# Avg? No Way!



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

I know a lot of people in this forum and around the world crave of a program called AVG. It's the most popular free antivirus program out there.

Let me give you some reasons why you shouldnt use this program:

1) It has never passed a virus bulletin test in Windows.

2) Heuristics analysis is unreliable. It causes false alarms and misses too many things at the same time.

3) The virus database is small. AVG barely catches any dailers, hoaxes, or other junk. Some might say... who cares? But a good antivirus program should detect them at least....

These are some comments I've seen in this forum:

"AVG has worked for me for more than 5 years and I never got infected."

So what? Maybe you didnt catch any virus or you were cautious... But when the time comes, you have to be sorry.

"AVG does't hog up my resources."

Nod32, Sophos, Dr. Web, KAV 3.5.x.x, and Command antivirus doesnt either... And all these products detect WAY BETTER than AVG.

"AVG is the best value."

No.. you can pay a little more.. and get a lot more protection .. (ie. Nod32, KAV) Or you can try Avast! Home, which is free. This product actually Got a VB100 award and is certified in many testing organizations. (Although I would not recommend it.)

"AVG is an install and forget solution."

Not really. You still have to watch out for trojans, of which AVG has a terrible time doing. Also, the AVG tech support is sloppy. 

My point is that I reckon AVG is WAY TOO overated. Sure, its great that its free, but it won't do with today's viruses. Get another product.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

1) It has passed my test.

2) NAV, Mcaffee, and Pc Cillin use heuristics. The 3rd is used by the department of defence. Heuristic analysis caught Klez for many people before they got the definitions for it.

3) AVG Is an Antivirus. It catches viruses. It catches some trojans. But its not an Antitrojan. Its not an AntiDialer either. And name me 1 program that catches Hoaxes for you.

4) I have caught tons of viruses. AVG stopped them all. Afterwards, I scan with an online scanner. Never has it found anything AVG didnt. 

5) AVG Free isnt supposed to have tech support. Get the paid version, and you get the support. Besides, we have TSG for that.

6) Not good enough for the viruses of today? Yeah right. 
AVG adds definitions for new viruses. Who had protection for Lovegate.C first? Grisoft, or Norton?

Some of your arguments are reasonable. Some are ridiculous, like #2 and #3.


----------



## ezymony (Jan 27, 2001)

I have tried avast didnt like at all it slowed my comp down you can have the best antivirus program money can buy but your best weapon is common sense.


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

Sorry.. Correction for number 2...

2)*AVGS's* Heuristics analysis is unreliable. It causes false alarms and misses too many things at the same time. Nod32 has legendary heuristics. Nod32 caught many big viruses like CIH and LoveLetter purely on heuristics. AVG has no track record like that.

P.S.

Please explain AVG's horrible performance in VB's test.

Frequent updates??? New Virus come out daily and AVG' signatures used to come out monthly.. but now its weekly. This is not nearly enough.

Please feel free to post any other comments here. Criticism is very welcomed.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

AVG updates arent weekly. There were updates on the 12th, 13th, and the 14th.


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

> 1) It has passed my test.


What test? Who are you to test antivirus programs? Virus Bulletin is the most renowned for this testing and this professional test should not be deterred from your so called "test"



> 2) AVG Is an Antivirus. It catches viruses. It catches some trojans. But its not an Antitrojan. Its not an AntiDialer either. And name me 1 program that catches Hoaxes for you.


KAV, Dr. Web



> I have caught tons of viruses. AVG stopped them all. Afterwards, I scan with an online scanner. Never has it found anything AVG didnt.


Again... you are pushing your luck.



> AVG Free isnt supposed to have tech support.


Exactly.



> Who had protection for Lovegate.C first? Grisoft, or Norton?


I'm not supporting Norton. I don't like Norton.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I am fully qualified to test the antivirus i want to use. You are fully qualified to test for the one you want to use. No one else is fully qualified to test for anything and make the decision for me.

I wouldn't say pushing my luck. 100% isnt all that bad.

You are right though, for more $$, you get more security. Unfortunately, I don't have any $$. Heck, I can't even legally work.


----------



## edsod (May 25, 2002)

I believe that the truth is like always in the middle.
I use AVG at home for 8 months (and some other AVs at work).

It updates between 1 and 14 days,I think someting like 5 days on average...

It cought for me two times viruses from a floppy and an email.
It didn't missed one and I rarely heard that AVG didn't catch a virus (this can happen with any program)

I wouldn't say it's the best,but is very very good for a free program !

Look here for NOD32's failure at some kind of test .
(They say it is the best.Different tests,different results)
http://www.rokop-security.de/main/article.php?sid=494&mode=thread&order=0


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

That test was for finding them encrypted or in zip-like files. Not many of the programs did well. But they would have caught the worm when the package was unpacked, because thats when it becomes usuable, executable, file of its own.


----------



## flawed_cat (Jan 31, 2003)

So codexaenir, that's a good enough reason for you not to use AVG, so don't use it. But me? I'll just keep using it for now. I have Micro Trend's AV and AVG installed and guess which one I like to use as resident and active, that's right AVG. After using it for 2 years now and satisified, how many more years before I be sorry? After a man has seen an airplane fly it's pretty hard to convince him it can't. So, the virus testers say AVG is absolutely
unrealiable, yet a million + users use it and remain virus free...
who wins? I guarentee that if AVG was as unreliable as you claim
most people wouldn't keep using it. Yes, a little caution is better
than any AV anyway. So what's wrong with being careful? Fact is,
I don't think I need the greatest on earth protection. AVG works for me...even if you doubt it.


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

> I am fully qualified to test the antivirus i want to use. You are fully qualified to test for the one you want to use. No one else is fully qualified to test for anything and make the decision for me.


I am not making any decision for you. I am saying that your test does not affect the results of the VB100 tests which absolutely fails AVG.



> That test was for finding them encrypted or in zip-like files. Not many of the programs did well. But they would have caught the worm when the package was unpacked, because thats when it becomes usuable, executable, file of its own.


Virus Bulletin tests with different operating systems with ITW virus(the ones that really count).



> I wouldn't say it's the best,but is very very good for a free program !


What about Avast and AntiVir PE?



> unrealiable, yet a million + users use it and remain virus free...


So more people drive around ford's and toyotas.. does that make them any better than BMW's and Audi's? More people currently have Windows 98 than Windows XP (i think).. Does that make Windows 98 better? More people eat McDonalds for lunch than at that Hilton 5 star restaurant... Does that make McDonalds better? OF COURSE NOT! Just because a program is popular (which it is) doesnt mean it is better.


----------



## flawed_cat (Jan 31, 2003)

"quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unrealiable, yet a million + users use it and remain virus free... 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So more people drive around ford's and toyotas.. does that make them any better than BMW's and Audi's? More people currently have Windows 98 than Windows XP (i think).. Does that make Windows 98 better? More people eat McDonalds for lunch than at that Hilton 5 star restaurant... Does that make McDonalds better? OF COURSE NOT! Just because a program is popular (which it is) doesnt mean it is better."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey, you're the one saying every other AV is better than AVG and no one should use it. The term "Better" is highly subjective, and
you are the one putting better on every AV other than AVG...not
me. But I am telling you with so many using AVG...and perferring
it over your "better"...they're not all stupid, VB100 tests or not.
When people use AVG successfully, why argue with success?


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Your getting into personal preference.
I would much rather stick with my trusty, Win 98 that I know in and out, than switch to a bloated, product-activated new product.

And I would much prefer a cheeseburger and fries over some $48 glass of water and a form of snails or fish that i can't pronounce.


----------



## suzi (Dec 27, 2002)

I am another happy and satisfied AVG user. Never had a virus since I started using it. Like someone said, common sense goes a long way toward protecting yourself from viruses. Don't open attachments etc., disable preview pane or use Hotmail or Yahoo which screen for viruses. No AV program is ever going to be perfect. 

Who made VB god over anti-virus programs anyway  

They are subject to error just like anyone else or any other software. 

And I'm with Brendan - much rather have the burger, fries and Pepsi than the snails or fish that I can't pronounce either.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

If you read the small print on VB site

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/100procedure.xml

it explains why some anti virus applications fail the test, and it clearly says

There remains ample opportunity for products to miss detection, in our tests, of files which they are perfectly able to detect - why? Of the many potential answers, two are most likely. First, there are the matters of default extension lists, a common area for failure over the years, in which products have failed to gain VB 100% awards because the default extension lists did not include possible extensions for In the Wild viruses. In most cases these extension-based problems are easily solved by an administrator adding extensions to the default list. We could perform these changes prior to testing. We feel, however, that our readers are better served if they know that they have to do this, than if we scan all files regardless of extension.

Another example of why some products miss out on VB 100% awards, is where certain files are not scanned directly on-access. The usual assumption by the product developers is that the files will be scanned when passed on to an application which makes use of them. At the most common level this covers such objects as ZIP files, which are often not scanned until unzipped and EML files, which are not scanned until individual mails are pulled from within. From a developer's point of view these choices make sense in that leaving objects unscanned until use creates fewer overheads. The chance of infection on a protected machine is not increased, since scanning will occur before code execution. Such treatment of objects does, however lead to misses under the VB 100% testing methodology.

A VB 100% award means that a product has passed our tests, no more and no less. The failure to attain a VB 100% award is not a declaration that a product cannot provide adequate protection in the real world if administered by a professional. We would urge any potential customer, when looking at the VB 100% record of any software, not simply to consider passes and fails, but to read the small print in the reviews.

This does not mean that the AV does not work in the real world, just that it does not fit a very tightly controlled laboratory environment


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Well there it is!

This does not mean that the AV does not work in the real world, just that it does not fit a very tightly controlled laboratory environment.


----------



## edsod (May 25, 2002)

There is no end in such a conversation because everyone
has different experiences.
It's good to talk about them anyway...

I believe that the reason AVG has a strong following 
is not only that it is free
(there are others like Antivir and Avast)
but that it is so gentle with system resources and doesn't
trouble you like McAfee or Norton sometimes...
You set it and that is all.
It protects you reasonably well...

Many programs behave like they own the PC.
I don't use it just to run them!

I can have NortonInternetSecurity 2003 from my work 
but I don't want it.
I have two months at my desk Bitdefenders firewall and AV
in a CD and I haven't installed it.

