Re: Avast failed a recent Virus Bulletin test that AVG passed

Re: Avast failed a recent Virus Bulletin test that AVG passed
Secure Home | Search | About
Login Password
Register Now! Lost Password?
 Anti-Virus Software    Post an article   get this group's latest topics as an RSS feed add this group's latest topics to your My MSN content add this group's latest topics to your My Yahoo content add this group's latest topics to your Google content
Subject Author Date
Re: Avast failed a recent Virus Bulletin test that AVG passed Art 12-14-2005
Posted by Art on December 14, 2005, 7:49 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 07:35:50 GMT, 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).

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


Posted by jm on December 14, 2005, 8:08 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

Art wrote:

> 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.

--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited (http://www.tech-pro.net) - your trusted source for
Windows tools, tips and troubleshooting advice


Posted by Art on December 14, 2005, 3:48 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options

>
>Art wrote:
>
>> 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.

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


Posted by jm on December 15, 2005, 4:30 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Art wrote:

> 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.

--
Julian Moss
Tech-Pro Limited (http://www.tech-pro.net) - your trusted source for
Windows tools, tips and troubleshooting advice


Posted by Slarty on December 15, 2005, 11:30 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On 15 Dec 2005 01:30:01 -0800, jm wrote:

> 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

Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: Avast failed a recent Virus Bulletin test that AVG passed December 14, 2005, 5:33 pm
CA Antivirus Failed the Parent Test November 15, 2006, 8:40 pm
Delivery to the following recipients failed Virus? September 29, 2006, 4:26 am
Symantec failed at virus detection at Yahoo November 27, 2006, 3:07 pm
Observations regarding recent Zhelatin.Gen (storm) e-mail November 9, 2007, 10:04 am
Virus scanning test result September 2, 2007, 11:05 pm
NOD32 or AntiVirusKit? Look at Anti-Virus Comparative test. March 3, 2006, 6:12 pm
smitfraudfix failed June 12, 2008, 11:13 am
BitDefender disinfection failed, Why? January 2, 2008, 7:02 am
AVG Anti-Vir Ver.8: Update failed! July 5, 2008, 9:26 am

The site map in XML format XML site map

Contact Us | Privacy Policy