Avast failed a recent Virus Bulletin test that AVG passed

[Tony Susa]

Does anyone know if Avast! was fixed yet to pass the important tests?

While googling for more information about Avast!, I found Avast! recently
failed an apparently important consumer oriented test (which AVG passed).
My question is whether or not Avast! has been fixed with respect to that
failure.

I ask because I just recently decided to install a (the best?) freeware
anti-virus program for my Windows XP PC. I am not an antivirus expert; so
the first thing I did was search the google groups (groups.google.com) for
their astute recommendations.

Most articles advised the following four freeware antivirus scanners - and
I ascertained most (but not all) recommended them in the order shown:
1. Avast! 4.6 http://files.avast.com
2. AVG 7.1.371 http://free.grisoft.com
3. BitDefender 8 http://www.bitdefender.com
4. AntiVir PE Classic 6.32.00.51 http://www.free-av.com

So, I had installed Avast! on my WinXP system.

However, while searching for more information, I find the following
disturbing report (
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/antivirus_software/fullstory.html
) which says "in a recent Virus Bulletin test, AVG passed rigorous
virus-detection testing in the Windows XP environment, while Avast! failed
(although it had passed this test in years past)."

My question to the freeware antivirus experts (which I am not one of) is
whether they know if Avast! has been fixed yet or if it will be fixed?

If not, should we resort to AVG (which seems to have passed the test).

Thanks in advance for your expert advice,
Tony Susa

 

[Art]

Does anyone know if Avast! was fixed yet to pass the important tests?

While googling for more information about Avast!, I found Avast! recently
failed an apparently important consumer oriented test (which AVG passed).
My question is whether or not Avast! has been fixed with respect to that
failure.

I ask because I just recently decided to install a (the best?) freeware
anti-virus program for my Windows XP PC. I am not an antivirus expert; so
the first thing I did was search the google groups (groups.google.com) for
their astute recommendations.

Most articles advised the following four freeware antivirus scanners - and
I ascertained most (but not all) recommended them in the order shown:
1. Avast! 4.6 http://files.avast.com
2. AVG 7.1.371 http://free.grisoft.com
3. BitDefender 8 http://www.bitdefender.com
4. AntiVir PE Classic 6.32.00.51 http://www.free-av.com

So, I had installed Avast! on my WinXP system.

However, while searching for more information, I find the following
disturbing report (
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/antivirus_software/fullstory.html
) which says "in a recent Virus Bulletin test, AVG passed rigorous
virus-detection testing in the Windows XP environment, while Avast! failed
(although it had passed this test in years past)."

My question to the freeware antivirus experts (which I am not one of) is
whether they know if Avast! has been fixed yet or if it will be fixed?

If not, should we resort to AVG (which seems to have passed the test).

There isn't a product that doesn't sometimes fail the VB100. To find
out why and what criteria are involved, you have to subscribe to their
very expensive journal.

Also, tests done by computer magazines are worse than worthless.
They push vendors who supply them with advertising revenue.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[kurt wismer]

Tony Susa wrote:
[snip]

My question to the freeware antivirus experts (which I am not one of) is
whether they know if Avast! has been fixed yet or if it will be fixed?

all products have failed the virus bulletin vb100 'test' at one time or
another... the criteria for passing are very strict (not only do you
have to detect 100% of their in-the-wild test set, you have to have 0
false alarms too) so failing on occasion is not a big deal and certainly
no reason to run around trying to find out if the sky is really falling...

as for getting fixed - yes, whatever caused it to fail will undoubtedly
get fixed but that's no guarantee that it won't fail again the next time
for a completely different reason...

just keep an eye on this page
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archive/results?display=summary and watch
for a trend of failure... so long as no such trend emerges, you
shouldn't need to worry about it...

 

[jm]

Also, tests done by computer magazines are worse than worthless.
They push vendors who supply them with advertising revenue.

That simply isn't true. Software reviews in most magazines are done by
freelance computer journalists, who are responsible professionals just
as you are. The difficulty they have in testing this type of product is
that no-one outside the vendors themselves and a few test labs has a
comprehensive and up to date set of viruses to test them with.
Therefore such reviews, inevitably, focus more on things like ease of
use, features and value for money. Since just about every product now
passes the VB100% test (with occasional hiccups, as mentioned) I think
that is no bad thing, since the lab tests don't pay any attention at
all to these other factors that are quite important to most users.

 

[Cat_in_awe]

Does anyone know if Avast! was fixed yet to pass the important tests?

While googling for more information about Avast!, I found Avast!
recently failed an apparently important consumer oriented test (which
AVG passed). My question is whether or not Avast! has been fixed with
respect to that failure.

I've used both Avast and AVG, and I wouldn't ever go back to AVG. The
interface was confusing and the updating was spotty and unreliable. Also,
after seeing both programs running, it's pretty obvious (at least to me)
which was is better programming effort.