I prefer to stay with Kerio and AVG .


----------



## KHAYMAN (Jun 5, 2002)

Hi Guys,

I can see we are having a nice lively debate! Im an AVG user aswell, and so far i havent had any problems. Im not saying its the best, but it works for me. Lets face it any AV software is better than none, and its good that there is free versions of it available so that people who cant afford to buy the high cost products can at least afford some protection on there computer.


kind regards to you all!!!

Khayman


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

This is from www.software-antivirus.com review of AVG.
----------------- 
AVG Antivirus is fairly popular due to its reputation as a "free" antivirus program. The truth is there is no such ting as a free ride. 
AVG Antivirus is a poor performer in detecting and removing viruses, in fact it stands out as one of the worst of the more popular programs. Furthermore, AVG Antivirus gets paid by inserting an ad for itself at the bottom of all outgoing email messages. If you don't want ads in your email, but you still want to use AVG Antivirus, your option is the AVG Antivirus Professional edition
------------------
Also from software-antivirus:

------------------
It's important to be aware of the fact that antivirus software has a very limited ability to detect new and unknown viruses, they usually detects between 15% and 50%. Testing has put AVG Antivirus in the lower range, with only a 15%-20% detection rate.

AVG Antivirus is the only decent free antivirus program available, but unfortunately it's far from good enough. Our advice: Don't listen to friends or fellow net users praising AVG Antivirus. Stay away if you're serious about staying protected.

------------------

It is important to think out of the box in this one. AVG is free, but has adware, has horrible detection rates, and yet still it is highly regarded in the real world. Why? Because everyone says so? Because its only half working. Sure.. it protects from the big ones like LoveLetter, etc... But what about that trojan your friend might throw at you? Or maybe that unknown virus you might encounter... The fact is that AVG stands up to the challenges of viruses barely with only one leg... and it is about to fall. Other products are much developed and is much much much more comprehensive than AVG in all directions.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

AVG does not have Adware, I can assure you of that much.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

from www.software-antivirus.com

Antivirus Software Best Buy Reviews is an independant reviewer of antivirus software. We do this in our free time. Even though we have ads on our site, we are not affected or influenced by this when we review antivirus software.

They reject all the accepted good anti-viruses as bad

including Norton, Mcaffee, norman and sophos along with avg

and on there who we are page
Who we are 
We who have set up this website are a few experienced computer users from Europe who are tired of the misconception that:

internet users are fully protected once theyve installed antivirus software 
the top selling products offer the best protection 
Both conceptions are wrong. Antivirus software has to be updated at least weekly to offer any decent protection. And the top selling products, like Norton, does not offer the best protection, but they are easy to use, and they are usually heavily marketed. 
We often find antivirus reviews by computer magazines to be skewed, focusing to much on ease of use and not enough on virus protection.

I don't think I would particularly trust them to advise me


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

I asssume this codexaenir fellow is conected with the www.software-antivirus.com and is hacked off at AVG cos they won't pay to advertise on his site

and the bit about adware is nonsense, you can choose to have the scanned by avg in your emails or not, as you choose. If you don't want it then untick in control panel


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

A much better and more respected review of AVG comes from 
http://www.pcnineoneone.com/reviews/sw/avg6.html

which rates it as excellent and well worth using

Now PC911 I would trust to advise me


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

If I have my own review, I don't trust anyone at all, whether they agree with me or not, until they can prove it to me.
You may say the VB100 test are proof. Not to me, because in MY review, it prevented 100% of viruses from infecting.
Now, if I had no antivirus yet, and i was deciding on one, I would trust PCWorld, or VB100, or most any other test.


----------



## Gill (Dec 4, 2001)

codexaenir!!!!! which AV program do you recomend?


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I think he uses Nod32, which is no doubt a great program, but im sticking with what I know.


----------



## Gill (Dec 4, 2001)

Hi brendandonhu 

I'm using pc-cillin at the moment, but I'm thinking of going back to AVG!


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

> asssume this codexaenir fellow is conected with the www.software-antivirus.com and is hacked off at AVG cos they won't pay to advertise on his site


Nonsense. Not true at all. I am in no way connected to that website.



> codexaenir!!!!! which AV program do you recomend?


1)Nod32...
2)Kaspersky
3)Dr. Web



> A much better and more respected review of AVG comes from http://www.pcnineoneone.com/reviews/sw/avg6.html


How is this any better than software-antivirus.com?

1) This website does not compare and contrast antivirus programs. Instead, it reviews everything from backup programs to operating systems. software-antivirus.com focuses only on these programs.. have extensive background on them.

2) The review of AVG is submitted by Alex "crazygerman" Byron . Who is this person and why should we trust him? Are all the reviews flawed as they are submitted by "individuals" whos bias and "gut feeling" may tip the scale of a products. A university or a professional institution would be more reliable to review AVG.

3) Did he actually test the program??? (as in using a bunch of real virii and observing whether AVG or whatever would catch it). To me, it seems like this person ran over the installation process and interface... brags about the speed and then closes off with a nice remark. What about the real stuff that counts? (detection rate)


> It caught several infected e-mails, such as the infamous Hybris virus, and quarantined the attachments appropriately.


 It is not surprising for an antivirus to catch a virus. It is surprising when it doesn't.

4)


> Antivirus Software Best Buy Reviews is an independant reviewer of antivirus software. We do this in our free time. Even though we have ads on our site, we are not affected or influenced by this when we review antivirus software.
> ---- from www.software-antivirus.com


Does PC911 include this?

5)Lack of material. software-antivirus.com as well as VB100 posts extensive statistics about each program they test. As in rate of detection in percentages... number of virus missed... percentage and number of false alarms... etc.
PC911 is a much more opinion based review site. Yet again, these individuals are biased towards public opinion and interface. The fact is... interface and eye candy is important... but not the most important. Detection is. PC911 does not know that.


----------



## suzi (Dec 27, 2002)

This is what AVG puts at the end of an email:

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http: //www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.458 / Virus Database: 257 - Release Date: 2/24/2003

I don't consider that adware or even advertising as such. MSN and Yahoo put "ads" at the end of emails sent through them. I personally like getting an email from someone with the AVG certification at the end. 

codexaenir - I am just curious - why do you care so much if people use AVG anyway? It's not hurting you if people get a virus....


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

Suzi- I agree about the advertising thing.
Would you feel better if it said virus-free and you didn't know according to who? And people that dont trust AVG can set a mail rule to automatically delete those messages!

Now I disagree on the other part.
Caring if someone else gets a virus is good!


----------



## flawed_cat (Jan 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by codexaenir:_
> *This is from www.software-antivirus.com review of AVG.
> -----------------
> AVG Antivirus is fairly popular due to its reputation as a "free" antivirus program. The truth is there is no such ting as a free ride.
> ...


Geez man, AVG adware? If you think the email sig is adware just uncheck the boxes you had to check in order to insert it. It's obvious after reading this that the writer has never even used AVG and is based on hearsay... probably even his own hearsay.
This opinion is horse hookie. Man alive, I'd at least try a product before condeming it to hades. Take a "Free Ride."


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

The other problem in there is about them getting paid by inserting an ad.

I wish i knew how to get paid by putting ads for my website inside my own website!


----------



## suzi (Dec 27, 2002)

> Now I disagree on the other part. Caring if someone else gets a virus is good!


You are right Brendan, it is good to care if people get viruses because when people get them, they spread. I was just trying to figure out why codexaenir is expending so much energy putting down AVG.

I care when people don't use *any* virus protection or have it and don't update it, but I don't care personally which one someone uses, as long as it works for them and they keep it updated.


----------



## suzi (Dec 27, 2002)

> I wish i knew how to get paid by putting ads for my website inside my own website!


Brendan, if you figure that one out, let me know!


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I'd be happy to sell you an ebook about it


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

Codexaenir:

For the most part you right on the mark. But trying to debate this issue at this particular site is like trying to debate a woman's right to choice at a Jerry Falwell Convention. No one is going to listen.

Now I saw that a bit tongue and cheek, but I believe debates should be open and lively, but should also be supported with hard facts, good evidence, and solid research. What bothers me about folks that embrace AVG, is that the debate goes no where because it becomes a "it's my preference" or "it works for me" or "I like it" affair. That's nice, speaks well of the interface and easy of use but what does that have to do with how well the product works?

To See What I Mean Check Out These Links:
1. (make sure to view test results with Categories: All and Detail: High)
http://www.av-test.org/sites/tests.php3?lang=en

2. A bit complicated in layout but a lot of detail.
http://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/vtc/eng1.htm

3. VB (already mentioned above but I didn't see a link)
http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/index.xml

So beyond the fact that I have yet to see a single AVG support offering anything beyond subjective opinion, is that it is offered as excellent solution to so many fresh newbies with few coins! I can't count the number of times I have read a post from some one that thinks they may be infected and the first bit of advice is download AVG? If they really need to scan their system why not download a trial of a better AV? It's not even that AVG is the only free AV. Avast for instance as mentioned before is free and side by side has much better record. Or beyond that, Kapersky now has a very simple and light version of their AV for 19.99 caled Kaspersky Anti-Virus Lite.
http://www.kaspersky.com/buyonline.html?chapter=610707

Suzi, 
to answer you question from my point of view, I care because of all the contrary hype and I find it irresponsible the way AVG is offered as a holy grail to newbies. Maybe that is a bit harsh of an opinion, but I think balancing voice is needed when so many are touting the virtues of one of the worst rated AV products on the market to fresh, unsuspecting users.

Lastly, I am not writing this to change any of the folks that have posted opinions, you have chosen and are not likely to care for this post. But instead I am writing this for those that have not made a choice or may be new here. I think it is important that all sides have a chance to to be heared and that folks make informed decision knowing all the risks when they make them.


----------



## suzi (Dec 27, 2002)

Luthorcrow,

I respect your knowledge and opinion however I think that for the average newbie uneducated web surfer, AVG is probably not a bad choice because it at least gets them some protection, which is better than none. The factors in its favor are that it is free and easy to use. Some people wouldn't bother with any protection if it was too expensive and too complicated. Hopefully these web surfers will educate themselves about security and protection on the web, but lets face it - many will not due to knowledge deficit of the real dangers, being too busy or just not caring enough to bother. For these people, again I think AVG is a great choice for the reasons I stated above. 

