VirusBulletin tests 48 antivirus scanner for Windows 8.1 – Avast doesn’t pass

vbimport

#1

We’ve just posted the following news: VirusBulletin tests 48 antivirus scanner for Windows 8.1 – Avast doesn’t pass[newsimage]http://static.myce.com//images_posts/2014/11/myce-virusbulletin1jpg-95x75.jpg[/newsimage]

Antivirus test organisation Virus Bulletin has tested 48 virus scanners for Windows 8.1 of which Avast and Norman as the only well known brands didn’t pass the test.

            Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/virusbulletin-tests-48-antivirus-scanner-for-windows-8-1-avast-doesnt-pass-73538](http://www.myce.com/news/virusbulletin-tests-48-antivirus-scanner-for-windows-8-1-avast-doesnt-pass-73538)

            Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

#2

odd…I use MSE for all my computers and they worked fine no virus or malware. Only if the users click to accept the malware then they get infected regardless how good the program is. Once allowed your A/V is basically worthless and time to restore to factory install or custom recovery media to fix the problem. This is the part that is left out of all those test what happens when the users click on to launch the program this is never taken into consideration. And all those test are just that controlled test not what really happens in the real world everyday ops I got infected. So the way I see it no A/V is 100% or best 50% effective and the other 50% is the user themselves causing the infection that is how it should be seen not just the A/V program itself. It take action of the users :doh:to cause their own infections. If users also edit their PC hosts file with a hosts edit I talked about in the other threads on here they would block if not eliminate any chances of doing :doh:and catching the virus/malware. I used the PC hosts file and so far killed pops and ad pops reducing any chances of doing :doh:to get a virus/malware. This is something every savvy computer users should learn about and know about otherwise get ready for the bonet/zombie network.


#3

If you read the article both failed on a false positive not on missing a virus or malware. So no problem for me , The occasional false positive is OK.
It just means the AV is a bit sensitive.
I also use a host file mostly due to coolcolors advice.
I was sort of doing it before in that spybot S&D adds to the host file & I was using it.
I added more & it has cut down on adds & popups a lot.


#4

[QUOTE=cholla;2741432]If you read the article both failed on a false positive not on missing a virus or malware. So no problem for me , The occasional false positive is OK.[/QUOTE] I disagree. An anti-virus with false positives means that potentially it could decide that an important file is malware and put it into quarantine which might make your system unusable.

So with false positives your system could become unusable even when there is no actual malware attack, if a system file is falsely flagged as infected and therefore quarantined.

I think this is worse than having an anti-virus that could potentially miss an actual malware attack.


#5

Depends on the FP.
I’d be inclined to mark 4 types of FP.

  1. Critical - system may be unbootable, repair difficult
  2. Severe - FP on major retail product
  3. Standard - FP on popular shareware / freeware
  4. Marginal - on less common programs

#6

[QUOTE=DrageMester;2741436]I disagree. An anti-virus with false positives means that potentially it could decide that an important file is malware and put it into quarantine which might make your system unusable.

So with false positives your system could become unusable even when there is no actual malware attack, if a system file is falsely flagged as infected and therefore quarantined.

[/QUOTE]

I see your point & I’m kind of in the middle on this.

I set my Avast up with “Ask” & “No Action” .
If it was set to “Fix Automatically” then a false positive might be a problem.
So it depends on the user.
Also I get very few false positives .
I know one software that Avast always finds a false positive of sorts on . That is PGCEdit. It give several “Error: Archive is password protected .” files . I know this & ignore it.
I’ve never had Avast find a system file as a false positive.

This thread is about Avast & Windows 8.1 . I don’t have Windows 8.1 & it could be more of a problem for it.

I also have a second AV installed but inactive . So no conflicts occur .
I can scan a file of folder with it this way . It is Emsisoft Anti-Malware .

I usually use the “Disable the shields for 10 minutes” option in Avast when I do that.


#7

I also use Avast, have for years, no FP. BUT I use 7 service pack 1. Looks like this might be a PRO Avast Thread. I love it


#8

If I am reading the article correctly ESET Smart Security is the best with an overall rating of 99.82 with Bitdefender close behind.:wink: