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 bassbag 12-14-2005
Posted by bassbag on December 14, 2005, 5:33 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Susa.J.Anth...@neosporum.com says...
> 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

Posted by Roy Coorne on December 15, 2005, 12:43 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
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

Posted by bassbag on December 16, 2005, 9:59 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> 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
>
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

Posted by Art on December 18, 2005, 6:22 am
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:59:47 -0000, bassbag

>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


Posted by bassbag on December 18, 2005, 1:56 pm
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
says...
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2005 14:59:47 -0000, bassbag
>
> >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
>
>
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

Similar ThreadsPosted
Re: Avast failed a recent Virus Bulletin test that AVG passed December 14, 2005, 7:49 am
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