If and when people want to research and get more into depth about antivirus protecton, so much the better. If they move on to other products, fine. 

And of course, a balancing opinion is always good.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

What annoys me is the way that the test results are misquoted to say that AVG is a bad anti virus

If you look carefuly at the test results that Luthorcrow has pasted links to you will see that where AVG "falls down" are not particular risks in the real world

Yes AVG scores low on boot viruses in XP and 2000 with Floppy disks, but how many boot XP or 2000 with a floppy, in 9x or ME where floppies are still used it scores 100%


The other low scores are in on demand archive scans
AVg doesn't do well on scanning some types of archives, but gets 100% in the archives that are used in the real world, zip and rar, and as to cab files, it's only M$ who send programmes out on cab files and AVG find any viruses after the cab or archive is unpacked and before the exe is run


It does no worse than any other AV on script or trojan horses, but all av's need more work on these 


I think it's irresponsible to severely criticize a program for failings in a lab environment, where in the real world it works well


I could understand these people criticizing if they have used AVg and it had failedd to prevent a virus damaging their system, but they just seem to want to destroy AVG's reputation and I don't know why.

The only reason I can think of is that they are connected with a rival AV company, who are losing sales to AVG


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I don't think they are connected with an A/V company.
I think they like rigging tests because no one would find it interesting or visit their site if all of the products did OK instead of failing miserably.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Luthorcrow:_
> *
> I can't count the number of times I have read a post from some one that thinks they may be infected and the first bit of advice is download AVG? If they really need to scan their system why not download a trial of a better AV?
> *


One of the reasons to suggest downloading AVG, not only that it works, but it is a small download, and is easy to remove from your computer if you don't like it, unlike many other anti virus programs. And due to it's low overheads, doesn't affect the runnoing of most computers, unlike many overbloated softwares that want to take over the entire machine

Also it has not yet been targeted by the virus writers that try to disable the av software so it stands a good chance of curing the particular problem

I have used it for years, both free and paid form. It has protected me and when I have installed it on other systems that already had AV it still worked better.

An example.

My sister uses NAV, always kept up to date and scans regularly, One of her little brats downloaded a dodgy file from somewhere unmentionable,that disabled NAV and allowed the virus in it to spread, AVG quickly and efficiently removed the virus that NAV couldn't


----------



## edsod (May 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dvk01:_
> *One of the reasons to suggest downloading AVG, not only that it works, but it is a small download, and is easy to remove from your computer if you don't like it, unlike many other anti virus programs. And due to it's low overheads, doesn't affect the runnoing of most computers, unlike many overbloated softwares that want to take over the entire machine *


That is what some people don't understand or they don't want
to understand.
Some guys spend more time with problems that create their
AVs and Firewalls than everything else...


----------



## Sparkle Tom (Feb 19, 2003)

Here's 2 cents:

Different users have different needs. 

In my humble opinion, there is no ONE answer for a best fit across the board. Some people will be "high risk" for malicious code (the whole enchilada: virus, trojans, assorted mal-ware, spy-ware, etc) because they play fast and loose with P2P, or maybe shareware junkies.

At the other end is "low risk" ... the type of user who faithfully runs a few trusted programs, likely bought at the local CompUSA or Staples, etc., and seldom, if ever, gets introduced to software that's a true stranger. Mail is handled with care and there are few java/active x/mime browsing habits. This includes the non-PC buff who uses their PC at work and runs a specialized and non-dynamic environment everyday - probably supported by an IS dept. who is keeping an eye on what is going on.

BIG GREY AREA IN BETWEEN, EH?

If you're like me - you need all the protection that can be had. I fall at the high end. The fact you are reading this, suggests you are not a newbie either; at a stage of some risk too. What has worked here - AVG running in the background (not with out flaw, but catches a fine share of the germs). But, as it isn't perfect, a few other AV apps are a must, I rotate an assortment every few days. Then add SPYBOT Search & Destroy, the same thing. Run that each boot, but still run Ad-Aware now and then. Add a firewall to the mix - a lil' app just for Trojan sniffing. Still not 100% safe - and never will be. At least, however, not an easy target. 

Did I mention I am a magnet for malicious code? High risk here, I dabble with all types of quirky shareware, I am no stranger to P2P, I love to experiment with tweaks and new stuff. Hence, an unspoken understanding exists - sooner or later, I'm gonna get in trouble, better know how to get out of it. This is not a feasible arrangement for a neophyte, or for many others. 

I only use myself as an example since an abundance of caution is the only way to fly, or certain heartbreak. A few nasties have still gotten a foothold too ... I'm hardly a perfect example. By nature, a virus (or any harmful code) will have a 1st strike advantage if it's of any sophistication at it's outset. SOMEBODY has to be on that bleeding edge - the poor schmuck that get's treated to being invited to a debut. No easy answers - back up, back up, back up? Not likely with me ... besides, in too many cases a back up is just a good way to reinfect, but there is something to be said for raw data recovery. 

A true "low risk" user is blessed. AVG, Kaspersky, McAfee (anyone else remember when they were a tiny freebie app you'd find at the local BBS?), Symantec ... pick one. One should be enough ... and the knowledge perhaps, that likely under their OS a simple CHKDSK at the command prompt can clue you into problems. A little outdated for 100% accuracy, but that has caught a ton of germs via phone support. Total available memory isn't 655,360? Danger, Will Robinson. (a nod to those who use an OS I'm not familar with and are an exception). Plain ol' ME here.

Most people fall in the middle somewhere. Clearly, an individual's use and knowledge decides the level and expense needed with AV, and the rest. There is one exception - the NEWBIE.

AVG is hardly a bad suggestion for them - any AV is better than none. So is reading the manual. Or, hiring a "rent a nerd" to do what they can't to get started safely i.e. firewall (a newbie w/cable - trouble brewing), he'd do the scheduling of background backups/CRC checks/germ scans a little netiquette coaching, and some warnings. Newbs rarely do any of these - errr, mostly, in my experience. Just like I didn't, did you? - but there was little vicious code written for a Timex Sinclair or a CoCo. And, at 300 Baud, you could almost manually examine the flow of data as it screeched thru the modem. Newbies, to my mind, need the following Do & Don't list foremost - much more likely to hit a pothole here:

Don't: CMOS. Off limits - in fact, settings here should be Flash-locked, No boot sector access. Stay out.

Do: Rudimentary knowledge of working w/o Win, if a C:\> brings panic, then they'll always be a burden for someone.

Don't: Tinker with settings you don't understand, unless prepared for Murphy. Sure, play with TweakUI and that *special folder* setting and find out what "down time" means, or wisely not.

Do: Treat every diskette, CD, Zip cartridge, etc that comes from friends, kid's school or work like it's been harboring germs so long they've nearly developed language.

Don't: Believe that everyone that says they are a Guru - is.

Do: Expect a crash .. eventually - and be prepared with the (*#$& re- install OS software, even if you didn't get the disks with the PC - order them, you'll need them eventually. Better yet, have it copied to the HD too.

Don't: Make things worse. If things start falling apart, if Safe-Mode is a constant companion and/or Win whines it can't find DLL files and locks up ... (you're with me, the list goes on .. and on) take note of what precipitated the problems (new software? maybe someone decided non-PC speakers with big ol' magnets would be coolish with the system ..). When help is found, it's easier to fix the real problem, w/o problem "accessories" to wade through.

Do: Read the instrustions that come with your apps.

Don't: Assume that just because you paid $50 for software means it's bulletproof or incapable of hurting the system stability.

Do: Learn a little about the insides ... a newbie that can install his own memory upgrade and configure master/slave on a new HD or burner .. well, isn't a newbie anymore.

Don't: Give out your Email address to every huckster that inquires. Sure, you may subscribe to "Wolverine Fancy Magazine" and they ask for it, but that doesn't mean they have a right to it. They'll sell ya down the river.

Do: Learn the routine noises your system makes. If they change (a cooling fan begins to groan, a drive that "grinds" for 30 revs, a hiss in the speakers, etc) - maybe a warning.

I'll stop there - getting off topic, and I'm sure everyone has there own "newbie checklist" ... my point is simply that during many years of support (I survived supporting PackBell at Win' 95's premier, but still have scars) - I occassionally ran into virii - but ran into issues involving Newbs and the above concerns BY FAR more frequently - and ignorance is not covered by warranty.

I'll stick with AVG. Small load to bear on resources. It's free, has yet to send me to a BSOD by it's machinations (unlike On-Track's suite for $$ - funny, that one, it's "crash proof" mode, is a certain crash) ... thing is, AVG is like a battle-hardened Sgt. and up to most enemies - but there's more troops and "special forces" not far behind. To my mind, anyone that truthfully assesses themselves to be at mid-risk or higher is foolish to have only one AV - AVG or Kaspersky - Norton or McAfee, etc. All alone, a weak defense.

Flame away - I can take it.

Spark


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

Whatever the risk, whatever the experience, whatever the knowledge... it is important, as I have stated before, to think out of the box here because it is the box that clouds clear thinking. In this case, the box is the popularity and faith in AVG.

I have heard evidence again and again about their preference for AVG because it simply works for them or that it catches viruses. But they don't have any hard evidence that it actually is good... or it actually works. It's like the Bush administration who wants to war with IRAQ with no good and hard evidence that they pose a danger to the world in the first place. Where is the hard evidence (not based on personal experience, because experience varies), that AVG is what they say it is?

The closest thing to hard evidence here is when someone said:

"AVG does poorly in lab conditions, but excellent in the real world. "

But let me ask you this... What is the real world? Labs use the same live virus samples... the same operating systems and software as the real world.. Is that not true? So therefore, it can be very possible... or even likely that these lab conditions are the same as conditions in the real world. These conditions in fact.. are "MEANT" to simulate the real world.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I do have hard facts.
AVG has caught all virii introduced to my system.
That is a fact. Not an opinion.


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

ok.. a little change in topic here... What would U recommend for an Antivirus program, regarding overall value? What would you recommend regarding overall protection, brendandonhu?


----------



## Sparkle Tom (Feb 19, 2003)

Please forgive me if I'm insinuating myself in a closed debate. Permit me to think aloud?

Lab vs Real World ?