Satisfied Avast user for 3 years.

 

[Harold]

Satisfied Avast user for 3 years.

I totally agree with your comments.
I've been with Avast! for 2 years (after 5 years with AVG and its
never-ending problems with updating the data-base, and other things.)

No AV progs will pass all tests at any particular time.
It would take far more than one report to persuade me to change back
from Avast! to AVG.

 

[Art]

That simply isn't true. Software reviews in most magazines are done by
freelance computer journalists, who are responsible professionals just
as you are.

Nonsense. I've seen many crap "tests by the editor" results that
don't jibe with expert independent test results. And many tests don't
even include the products which have the best detection rates.
Also, the bias toward products which support their mags has often been
obvious.

The difficulty they have in testing this type of product is
that no-one outside the vendors themselves and a few test labs has a
comprehensive and up to date set of viruses to test them with.

That's just one reason why they should stay away from doing their
crap tests and point to the respected independent testing agencies
for detection rate info.

Therefore such reviews, inevitably, focus more on things like ease of
use, features and value for money.

I have no objection to them or anyone voicing their opinions on that.
But the OP wasn't asking about that. He was obviously concerned about
detection rates for which PC mags are worse than worthless, as I said.
They are misleading and amateurish ... far from "professional".

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[bassbag]

Does anyone know if Avast! was fixed yet to pass the important tests?

While googling for more information about Avast!, I found Avast! recently
failed an apparently important consumer oriented test (which AVG passed).
My question is whether or not Avast! has been fixed with respect to that
failure.

I ask because I just recently decided to install a (the best?) freeware
anti-virus program for my Windows XP PC. I am not an antivirus expert; so
the first thing I did was search the google groups (groups.google.com) for
their astute recommendations.

Most articles advised the following four freeware antivirus scanners - and
I ascertained most (but not all) recommended them in the order shown:
1. Avast! 4.6 http://files.avast.com
2. AVG 7.1.371 http://free.grisoft.com
3. BitDefender 8 http://www.bitdefender.com
4. AntiVir PE Classic 6.32.00.51 http://www.free-av.com

So, I had installed Avast! on my WinXP system.

However, while searching for more information, I find the following
disturbing report (
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/software/antivirus_software/fullstory.html
) which says "in a recent Virus Bulletin test, AVG passed rigorous
virus-detection testing in the Windows XP environment, while Avast! failed
(although it had passed this test in years past)."

My question to the freeware antivirus experts (which I am not one of) is
whether they know if Avast! has been fixed yet or if it will be fixed?

If not, should we resort to AVG (which seems to have passed the test).

Thanks in advance for your expert advice,
Tony Susa

You ,ll probably get a better idea of detection rates here...
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Its not just a matter of detection that warrants a VBA award either.If an
av has excellent overall detection but has 1 false positive ..it fails.My
personal opinion from using all 3 of the free ones you mention at one
time or another is 1.antivir 2.avast 3.avg for detection , however most
users would count other things,to warrant using an av ,like its resource
usage ,ease of updating,frequency of updates etc.
me

 

[milou]

That simply isn't true. Software reviews in most magazines are done by
freelance computer journalists, who are responsible professionals just
as you are.

<snip>

I have yet to see a review that says a product is crap when in the
same magazine there is a 16 page advert inviting punters to purchase
the product of the century, which turns out to be crap anyway.

 

[kurt wismer]

Art wrote:




That simply isn't true. Software reviews in most magazines are done by
freelance computer journalists, who are responsible professionals just
as you are.

if they're so responsible, why are they doing tests when they know they
don't have the resources required to do them properly...

The difficulty they have in testing this type of product is
that no-one outside the vendors themselves and a few test labs has a
comprehensive and up to date set of viruses to test them with.
Therefore such reviews, inevitably, focus more on things like ease of
use, features and value for money.

historically, such reviews have used a handful of garbage samples to
test against... that is why they're called "worse than worthless"...

 

[Anthony Susa]

There isn't a product that doesn't sometimes fail the VB100. To find
out why and what criteria are involved, you have to subscribe to their
very expensive journal.

Hi Art,

Thanks for the advice. I didn't know. This makes me feel better. At least
nobody said to ditch Avast! so I'm pretty sure I made a good choice by
following the bulk of the recommendations here.

Tony Susa

 

[Anthony Susa]

Since just about every product now passes the VB100% test
(with occasional hiccups, as mentioned)

Does this imply we would tend to expect Avast! to pass this VB100% test in
the near future?

 

[jm]

Nonsense. I've seen many crap "tests by the editor" results that
don't jibe with expert independent test results. And many tests don't
even include the products which have the best detection rates.
Also, the bias toward products which support their mags has often been
obvious.

