. I'm gonna shit-can her come Tuesday.
 
Conor said:
Sir, you're an idiot. THey all fail at least once.
Click to expand...

Conor,
There's no reason to resort to namecalling over somebody simply
stating their opinion. I'm sure you wouldn't say something IRL without
indicating somehow that you're joking.
 
Simone Murdock said:
Me too: before I used AVG and gave me some trouble and not every virus
identified; now Avast works like a charm: frequent and fast auto-update,
has found several virus in these months, no errors, no evidence of
survived virus (I often control by another antivirus).

Simon
Click to expand...

Well, I liked avast a lot too, but it missing a couple of viruses the
other day that micro trend managed to detected bothered me. That's why
I started looking into antiviruses over the past few days.
 
It failed the June 2004 Virus Bulletin test :-o

"The VB 100% logo is awarded to anti-virus products that:

* Detect all In the Wild viruses during both on-demand and
on-access scanning in Virus Bulletin's comparative tests.
* Generate no false positives when scanning a set of clean files."

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/tests.xml?200406


Upsets me a little; I've used some time now.
Click to expand...

You might be interested in this comparative (which may require IE for
unscrambled viewing):

http://www.av-comparatives.org/seiten/ergebnisse_2004_02zz.php

Alernatively, download the PDF files for viewing results:

http://www.av-comparatives.org/

I suspect the Pro and free versions of Avast have the same detection
rates, and the comparative results here for Avast aren't bad at all.

Most products will probably detect over 99% of ITW viruses on any
given day. The VB 100% requirement on just ITW viruses with no false
positives sets a bar that results in misleading users. Sometimes, a
top notch product fails only because of a debateable testing protocol.

The best av scanners such as KAV will detect most I-Worms, Trojans,
and so-called "zoo" malware (quite a bit of which is actually in
circulation even though not on a ITW list). Freeware users can benefit
by using the Escan av Toolkit Utility as a backup on-demand
scanner/cleaner (see my web site).


Art
http://www.epix.net/~artnpeg
 
But to be fair, it looks like they didn't test it. Or am I missing
something? 80)>
Click to expand...

I think you are missing something. ;)
They tested Grisoft (AVG), but the version that they used in the test was
version 7 which is not the freeware version.
 
bambam said:
I think you are missing something. ;)
They tested Grisoft (AVG), but the version that they used in the test was
version 7 which is not the freeware version.
Click to expand...

Does the paid version check for more viruses than the free version?
 
Back
Top