Well, I'm not sure that's the real issue. If the lab does its job right, it should be akin to what is festering in "the bush".

Have virii gotten "smarter"??

No. It's about as sophisticated as "Y<DELTREE *.*" (unsure if that would work, actuallY). With the notable exception that someone decided to make the victim's address book a delivery organ, it's all the same idea. A set of instructions to do harm, or maybe just to propagate. The address book, was worthy of mention as it demonstrates the lengths a clever coder can find ... but it gets worse ...

Wouldn't we all agree that a virus, a trojan, a bit of spyware is simply a script - programming -"if/then/else"?? It's 1s and 0s that are interpreted into commands ... registers shift, the computer does as it's told, as should be (can't have it both ways). The Win/Dos model and paradigm for memory and file protection simply isn't prepared for code we'd wish it could ignore. "Root" access can be had. Hence, we turn to the Wizards for help ... in essence saying, "Could you please prevent some instructions from being carried out?" In some cases, we know what we want ... but, alas, we also want to block instructions that we don't know about yet. So we further request, "While blocking instructions that are recognizable, give it hell on stopping stuff that is bad - can't give you a template or a signature, but it's evil and you must stop it." Ouch.

A trade-off ensues. The Wizards do their best. Nobody can predict the future, or tomorrow's new set of malicious instructions. Certain privileges and access rights have to be kept secure, but this means that other "righteous" software is impaired from working correctly when those same privileges are needed. Software that SHOULD have the very access we would deny to villains. Raise your hand if you've installed or upgraded a program that politely asked you to shut down your AV long enough to run correctly. It's a nasty bit of reality here.

So much for AI. It's a Faustian bargain and doomed. To expect the PC to analyze the outcome (good/bad?) of it's instructions. But we try - we avoid some germs, and we get 2 false alarms for each one.

We come right back to the old reliable method, namely, "give me a pattern - I'll look for that pattern, and smite the bad bad code into a vault or trash dump should I see it, cost you some CPU time is all." We don't give up completely on looking for behavior, but dam* it, the same qualities that make Win xxx a tolerable interface for most people, also make it vulnerable. Again, can't have it both ways. 

I believe this is borne out by the common denominator of all AV applications. They mainly rely on spotting a signature pattern for earning their keep. Thus, the constant updates and ever swelling list of "be on the look out" information that, at current growth, will almost certainly be online as a shared resource - or shall each of us fork over space just to hold a zillion patterns? Never mind the horsepower to do the checking ... in 10 years do we each have a snippet of every virus devised? Can't drop the old ones, they'll surface again.

So, things are pretty squirrelly - the AV Wizards really do try to improve behavioral AI, but the template is the rock. Even that is a balancing act - and as more signatures are added, so will false reports. A friend emailed me a picture of her newborn a few months ago - somewhere in it's heap of binary it had the misfortune of carrying a pattern that was suspect. This will get worse as the virus patterns multiply, of course. In this case, it just took an annoying remail - time was lost. Time. The virus still won - it consumed the one thing that can't be replaced, and it was not even active, its mere threat had a price.

Are virii smarter? No. Same idea. 10 years ago, the payloads were about the same.

But, enter encryption. 

Any idiot can scramble a message ... a program .. an image . a song. We can do that WHILE we save space with compression - the usual method. It's not new - if you think ZIP is an old timer, there were many before that.. lets see, there's ARJ, LZH, PAK, PAC, ARC, CAB, ZOO ... I could go on. Compress and, if you wish, encrypt - the name of the game. Even with all the computers on Earth working in harmony, a STRONG password will require decades to decypher with the latest RAR strength abilities available for free and to anyone. Do the math - it's amazing how going from 7 characters to, say 25 or 30 for a "key" makes things hairy. Be sure and use some UPPER/lower case letters - some numbers - a few symbols, no words in any dictionary - use a high-bit character or 6 or 7 if you want to keep things real chilly. 

No, the virus is just the same old tired and wretched beast it always was ... the offspring of a clever, but sad programmer who is thrilled by his chaos. He harms, but can only imagine the pain he causes. He'd probably say it was for "kicks".

A marriage of virus and encryption ... eeeek ... 

Without any real sophistication, a worm/virus/trojan simply uses the time/date to supply a few variables to garble itself. When it shows up at your door, it's different in every respect from the one that showed up at mine. 

I'm looking at the Wizards with a rather blank look on my face and marvel that they caught as many as they have. They all are pretty much the same for now too, some are stronger in some areas - but the next 10 years should be very entertaining.

Thanks for a soapbox,

Spark


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by codexaenir:_
> *ok.. a little change in topic here... What would U recommend for an Antivirus program, regarding overall value? What would you recommend regarding overall protection, brendandonhu? *


I am not in a position to really reccommend anything, as AVG is all I have used, so I can't compare it to other products. I can only say it works.
But I have heard a loooot of good things about PC-Cillin and Nod32.


----------



## Sparkle Tom (Feb 19, 2003)

Please forgive me if I'm insinuating myself in a closed debate. Permit me to think aloud?

Lab vs Real World ?

Well, I'm not sure that's the real issue. If the lab does its job right, it should be akin to what is festering in "the bush".

Have virii gotten "smarter"??

No. It's about as sophisticated as "Y<DELTREE *.*" (unsure if that would work, actuallY). With the notable exception that someone decided to make the victim's address book a delivery organ, it's all the same idea. A set of instructions to do harm, or maybe just to propagate. The address book, was worthy of mention as it demonstrates the lengths a clever coder can find ... but it gets worse ...

Wouldn't we all agree that a virus, a trojan, a bit of spyware is simply a script - programming -"if/then/else"?? It's 1s and 0s that are interpreted into commands ... registers shift, the computer does as it's told, as should be (can't have it both ways). The Win/Dos model and paradigm for memory and file protection simply isn't prepared for code we'd wish it could ignore. "Root" access can be had. Hence, we turn to the Wizards for help ... in essence saying, "Could you please prevent some instructions from being carried out?" In some cases, we know what we want ... but, alas, we also want to block instructions that we don't know about yet. So we further request, "While blocking instructions that are recognizable, give it hell on stopping stuff that is bad - can't give you a template or a signature, but it's evil and you must stop it." Ouch.

A trade-off ensues. The Wizards do their best. Nobody can predict the future, or tomorrow's new set of malicious instructions. Certain privileges and access rights have to be kept secure, but this means that other "righteous" software is impaired from working correctly when those same privileges are needed. Software that SHOULD have the very access we would deny to villains. Raise your hand if you've installed or upgraded a program that politely asked you to shut down your AV long enough to run correctly. It's a nasty bit of reality here.

So much for AI. It's a Faustian bargain and doomed. To expect the PC to analyze the outcome (good/bad?) of it's instructions. But we try - we avoid some germs, and we get 2 false alarms for each one.

We come right back to the old reliable method, namely, "give me a pattern - I'll look for that pattern, and smite the bad bad code into a vault or trash dump should I see it, cost you some CPU time is all." We don't give up completely on looking for behavior, but dam* it, the same qualities that make Win xxx a tolerable interface for most people, also make it vulnerable. Again, can't have it both ways. 

I believe this is borne out by the common denominator of all AV applications. They mainly rely on spotting a signature pattern for earning their keep. Thus, the constant updates and ever swelling list of "be on the look out" information that, at current growth, will almost certainly be online as a shared resource - or shall each of us fork over space just to hold a zillion patterns? Never mind the horsepower to do the checking ... in 10 years do we each have a snippet of every virus devised? Can't drop the old ones, they'll surface again.

So, things are pretty squirrelly - the AV Wizards really do try to improve behavioral AI, but the template is the rock. Even that is a balancing act - and as more signatures are added, so will false reports. A friend emailed me a picture of her newborn a few months ago - somewhere in it's heap of binary it had the misfortune of carrying a pattern that was suspect. This will get worse as the virus patterns multiply, of course. In this case, it just took an annoying remail - time was lost. Time. The virus still won - it consumed the one thing that can't be replaced, and it was not even active, its mere threat had a price.

Are virii smarter? No. Same idea. 10 years ago, the payloads were about the same.

But, enter encryption. 

Any idiot can scramble a message ... a program .. an image . a song. We can do that WHILE we save space with compression - the usual method. It's not new - if you think ZIP is an old timer, there were many before that.. lets see, there's ARJ, LZH, PAK, PAC, ARC, CAB, ZOO ... I could go on. Compress and, if you wish, encrypt - the name of the game. Even with all the computers on Earth working in harmony, a STRONG password will require decades to decypher with the latest RAR strength abilities available for free and to anyone. Do the math - it's amazing how going from 7 characters to, say 25 or 30 for a "key" makes things hairy. Be sure and use some UPPER/lower case letters - some numbers - a few symbols, no words in any dictionary - use a high-bit character or 6 or 7 if you want to keep things real chilly. 

No, the virus is just the same old tired and wretched beast it always was ... the offspring of a clever, but sad programmer who is thrilled by his chaos. He harms, but can only imagine the pain he causes. He'd probably say it was for "kicks".

A marriage of virus and encryption ... eeeek ... 

Without any real sophistication, a worm/virus/trojan simply uses the time/date to supply a few variables to garble itself. When it shows up at your door, it's different in every respect from the one that showed up at mine. 

I'm looking at the Wizards with a rather blank look on my face and marvel that they caught as many as they have. They all are pretty much the same for now too, some are stronger in some areas - but the next 10 years should be very entertaining.

Thanks for a soapbox,

Spark


----------



## Sparkle Tom (Feb 19, 2003)

oops - above in first paragraph I gave an example of a command that piped a "YES" to a DELTREE *.* command .. but as html shares a symbol used it was omitted. 

Spark


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

But a virus does get a lot more complicated than that.
It finds a security vulnerability.
Spreads via email without the user realizing it sometimes.
Duplicates itself and infects the system.
Hibernates till a certain date when the hacker decides its been propagating for long enough.
Often tries to disable antivirus programs and firewalls.
Drops its payload.


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

> I am not in a position to really reccommend anything, as AVG is all I have used, so I can't compare it to other products.


Well I have.. almost every product out there... and AVG is the worst performers I have seen...


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I respect your opinion, and you can use whichever product you want, and suggest the same to others. But until I have had a problem with AVG, I will not switch. If I do have a problem, I will probably try your suggestions.