But the expert independent test results focus just on detection rates.
Magazine reviews are looking at other factors, so it's inevitable that
the order of results will be different.

There will inevitably be a bias towards including products that are
advertised. Magazines don't buy the products they test, they get them
from public relations companies. Inevitably, companies that are active
advertisers also have the most effective PR people that willingly
provide review copies of software when needed.

That's just one reason why they should stay away from doing their
crap tests and point to the respected independent testing agencies
for detection rate info.

I wish it was so simple, but the respected independent testing agencies
are usually a bit fussy about allowing other publications to quote
their data.

I have no objection to them or anyone voicing their opinions on that.
But the OP wasn't asking about that. He was obviously concerned about
detection rates for which PC mags are worse than worthless, as I said.
They are misleading and amateurish ... far from "professional".

Actually I think that anti-virus experts are overly fixated on these
detection rate results. People are mostly not getting infected by last
year's viruses, or even last week's (unless they are stupid and haven't
been doing the updates.) They are getting infected by viruses that
arrived before the signature updates. Therefore the most effective
anti-virus is arguably the one that gets its updates out to the users
quickest, or which has the most effective heuristic detector, which
none of these tests measure.

Also, the worst problems I frequently encounter on user PCs are caused,
not by viruses, buy by anti-virus products themselves that have deleted
or quarantined a file without removing links to it or in some other way
have left the user's system with a problem they don't know how to deal
with. How good at cleaning up an infection is something else these
expert tests don't attempt to look at. In that respect, to get back to
the original point, avast! with its ability to do a boot time scan
before Windows starts (avoiding the need to go into safe mode) is a
very good product, which is probably more important than whatever
caused it to fail the VB100% last time. I personally have installed it
on a lot of home computers.

 

[Art]

Hi Art,

Thanks for the advice. I didn't know. This makes me feel better. At least
nobody said to ditch Avast! so I'm pretty sure I made a good choice by
following the bulk of the recommendations here.

If you're so concerned about detection rates, why not pay the small
amount annually for a product with much better overall detection?

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[Slarty]

People are mostly not getting infected by last
year's viruses, or even last week's (unless they are stupid and haven't
been doing the updates.) They are getting infected by viruses that
arrived before the signature updates.

I'm far from convinced that this is correct.

Take a look here for example for the pricipal threats during the last year

http://www.virus-radar.com/index_c12m_enu.html

The list is topped by malware which was first captured in April of this
year, rather longer ago than last week I think. Do a little more research
and you'll find some old 'favourites' from further back than that still
catching the unwary. I'm sure you can find lots more similar information
with a little effort.

Cheers,

Roy

 

[Roy Coorne]

bassbag wrote:

....

You ,ll probably get a better idea of detection rates here...
http://www.av-comparatives.org/

Its not just a matter of detection that warrants a VBA award either.If an
av has excellent overall detection but has 1 false positive ..it fails.My
personal opinion from using all 3 of the free ones you mention at one
time or another is 1.antivir 2.avast 3.avg for detection , however most
users would count other things,to warrant using an av ,like its resource
usage ,ease of updating,frequency of updates etc.
me

The av-comparatives results look good for BitDefender and not so good
for AVG.

It may be of interest to note that there is a free version of BitDefender,

<http://www.bitdefender.com/PRODUCT-14-en--BitDefender-8-Free-Edition.html>

which provides on-demand scanning only, thus beeing not ideal for an
always-online system but, perhaps, suitable as a second scanner.

r0y

 

[Brian Gregory [UK]]

Does this imply we would tend to expect Avast! to pass this VB100% test in
the near future?

AIUI its passed several times since the last time it failed.

 

[bassbag]

bassbag wrote:

...


The av-comparatives results look good for BitDefender and not so good
for AVG.

It may be of interest to note that there is a free version of BitDefender,

<http://www.bitdefender.com/PRODUCT-14-en--BitDefender-8-Free-Edition.html>

which provides on-demand scanning only, thus beeing not ideal for an
always-online system but, perhaps, suitable as a second scanner.

r0y

I believe bit defender uses more than one engine ,one of them being kav
so it would better all the other 3 free ones,and the majority of payware
ones on detection anyway .I didnt mention it my original post because as
you say the free one is only on demand and not resident so i guessed it
m,ight not be sutible for the original poster who seemed to be looking
for an all round free resident one.
me

 

[Art]

I believe bit defender uses more than one engine ,one of them being kav

I believe your belief is incorrect. Bit Defender uses only its own
engine.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

 

[bassbag]

I believe your belief is incorrect. Bit Defender uses only its own
engine.

Art

http://home.epix.net/~artnpeg

Thank you for correction.... for some reason I was thinking of the bd and
kav engine which is gdatas avk,and not any of the posters
choices.Apologies.
me