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

Well, the debate has gone about where I would expect. But there a couple of points that I really begged a response:

Brendandonhu 


> I think they like rigging tests because no one would find it interesting or visit their site if all of the products did OK instead of failing miserably.


As far as I had read from anything I had typed or for that matter 
codexaenir (can't vouch for posts in other threads) have been pretty rational and backed with strong evidence. This sort of response just is blow the belt. Why make an outrageous, unsupported claim?


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

I wasn't speaking factually, and don't actually believe that. Look at it in the context of the post I was responding too, and I was trying to make a little humor (it didn't work, but still).


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

dvk01 


> What annoys me is the way that the test results are misquoted to say that AVG is a bad anti virus...It does no worse than any other AV on script or trojan horses, but all av's need more work on these


I don't believe I misquoted anyone? If you can find one please let me know. Now, you may feel I misrepresent the results of the tests, but that would be a completely different point. But I will detail exactly what from those tests has lead me to this conclusion and as well, that your above claim about is complete disputed by the very tests you are referring to. I would never initially mislead, misquote, etc. You may feel I am wrong but...

Response to claim: "...does no worse than any other AV on script or trojan horses..."

AV-Test.Org Comparison Test 2002-01 (Clients)
AVG
Trojans=15,6%
Backdoors=62,2%
Script Viruses=53,4%
Polymorphic viruses=78,8%

Compared to KAV4
Trojans=99,8%
Backdoors=99,9%
Script Viruses=99.7%
Polymorphic viruses=100%

Doesn't sound like AVG did as well as any other AV with trojans and scripts viruses. But then AVP is famous for being good and catching trojans. Wouldn't about another AV? Maybe one not so good at catching trojans and is more of a standard.

Compared to NAV
Trojans=77,8%
Backdoors=76,8%
Script Viruses=91.7%
Polymorphic viruses=100%

Now, you could argue as the makers of NOD32 would argue that Trojans are not viruses and should not be detected by an AV. On the other hand, it is obvious that trend is that almost all AV designers are trying to catch trojans.

Further test results that lead me to my conclusion:
VTC of Hamburg
AntiVirus Scanner Tests December 2002
published January 29, 2003

Win98 Results
AntiVirus Rankings
13th place: AVG (out of 18)
AnitMalware
Didn't rank on list

Win2000 Results
AntiVirus Rankings
11th place: AVG (out of 18)
AnitMalware
Didn't rank on list

Finally...
Virus Bulletin VB100% Rankings
19 failures
1 pass (February 2000: DOS)--has never passed on a windows based system.

The fact is these are three of the most respect AV Test Centers in the world. And on each of them AVG scores dead last or very poorly. Of them AVG fairs best on the AV-Test.Org test, and even there it at the back of the pack.

So you can say I am wrong, that I am too picky, too whatever, but to say that I am misquoting, misrepresenting the results of these tests just is not accurate.


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by brendandonhu:_
> *I wasn't speaking factually, and don't actually believe that. Look at it in the context of the post I was responding too, and I was trying to make a little humor (it didn't work, but still). *


For the lack of a smiley face Sorry that I misunderstood. Will try to be less serious.


----------



## Sparkle Tom (Feb 19, 2003)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think they like rigging tests because no one would find it interesting or visit their site if all of the products did OK instead of failing miserably.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as I had read from anything I had typed or for that matter 
codexaenir (can't vouch for posts in other threads) have been pretty rational and backed with strong evidence. This sort of response just is blow the belt. Why make an outrageous, unsupported claim?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What a boring place the world would be if everyone agreed.

Brenda (or Brendan?), I concur with you completely on some things- virus activity is hardly limited to my sophomoric example with DELTREE. I wasn't trying to devise intricate logic, just show that a dozen keystrokes (or equivilent input) holds potential for real harm. Also, it's not exactly rocket science. Easier to destroy than create.

I also do not think you made any outrageous remarks as someone suggests. By prefacing your statement with "I think...", you are offering an opinion, I can only speak for myself, but I did not confuse your observation with a pretense of "laying down evidence".

You presented a notion - one that is quite sound really, but that would be MY opinion, and nothing more. To be fair, if someone took your statement as the 11th commandment or secret communications to the Mutha Ship orbiting Jupiter, they would be entitled. The naughty nature of notions ... no?

Regardless of the "predictable" thread of the discourse here, I learned a bit. I admit I've come to question my loyalty with our mutual friend, AVG. Not just by what was offered here - and AVG HAS met my needs. I'm reminded though of a lazy friend - his system was in a mess and when he called me for help he really had no clue as to why he had a slow, crash-prone machine - it had just been getting worse and worse over time. Heck, I don't know either. Let's run some diags ... I emailed ol' Al my favorite assortment of utilities and diag stuff. AVG, a part of the collection - I even went to their site to register him and request a seriel number sent to his addy.

Over the next few days he went thru the whole batch I sent him and gained bits of progress as he went. A registry utility found countless snags, SPYBOT found others, and a handful of GATOR/BONZAI/et al type stuff that had to have a hand in his sluggish box. He mentioned that AVG found no viruses, but after the ads were removed and the registry sorted out, he immediately saw an improvement. A good temp file enema helped too. I was pretty smug with myself, a few shareware apps in the mail and a little phone time and a friend's PC is back in shape. Wile E. Coyote - Genius.

Then Al ran some kind of online scan he came across on the web - 
www.freedownloadscenter.com/Utilities/Anti-Virus_Utilities/Vcatch.html

He said it found a backdoor and a few other trojan problems. Granted, not the strictest definition of a virus but I was a little deflated that AVG had missed them. A bit of irony to all this - by the time he sent me that link - I'd been to the Sun site to get my FREE copy of Java with improved security. With reluctance, I admit that I've got my Java here in a royal hosed state of affairs and to my shame haven't figured out how to just flush what's been done and start fresh. I have some functionality, but it's prone to problems. Some things say I have NO Java VM - this scanner/virus check being one of them.

I'm curious to see what this thing finds here, but some unraveling of my Java mess is required. Please, anybody with a good idea - I'm a good student, I confess: Java is a component that I just forgot about when it worked. Now that I fiddled with it ... I have only myself to blame, but it's part of the fun. I'll figure it out eventually. Incidently, I found Sun's site to be very confusing when it came to pinpointing the version I should use for my combination of OS/and hardware. Yep, it's all their fault.

Anyway, since I use a few other virus checkers and some other gizmos to keep the scum out (I can do enough damage myself, thank you), I don't suspect a horde of hackers waiting to be discovered, but if AVG missed stuff on his machine, then it's not going to see them here.

As previously stated - I'm "thumbs up" on multiple testing, I LIKE a 2nd opinion. Frustrated on this one, but the link is there for the rest of you. Let me know if you think it's any good.

Spark


----------



## Dark Star (Jun 8, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Sparkle Tom:_
> *Here's 2 cents:
> 
> Different users have different needs.
> ...


Reading the manual.... Yup, these things have a help file and most times the FAQ will have the answers. Freebies have to be downloaded, setup, configured and then kept UPDATED. 
One user ran his Panda A/V weekly... after 16 months without a single update he said "something in his mail that he opened made everything go haywire." .... so much for "some protection is better than none". 

if a C:\> brings panic.... 

Learning a little about the insides... and unplug the thing before you put your paws in there.

Make good friends with Google ... search engines are 

I'll stick with NAV since it works for me ... however, having read this thread I know WHO in here knows all about AGV... I'll be sure to send AGV newbies with questions your way. 

btw... On-Track's Suite is now under Aladdin Software's ownership and so is On-Track's EasyUninstall .... I'm sure that the "crash proof" is still "a certain crash" just as before. 

DS


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Sparkle Tom:_
> *quote:
> 
> As far as I had read from anything I had typed or for that matter
> ...


Feel free to read the post right above yours.
And yes, you have been backed with rational evidence.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Luthorcrow:_
> *dvk01
> I don't believe I misquoted anyone? If you can find one please let me know. Now, you may feel I misrepresent the results of the tests, but that would be a completely different point. But I will detail exactly what from those tests has lead me to this conclusion and as well, that your above claim about is complete disputed by the very tests you are referring to. I would never initially mislead, misquote, etc. You may feel I am wrong but...
> 
> *


What I should have said is selectively quoted, that then gives statistics that put the AVG into a bad light

If anyone reads the small print on the AV test sites, they will see how the tests are done and look in detail and you can see that the points that AVG fail on in lab tests do not really apply to the real world.

Yes it would be nice if an anti virus performed perfectly, but the failures of AVG in lab testing, on the specific tests it fails on do not prevent it working in a home environment when those specific problems or file types are rarely if ever come across

Just because AVG doesn't scan inside a zip file without it being unzipped first doesn't mean that a virus will get through. It will still be caught but when the exe file is scanned not the zip file.

This is one of the things that fail it at VB100

Still catches the virus though and prevents infection.

Derek


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

> _Originally posted by codexaenir:_
> *
> The closest thing to hard evidence here is when someone said:
> 
> ...


None of the lab reports I have read have said that AVG lets through the virus to infect the machine, just that it didn't detect it at the point they were scanning, eg inside a zip file or such or upon receipt of an email rather than when it was opened.

That is what I mean about the difference between lab tests and the real world


----------



## cnm (Oct 22, 2002)

And the ones that are most important to detect are the ones that are in the wild. AVG does a great job IMHO. Very frequent database updates.


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

----------------------
And the ones that are most important to detect are the ones that are in the wild. AVG does a great job IMHO. Very frequent database updates.
----------------------

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/archives/products.xml?avg.xml
You call this good job?

AVG's updates are weekly on average... while others have updates multiple times a day...


----------



## cnm (Oct 22, 2002)

How many people check for updates several times a day?  
_Maybe_ once a day, if they reboot every day, which I don't.

I'm not at all impressed by those tests. The European testers like AVG and think Norton and MacAfee suck. Go figure.

Everyone should use the one they like, not worth arguing about. Peace. .


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cnm:_
> *How many people check for updates several times a day?
> Maybe once a day, if they reboot every day, which I don't.
> 
> ...


You're right that very few people do but most applications do at least check once a day, some check hourly by default. I don't understand your reference to rebooting considering a reboot is not necessary for a database update to any of the AVs I have used.

Regarding European testers, yes each of the AV centers I listed are European (German, German, and English to be specific) but I think if you might want to check out the links I posted prior. Macafeee has consistently done very well, generally in the top 4, for the VTC tests, scores well with the AV-Test.Org, and has only been tested once by VB and passed! NAV has a strong record with VB, also on the AV-Test.Org, but isn't the strongest but not the weakest on the VTC. So I assume you must be referring to some European computer magazines or websites. These sort of reviews do not constitute a legitimate test of AV Software (insert CNET here) but rather are nothing more than subjective opinions about easy of use and interface.

So, not to be contrary, but given the data I would not agree with either of your claims above.


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

finally posted by dvk01:[/i]


> *None of the lab reports I have read have said that AVG lets through the virus to infect the machine, just that it didn't detect it at the point they were scanning, eg inside a zip file or such or upon receipt of an email rather than when it was opened.
> 
> That is what I mean about the difference between lab tests and the real world *


Now I must object. You have repeated this claim in two separate posts since my response both times painting the issue as simple that AVG is not able to scan inside of ZIP and other similar file formats (I assume you are referring to other compressed formats).

Up to this point, none of my comments had anything to do with ZIP, other compressed formats, or any obscure file formats. So why focus in on that one aspect? Let's clarify something here, very few AVs are good at scanning ZIPs and other compressed formats for viruses. KAV/AVK/F-secure/RAV or some of the few that have this feature. Most AVs wait, as you described, for the code to unpack before detection. So the issue of AVG detecting or not detecting compressed formats has little relevance here.

I suspect the quote below from VB's explanation of their methods may have lead you to this point:

http://www.virusbtn.com/vb100/about/100procedure.xml


> Another example of why some products miss out on VB 100% awards, is where certain files are not scanned directly on-access. The usual assumption by the product developers is that the files will be scanned when passed on to an application which makes use of them. At the most common level this covers such objects as ZIP files, which are often not scanned until unzipped and EML files, which are not scanned until individual mails are pulled from within. From a developer's point of view these choices make sense in that leaving objects unscanned until use creates fewer overheads. The chance of infection on a protected machine is not increased, since scanning will occur before code execution. Such treatment of objects does, however lead to misses under the VB 100% testing methodology.


I admit that this is a misleading explanation. I say misleading because the AV that scores best on their tests, NOD32, does not by design scan ZIP or other compressed file formats actively and in fact has a generally weak performance in this area. So it obvious that this feature or lack of for AVG has nothing to do with why that app fails the VB. But here is the most likely cause, false detections. VB as most AV experts agree feel that a false detection is bad as missing an actual virus. AVG is famous for false positives. In fact on the AVTest.Org tests it generally has about a 16% false positive rate.

What I did list were trojans, backdoors, script viruses, and polymorphic viruses. All of which are not obscure but are actually on the rise. Check out some of the reporting centers to see what I mean regarding frequency. But those were just small examples I was giving in response to your trojan comment. Let expand:

VTC Results
ftp://agn-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/texts/tests/pc-av/2002-12/0xecsum.txt
Key: - = equals zero

File Virus Detection Rate in last 7 VTC tests under W-98:
AVG - 87.3 87.0 85.4 81.9 80.6 -1.3

Macro Rate in last 7 aVTC tests under W-98: 
AVG - 82.5 96.6 97.5 97.9 98.3 98.4 98.1 -0.3

Script Virus Detection Rate in last 7 aVTC tests under W-98: 
- 57.9 62.9 63.9 +1.0

False Positives
on these particular tests, AVG actually scored quietly well with a perfect score.

The result of these scores, 13th place out of 18. The Win2000 results on this test were very similar although slightly better to earn AVG 11th out of 18.

Nothing was edited from those results although you can find some more details regarding each on the actual test results. Please not that VTC did not test for trojans, ZIP, or another obscure or compressed file formats.

AVTest.Org
http://www.av-test.org/online/sites/os03.php3?js=1&test=2002-01&p=1

VIRUS DETECTION ITW ON-DEMAND SCANNER
100,0%

VIRUS DETECTION ITW ON-ACCESS GUARD
99,8% (missed 2 boot viruses)

VIRUS DETECTION ZOO ON-DEMAND
91,0%

I'll didn't include the compressed format test because it is not relevant for reasons I have already stated above.

Now that all looks pretty good at first glance until you notice that all most every other AV scored as well under the first two tests, but the last, is we the wheat is cut from the shaft. These are not rare or obscure, but are real and likely threats. Again that 91% looks not bad until you start to break it down:

VIRUS DETECTION ZOO ON-DEMAND
File Viruses=811 missed
Macro viruses=140 missed
Script viruses=55 viruses missed
Polymorphic viruses=293 viruses missed
Other Malware (trojans, backdoors, etc)=1627 missed

Total missed=2926

Now that is not what I call a passing grade. Again, this may or may not alarm you, but we are not talking about ZIP files, compressed formats, or obscure file formats. We are talking about ITW (In The Wild Viruses) which are real live viruses that have been detected infecting folks machines in the last year and Zoo viruses which are realistic variations on existing ITW. Respected AV Centers do not use viruses that are not likely to infect your machine. In fact there are a great many older viruses that have been made obsolete by OSes and other various changes and are not included in current tests.


----------



## edsod (May 25, 2002)

Friend LUTHORCROW,you wrote :
"Macafeee has consistently done very well, generally in the top 4, for the VTC tests, scores well with the AV-Test.Org"

You still don't understand something...
I will not install McAfee at my PC even if someone pays me to do so.
I have seen so many problems created from this AV here and there that I'm not interested for it's successes at tests.

What matters most is if the AV program incorporates well in your system and doesn't use many resources...(well,at least for me).

I really once gave up using a firewall and Antivirus for two months
(just a reaction,I was carefull and nothing bad happened to me)
and began again when I discovered Kerio and AVG.
These two programs together use 25% of the resources used by a compination of ZA and NAV I used to have.

I don't say that I have a better protection now,but I don't care for more!
I think this is true for many other "average" users like me.


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

> Friend LUTHORCROW,you wrote :
> "Macafeee has consistently done very well, generally in the top 4, for the VTC tests, scores well with the AV-Test.Org"
> 
> You still don't understand something...
> ...


First of all... Luthorcrow didn't say anything about resources in Mcafee... but rather he pointed out that Mcafee does a satisfactory job in detection tests.

I don't use Mcafee for the same reason... not that its bad... but its too slow and sometimes unstable. But I definitely would rather have Mcafee than AVG. Why? Because putting resources as the most important thing isn't very logical. A antivirus program can have 0.0001% effect on total performance... but what good is it when it only detects 80% of ITW viruses?

So therefore, I don't think thats a valid argument... Detection rate is the top priority...


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by edsod:_
> *You still don't understand something...
> I will not install McAfee at my PC even if someone pays me to do so.*


Edsod, please go back re-read my posts. I am not, have not, and still am not advocating Macafee. I was merely responding to earlier post by an user that claimed that European AV testing centers did not rate that app highly (which in fact is quite wrong).

Now, I think your resource concern is an important. Kerio is a good choice for a FW if you know what you are doing. If you don't it could be really dangerous. As for AVs that are light on the resources, NOD32 would be king in that category. I personally use KAV4 which in the latest version takes almost no resources when monitoring (0-2% for all resources with KAV4 and Sygate Pro 1175 running) but it does when it does a full system scan and takes about 1 hour for my rig. NOD32 on the other hand scans the same PC in about 11 minutes. Top that off with NOD32 has the strongest VB record of any AV and you have a winner Another one to consider although I haven't tested tried it, is the new Kaspersky Anti-Virus Lite.

Resources are a condsideration but that criteria doesnot limit you to AVG and AVG only.


----------



## Rhettman5.1 (Sep 25, 2002)

Have ANY AVG users that have waded through all four pages of this post EVER had a Virus??? I know I haven't, and that is has caught several

It seems that while we AVG users are obviously stubborn and unintelligent...we ARE an extremely lucky group..  ...Rhett


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

I still want to know why Luthorcrow and codexaenir are so dead set against AVG.

Have they ever used the program?

If yes: did it fail and allow a virus to infect their machine?

If no: then I respectfully suggest that they refrain from trying to persuade people that AVG doesn't work when we have ample evidence that it does.

If they can show me posts in any forum, or other evidence, from people that have used AVG, and been infected with a virus whilst using the program and it's current update, then I might consider listening to them, until then it's Bye bye boys


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Rhettman5.1:_
> *Have ANY AVG users that have waded through all four pages of this post EVER had a Virus??? I know I haven't, and that is has caught several
> 
> It seems that while we AVG users are obviously stubborn and unintelligent...we ARE an extremely lucky group..  ...Rhett *


Exactly. It has caught a bunch of viruses for me, at least 6, without infecting, although most were simple scripting viruses like JS.NoClose or whatever its called.


----------



## flawed_cat (Jan 31, 2003)

Anyone using AVG a couple of years, catching every infection that came down the pipe, with nothing but success to report in using
AVG isn't "hard evidence"? How about 100 people with the same results? How about 10,000? This is the real world, not the controlled tests. You can paint them as Jerry Fawell embracing
AVG as a religion but it's false. Don't try cramming "AVG sucks!" down the throats of people who know better and can't agree with you or the tests and label them. Right now I have 3 AV's installed as backup but AVG still doesn't seem to need them,
never has. How can I believe it is no good, that tests prove it, when my own experience shows different? Which is more conclusive, test results or results from actual users? To me Test Results are guidelines, experiences from actual users is the hard evidence. You can tell tell tell the people AVG is no good forever,
but until it proves itself as bad as you claim, why listen? All it would take is for AVG to show itself totally useless and who would use it? And believe it or not, if I got an infection while using AVG I would know it...probably sooner than later.

Test results show your SUV gets 30MPG; which matters most to you, test results or the fact you only get 20MPG?


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dvk01:_
> *I still want to know why Luthorcrow and codexaenir are so dead set against AVG.*


That should be very obvious. Please refer back to the prior posts. I think I have been very specific and detailed.



> If they can show me posts in any forum, or other evidence, from people that have used AVG, and been infected with a virus whilst using the program and it's current update, then I might consider listening to them


I could just as you could probably find posts for other AVs that folks have had problems with. What would that prove? Again, we are bringing the debate back to subjective personal experience. Just as one could engage in driving drunk every day and could say to those that my driving is dangerous, "I have never been in a wreck. Driving drunk works for me." This person might go to the grave without killing or hurting anyone or end up in twisted ball of steel that morning. Neither result proves a whether that driving drunk is dangerous or not. But if we can look at over all driving patterns and accident rates, we would see in this case that although not a necessary cause, driving drunk greatly increases the likelihood of being in a car wreck.

That said, dvk01, I find it interesting that you lay outrageous claims, I respond to them, and rather than support you past argument, you drop it and move on either to a new outrageous claim or an appeal to personal experience (which is a well known logically fallacy by the way).

That said, I think this debate has about run it's course unless someone, anyone, can offer some new support or evidence to review.


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by flawed_cat:_
> *Don't try cramming "AVG sucks!" down the throats of people who know better...*


Flawed Cat, I want to be clear, as stated in an earlier post, you as an AVG user are not my intended audience. You are of course the folks I am debating but I do not expect anyone using AVG to change their minds or switch apps. Although, it would be a good choice

But rather, I am merely trying to give some balance to the whole debate. I think the fact that AVG is so often recommended with glowing reviews to newbies bothers me. That is the primary reason why I am even bothering to debate this issue.

Now, if instead folks said,"AVG is free. Isn't not the best AV out there, but it's better than not having one and if you are absolutely not willing to pay for one, you should download this one." That would be responsible. But that is not the way I see happening.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

I have made no outragous claims in this forum whatsoever, the only outragous claims that have been made are by Luthorcrow and codexaenir, who insist that AVG does not protect users from viruses.

I think that the experiences of countless users should be enough to prove to them that the product actually works, it mght not be perfect, but it does what it says on the packet, it stops viruses getting to the computer

And I still cannot see why anyone would attempt to rubbish a working product unless they had personally experienced a bad experience with it. The only other logical option is some ulterior motive

Yes it night give the occasional false positive, but so what, so do other av's


----------



## flawed_cat (Jan 31, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Luthorcrow:_
> *Flawed Cat, I want to be clear, as stated in an earlier post, you as an AVG user are not my intended audience. You are of course the folks I am debating but I do not expect anyone using AVG to change their minds or switch apps. Although, it would be a good choice
> 
> But rather, I am merely trying to give some balance to the whole debate. I think the fact that AVG is so often recommended with glowing reviews to newbies bothers me. That is the primary reason why I am even bothering to debate this issue.
> ...


We may not be your intended audience but it does appear we end up on your whipping post. All it takes is a long term successful experience with AVG and it gets compared to Jerry Fawell/religion or a drunk driver. And as you know, this debate goes farther than just this board. Someone reports that Nod32
works great and has caught every virus he has ever gotten and the response is that's good, it's doing what it should. Someone else reports the same about AVG and the response is how do you know it caught all of them? I think you should consider why
some people give AVG a glowing review, is it possible they have had a glowing experience with it? And if so, why should they lie?
Even test results are a subjective experience with parameters
that may or may not mimic your OS, conditions, or real life. Test Results are not meant to be the end all, say all, for a product. When it gets in the hands of everyday users they will test it in real life conditions too. Even a newbie trying AVG will soon learn if it stops infections or is an open door for them. Either it will work for them or it won't. My reason for giving AVG an "Acceptable Review" is clear. Your reason for condeming it, other than some Test Results, isn't all that clear to me. You claim to have statistics?
Well, how many people have used AVG successfully long term? and how many actual users have dumped it because of inefficiency? People base their "subjective" opinions on real reasons...and I value that result more than any tests.


----------



## edsod (May 25, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Luthorcrow:_
> *....Now, if instead folks said,"AVG is free. Isn't not the best AV out there, but it's better than not having one and if you are absolutely not willing to pay for one, you should download this one." That would be responsible. But that is not the way I see happening. *


That is what is really happening most of the time!
If a user says he has no AV,many say to him 
"Download AVG.Small,free,good, easy installing-uninstalling,
no configuration problems for the user".

Nobody says it's the best AV at detecting viruses,but it's good!
What do you expect the people here to say ?

It's not easy to say buy NOD32 or KAV.
When he will have some experience he will buy and use what he wants !

If the question is what is the best AV you will see 20 different answers !

I know people who use Norton and at forums like this say to a newbie with no AV : "Download AVG !"
(They don't believe that AVG is better than Norton at detecting viruses.)


----------



## codexaenir (Aug 27, 2002)

Wow... been gone a while and theres almost 80 posts in this thread...



> I still want to know why Luthorcrow and codexaenir are so dead set against AVG. Have they ever used the program?
> 
> If yes: did it fail and allow a virus to infect their machine?


First of all... this is a "DEBATE". No one is dead set against anything... no matter how strong they feel about something... The reason I started this thread was to find out how you people felt about AVG. My mind is still open to your opinions.

Yes, I wouldn't have started this thread if I hadn't tried it personally. AVG missed Supova, Setrix ... some changed forms of Loveletter... and also detected two false positives.



> I have made no outragous claims in this forum whatsoever, the only outragous claims that have been made are by Luthorcrow and codexaenir, who insist that AVG does not protect users from viruses.


There is no doubt that AVG "works". However, the level of protection varies. Why not recommend Avast! or a Housecall scan (which both are free) when someone on a forum suspects a virus? But based on the fact that it works for you doesn't mean its the best... And in this world.. we should strive for the best.


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dvk01:_
> *I have made no outrageous claims in this forum whatsoever...*


Lets review them. I am defining an outrageous claim as one that is not supported by the sources quoted or is simply unsupportable.

1:


> If you look carefully at the test results that Luthorcrow has pasted links to you will see that where AVG "falls down" are not particular risks in the real world


Here is one that is supported with following outrageous claims.



> Yes AVG scores low on boot viruses in XP and 2000 with Floppy disks, but how many boot XP or 2000 with a floppy, in 9x or ME where floppies are still used it scores 100%


This off the mark because only one test lists AVG as doing poorly on boot viruses (VTC) but you leave the impression that applies to all of the tests.



> AVg doesn't do well on scanning some types of archives, but gets 100% in the archives that are used in the real world, zip and rar, and as to cab files,


Again only one test listed results for archive/compressed formats (AV-Test.org). You once again attempt to portray this as applying to all of the tests. Regarding the VB, because neither you nor I have access to the full results neither of us can make claims about why AVG passed or failed, but we can be relatively safe in saying that archive/compressed formats are not a necessary result for it's failure because NOD32 by design does no better on archive/compressed formats and has the highest VB score of any AV.



> It does no worse than any other AV on script or trojan horses, but all av's need more work on these


Once I listed the results that proved this claim completely false from the very results we were both reviewing, you didn't bring it up again?

2:


> None of the lab reports I have read have said that AVG lets through the virus to infect the machine, just that it didn't detect


This one isn't so much outrageous as one of those that causes one to go "Uunnhh?" I mean if your AV didn't detect a virus what do you think happens? It does what it was designed to do, infect and execute.

3:


> If no: then I respectfully suggest that they refrain from trying to persuade people that AVG doesn't work when we have ample evidence that it does


This outrageous claim is only support by your prior outrageous claims and the only additional support you or anyone has offered is an appeal to personal experience which again is well known logically fallacy.

4:


> I have made no outrageous claims in this forum whatsoever


Being technical here, but based one what was detailed above this one is just begs listing. You can claim that I am wrong, you disagree, or etc. but I have avoided making outrageous, unsupported claims. It's all about fair play.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

If you had quoted the rest of my remark about scanning and finding viruses

None of the lab reports I have read have said that AVG lets through the virus to infect the machine, just that it didn't detect it at the point they were scanning, eg inside a zip file or such or upon receipt of an email rather than when it was opened.

you would have seen the point I was trying to make

To compare the efficiency of an anti virus you need a clearly defined set of criteria.

Let's assume that AV A scans emails upon receipt and AV B scans upon opening but not on receipt, does that make B any worse than A .. No.. They just work in a different way

The same applies to other file types, AV A or AV C scan all file types when the folder containg them is opened but B or D only scan the exe file when it's called.

All 4 stop any viruses in their tracks but are B & D any worse ...No

Let's now assume that the Av test criteria says that emails must be scanned when received and all files scanned when then folder is opened . Only A & C pass but B & D still protect the computer and find the same viruses, just at a different time, but still before the machine can be infected

That is why I am happy with AVG and do not give a lot of credence to the Test results. 

They set an arbitary guideline that has no real meaning in the actual real world of av protection


However I think that this debate has reached it's conclusion, neither party is going to agree with the other party, so it's a waste of space on these forums to continue


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dvk01:_
> *...None of the lab reports I have read have said that AVG lets through the virus to infect the machine, just that it didn't detect it at the point they were scanning, eg inside a zip file or such or upon receipt of an email rather than when it was opened...*


I agree that there is debate about whether an AV should detect a virus that is in it's compressed/archived state but it is universally accepted that an AV should detect a virus in an uncompressed/non-archive state or if that were not the case, some AVs would not have a scanner. Basically every AV has two components: an active monitor and a scanner. You are referring to the active monitor which is good but as everyone knows heuristics are good but have sever limits and will never be effective alone. Hence the reason why AVs update their signatures regularly and are set-up to conduct routine scans of all the files on given PC.

Because you mix the issue of compressed/archive detection with detection of uncompressed/non-archived viruses, I want to separate the two because they are completely different things. Agreed an virus in the archived/compressed state is harmless. Some AV companies (such as KAV, AVK, RAV) feel there is value in detecting viruses in this state so as to 86 them before they even a chance to caused damage. This approach is basically pre-emptive approach but has the downside of making scans of the drives very slow. Compare the hour that KAV4 takes to scan my drives compared to the 10-12 minutes that NOD32 would take. This doesn't translate to eating resources though in active monitoring state (some older versions did but the problem has been fixed in the latest builds) and thus is a minor inconvenience.

Now a virus in the uncompressed/non-archive state is a completely different animal. This is when the virus is able to actual infect, cause damage, etc. Yes, an AV could wait to the actual second that particular code starts to execute and attempt to stop it but you only get one shot at that point.

Regarding this point you are not entirely correct. On the AV-Test.Org page, the following tests are on-access as you described: On-Access (boot viruses, file viruses, macro viruses, script viruses). The area that AVG scored the worst, ranging from 15,6%-up to the mid 50%.

Finally, here is the one flaw in your argument. Because all AVs are designed to detect a virus when scanned in it's uncompressed/archived state (hence the reason why AVs even have scanners and routine scanning functions) and AVG fails to consistently match other AVs detection rates, why would it be able to miraculously detect the same virus once executed? Keeping in mind that it now must active and intercept in fractions of a second. If it could not detect it in the dormant state why would it be able to detect upon execution? No AV to date has that good of heuristics. If any did, everyone would be using it.

Here is another thing to consider on this point that has not been stressed. An AV is only has good as it's database and that database is only as good as it is updated. The best AVs update daily, sometimes multiple times in a day. Unless I miss my mark AVG sometimes goes a long as a week to several days between updates. AVs are only as good as the team supporting it and feeding data. A week or even several days is just too long.


----------



## flawed_cat (Jan 31, 2003)

```
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------
If no: then I respectfully suggest that they refrain from 
trying to persuade people that AVG doesn't work when 
we have ample evidence that it does
-------------------------------------------------------



This outrageous claim is only support by your prior 
outrageous claims and the only additional support 
you or anyone has offered is an appeal to personal 
experience which again is well known logically fallacy.
```
How in the world can you say that a group's personal 
experience with a product is a logical fallacy? Earlier 
you liken it to drunk drivers yet I can easily find statistics 
that claim 50% of all automobile fatal accidents involve 
the use of alcohol. But where are the statistics that claim 
xx% of all AVG users get infected? And according to the 
Test Results that should be a very high percentage. But 
I don't think it is.

After all, that's all that really matters here, "How many people
that use AVG get infected." Test results, which seem to be
what this whole AVG trashing campaign is solely based on, is not the real concern here. If you guys have any statistics to prove that xx% of all AVG users get infected bring it forward and let us see if it is acceptable. I cannot, and will not trash what has shown itself as a good product through continual use solely based on test results that contradict my actual experience.

So where are those statistics? Again, that's all that really matters
here. Lacking that, the only other option I see is "Personal Experience" with the product. All statistics have to come from personal experience anyhow. What other option is left? Yet you call this a logical fallacy. But Test Results don't always reflect actual usage results and can show themselves to also be logical fallacies. And test results, like statistics, are easily manipulated
or misunderstood.


----------



## flawed_cat (Jan 31, 2003)

In the last 2 years AVG has stopped every virus/worm/trojan that came down my pipeline. And it has caught it right off the bat with its resident active monitoring. A quick scan quickly solved the issue. After 2 years of using and monitoring AVG I have never
found anything using a manual scan (no auto scan for me) with AVG, Trend Micro, or my trojan scanner. AVG has caught it right off the bat. And that's just fine with me. And right now I even have another AV installed in case I ever have any doubts. As far as I'm concerned, AVG is a real sweety pie when it comes to AV's. My choice.


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dvk01:_
> *...If they can show me posts in any forum, or other evidence, from people that have used AVG, and been infected with a virus whilst using the program and it's current update, then I might consider listening to them...*


I came across this thread. You asked for you got it

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,6293414~root=security,1~mode=flat


----------



## edsod (May 25, 2002)

Everybody knows that NOD32 is the worse AV at detecting trojans
and I don't bother to present to you posts from many forums where Norton missed a virus. 
This thing is becoming ridiculous... 

(I tried some "GREAT" programs recently,one is interfering with other programs,the other one slows down the PC and the only one I kept using is the "unknown" Solo antivirus...
I'm still in a testing mood but I must say I have always AVG's setup at a corner waiting.
Well I learned much but as one of you said : 
Too much work for my three Registry Cleaners !!!)


----------



## Rhettman5.1 (Sep 25, 2002)

"This thing is becoming ridiculous"

I agree, but I would like to thank Luthorcrow for proving a point !
No one post in this thread for 2 weeks and then he post a site that he claims has proof of a AVG error...hmmm..I read the page...THIS is what AVG let by...

" I went to paste it into a folder to look at further my Norton AV 2000 (with a 2 week old update) found the Trojan.Downloader.Cile virus. Great Job Symantec!! Boo to AVG."

Now correct me if I am wrong, but I always thought Trojans and virus's were two different things...seems like they have TROJAN scanners for those...so as AVG doesn't claim to stop Trojans, I suspect user error or misunderstanding.

Symantec list this as a "Trojan horse"

If you want to stop Trojans, get a Trojan scanner.

Here is a free online trojan scanner http://www.anti-trojan.net/en/onlinecheck.aspx ...Rhett


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

Rhettman5.1 and Edsod,

A virus can be a trojan or a worm. Checkout any of the latest virus list from any AV company to see what I mean. But a trojan or a worm is not necessarily a virus. Here is the difference:

Trojans


> A very important distinction between trojan horse programs and true viruses is that they do not replicate themselves...


Worms


> ...that replicate themselves from system to system without the use of a host file. This is in contrast to viruses, which requires the spreading of an infected host file.


http://service1.symantec.com/SUPPORT/nav.nsf/docid/1999041209131106

Now, I will admit that I posted the last post as a quick thing. I will have to look into the specifics of this one to see whether it is a virus/trojan or just a plain trojan.


----------



## dvk01 (Dec 14, 2002)

Both quoted infections are Trojans not viruses.

Symantec say that they are low risk, low risk of spreading and low in the wild, less than 49 known infections.

All av providers make an educated guess as to which common trojans to include in AV definitions, It would be impossible for any AV provider to include every single trojan and allow av real time protection or on demand scans to work at a reasonable pace to satisfy users.

AVG have obviously not considered this trojan to be much of a threat, symantec state only 2 known infected sites


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

True this particular trojan is a low threat. But in response to DVK01:


> All av providers make an educated guess as to which common trojans to include in AV definitions, It would be impossible for any AV provider to include every single trojan


True or more releastically all them have not been caught and anazlyzed as according to the folks at DCS about 15 new ones are found each day and those are only the reported ones, but it is interesting to note that other AV companies do detect this bug. Makes you wonder what else AVG doesn't detect either by design or mistake.

(All detected since 11/02 when it was first identified)

Trend Micro
http://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/virusencyclo/default5.asp?VName=TROJ_ZASIL.A

Norton (detected 11/02)
http://securityresponse.symantec.com/avcenter/venc/data/trojan.downloader.cile.html

Macafee (detected 11/02)
http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_99777.htm

F-Secure
http://www.f-secure.com/v-descs/zasil.shtml

Sophos
http://www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyses/trojzasila.html

Kasperksy
detected no description page


----------



## tim973 (Sep 8, 2003)

I had used avg maybe 3 years then I downloaded the avast 4 home. It found 6 viruses in my computer avast is realy good anti virus program. I m still using it over then a year and some times online virus check by symanthec resault no virus clean pc. thanks to avast


----------



## Luthorcrow (Jun 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by dvk01:_
> *...If they can show me posts in any forum, or other evidence, from people that have used AVG, and been infected with a virus whilst using the program and it's current update, then I might consider listening to them, until then it's Bye bye boys *


Old thread but I came across this example and thought of you. Merry Christimas!

A Current Example


----------



## Ephemeral (May 29, 2004)

Thanks for the thread, very helpful. Glad I decided to check out AVG on google before committing to it.

A year later, any changes in recommendations for AV (based on objective testing results such as those cited earlier in the thread)?

Also, pointers to current client software testing/comparison would be much appreciated as well (latest I could find on the web was this: virus.gr website )


----------



## joe2cool (Feb 7, 2002)

Avg 4 Me !


----------



## Gill (Dec 4, 2001)

AVG is great!!!!...................but for the past 6 months I've been using Avast! and I think its better than AVG because it automatically updates everyday when I turn puter on! it also found a couple of viruses that AVG didn't detect, when I first installed it.

Gill


----------



## smeegle (Jan 18, 2004)

I've gained a considerable amount of information about AVG and Avast over the time period that this thread has been running. However, I subscribe to Norton and I would like to know if there is a single free program that provides all of the services that it Norton does. My subscription to them is running out soon and if I can find something else for free I would like to investigate it.


----------



## GoJoAGoGo (Dec 26, 2002)

Well I'm a former NAV user and since I stopped using that program, my PC has been running better. Too many problems with NAV interferring with other programs. I use AVG now and it's good, but as you have read Avast is also good. I can't say if one is better than the other.

As far as a free program providing the same services as a paid program like NAV, you won't get any Tech Support with a free program. But TSG will provide you with that, so it's no problem.


----------



## smeegle (Jan 18, 2004)

Thanks GoJo! You reminded me of why I became a dues paying member of TSG.


----------



## GoJoAGoGo (Dec 26, 2002)

You're welcome smeegle. :up:


----------



## bdf (Jun 8, 2004)

Ephemeral,
Current state of AVG Free Edition. 
Programme ver. 6.0.701 virus database 458 dated 7/6/2004

Firstly - most of the above criticisms no longer apply (if some ever did), especially that at software-antivirus.com. They have left the review using database dated august 2002 on their site, and it is now Completely Wrong. The programme has also been extensively updated. (Programme updates download with virus update) 
Secondly - current status of AVG free -
Ads in email - 
Text at bottom of email is completely user configureable, type what you want it to print, or nothing if you choose.
No indication if it is working -
If resident shield is disabled the systray icon changes colour to black and white.
Detection Rate -
Virus Bulletin gives AVG pro a 100% pass for June 2004 tests, the same definition file is used in all versions of AVG including FREE version.
Update Times -
Now VERY frequent, 3 to 6 times weekly.(average 4 - 5)
Deletes infected files without warning -
Nonsense, it always asks and gives you choices.(move to vault/heal/ignore)
Test different extensions -
Completely user configureable, including inside archives.
Auto updates -
Can be set to auto update, from daily to completely manual updates. 
There are a lot of user configuration settings in AVG control centre which will allow you to set your preferences for all of the above, but yes it IS correct that you can't change to advanced interface in the free edition but who cares.
They have support forums, (with a link from the programme) as well as a 
fairly good help file, so support is not a problem.
Hope this helps. 
bdf


----------

